Text 11995, 91 rader
Skriven 2009-06-15 10:45:53 av Dan Ceppa (1:138/666.0)
     Kommentar till en text av Dave Drum
Ärende: Lost messages
=====================
-> On 14 Jun 09  02:45:00, Dave Drum got back to Dan Ceppa 
-> Re: Lost messages

 DC> There's the rub.  Remember, W's justice department ruled that the
 DC> torture was legal.

 DD> No, they didn't. They opined that the acts of "enhanced interrogation"
 DD> outlined in their specious memos were NOT torture. 

Which is why I think they should undergo those "enhanced techniques" 
to personally verify if they are torture or not.  In any event, those 
techniques are fully against the Geneva conventions.  

 DD> And you have been equating that to claiming that he said that "kicking
 DD> the shit out of a suspect" was legal.
 
 DD> Scalia also said that there are laws against torture.
 
 DC> Yes, laws, laws that can be changed.  It's a defense of the Unitary
 DC> President Powers that the neocons were pushing.
 
 DD> Therefore, because there is no Constitutional prohibition against an
 DD> action it is not automatically legal - as you seemed to be proposing in
 DD> attributing that position to Justice Scalia.
 
 DC> Care to bet he takes it that route should a case go so far as the SC?

 DD> I never bet on what a lawyer will do. However, given Scalia's legal
 DD> philosophy as demonstrated in his decisions thus far I think your
 DD> position is full of hit.

Tkae the bet!  

 
 DC> I've seen the video a couple of times.  Based on his answer, what he's
 DC> doing is defending the use of torture and "unfortunate but
 DC> constitutional". That position is appalling.
 
 DD> I didn't hear those words. Here is the quote from the transcript ...
 DD> "I don't like torture," Scalia says. "Although defining it is going to
 DD> be a nice trick. But who's in favor of it? Nobody. And we have a law
 DD> against torture. But if the - everything that is hateful and odious is
 DD> not covered by some provision of the Constitution,"
 
 DD> Then Ms. Stahl attempts to equate torture with punishment ... which it
 DD> is NOT.
 
 DD> Here is the definition of punishment ...
 
 DD> from http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p201.htm
 
 DD> "PUNISHMENT - Some pain or penalty warranted by law, inflicted on a
 DD> person, for the commission of a crime or misdemeanor, or for the
 DD> omission of the performance of an act required by law, by the judgment
 DD> and command of some lawful court."
 
 DC> Therefore, "enhanced interrogation" is legal?  We may as well throw out
 DC> Miranda why we are at it.  Oh yeah, and put in a requisition for a
 DC> batch of rubber hoses.

 DD> Now where did you get that? Just because some Bushie-biased lawyers
 DD> wrote a memo or two on it does not make it legal. You are still trying
 DD> to traverse that chasm in two leaps, Dan.

Take a look at the legal wiggling already going on.  Many, if not all of 
those directly involved in the torture have basically given the out of 
"We were just following orders".  The US did not allow that during the 
Nuremburg trials.  
 
 DD> Here is one of the other quotes on torture and punishment.
 
 DD> "To the contrary," Scalia says. "Has anybody ever referred to torture
 DD> as punishment? I don't think so."
 
 DC> Notice how the Geneva Conventions were waved off by Gonzo as being
 DC> "quaint".  Couple that with W's "it's a god damned piece of paper".
 
 DD> I know who is "W" (as in WWII or George III) - but, who the frimp is
 DD> "Gonzo". If you mean Dick "Go fuck yourself" Cheney say so.
 
 DC> Alberto Gonzales!  I'm not 100% sure, but I think that was W's name for
 DC> him.  After all, he called Rove, "Turd Blossom".

 DD> BTW, you still haven't given the cite I asked for, for the quote
 DD> "unfortunate but constitutional". Did you make it up?

See Scalia's video.  


--- OMX/Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
 * Origin: Soundly on the Fault Line (1:138/666.0)