celticlord
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,344
- Reaction score
- 3,794
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Didn't Robespierre say that the night before his arrest?
Didn't Robespierre say that the night before his arrest?Ooooooh, I'm getting all tingly! :2wave:
There are proper ways of going about it. Prosecuting attorneys for doing their jobs is not one of them.
Want to Prosecute the Lawyers? Cite Ministries — Not the Justice Case
by Kevin Jon Heller
Scholars who believe that the individuals who wrote the OLC memos authorizing torture should be criminally prosecuted — as I do — normally cite the Justice Case, decided by the Nuremberg Military Tribunal (NMT) in 1947, for the proposition that a government lawyer can be held criminally responsible for giving erroneous legal advice to his political superiors. Last year, I wrote a long post for Balkinization explaining why I believe that, in fact, the Justice Case provides much less support for that proposition than most scholars assume. As I said then, nothing in the Tribunal’s judgment prohibits prosecuting a government lawyer for giving erroneous legal advice — but nothing in the judgment supports it, either. That is, of course, a critical distinction when one is arguing that a case has precedential value.
There is, however, another NMT case that does provide significant support for prosecuting the authors of the OLC memos: United States v. von Weizsaecker et al., better known as the Ministries Case, in which a number of government ministers, state secretaries, and high-ranking members of the Nazi party were convicted of crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The critical defendants are Ernst von Weizsacker himself, who was the State Secretary in the Foreign Office, and Ernst Woermann, who was the Undersecretary of State and head of the Political Department in the Foreign Office. The two defendants, who were the Nazi government’s primary legal advisers, were convicted of crimes against humanity for approving SS actions that they knew violated international law.
Ref: Opinio Juris Blog Archive Want to Prosecute the Lawyers? Cite Ministries — Not the Justice CaseThe Tribunal had little trouble convicting von Weizsaecker and Woermann for their involvement in the deportations. First, it concluded that Woermann — and by implication von Weizsaecker, his superior — knew that the deportations violated international law (pp. 497-98):
Neither claims that there was any legal justification for this deportation or suggests it was other than a flagrant violation of international law and of the provisions of the Hague Convention…. The defendant Woermann… knew that it was in violation of every principle of international law and in direct contradiction of the Hague Convention.
Second, the Tribunal held that because the defendants knew that the deportations violated international law, they had an absolute duty as the Reich’s legal advisers to object to the deportations when the SS asked them to assess their legality (pp. 958-59):
The Foreign Office was the only official agency of the Reich which had either jurisdiction or right to advise the government as to whether or not proposed German action was in accordance with or contrary to the principles of international law. While admittedly it could not compel the government or Hitler to follow its advice, both von Weizsaecker and Woermann had both the duty and the responsibility of advising truthfully and accurately…
The parallels between the Foreign Office’s role in the SS deportations and the OLC’s role in the CIA’s torture regime are uncanny. Nothing is lost if we simply substitute “Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury” for “Woermann and von Weizsaecker,” “OLC” for “Foreign Office,” and “torture” for “deportations.”
Indeed, in one critical respect, the case against the authors of the OLC memos is even stronger than the case against von Weizsaecker and Woermann. The latter’s criminal participation in the deportations consisted solely of omissions – failing to point out that the deportations violated international law. The former’s criminal participation in the CIA’s torture regime, by contrast, consists of both acts and omissions, because Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury not only failed to point out that the torture regime violated international law (and US law, as well), they crafted legal arguments to conceal the illegality of that regime.
Moderator's Warning:
How would it be over exactly? We all hate each other now, have been for years, 9/11 brought one day of unity then after 9/12 it was business as usual.
It's coming, sweetheart. It's coming. Just keep watching the news.
After almost 8 years of torturing people, mostly innocent ones at that, and all the reports that must have been written on their torture results Cheney has only two, 2!, reports he can show to us to prove his point. And they are probably worthless, old stuff we've already heard about his 2 most famous prisoners.
They were not doing their jobs. They were manipulating words to try to make the case that actions that they knew were illegal are legal.
Nobody has replied to my examples of how it is illegal for any attorney to not only "advise" his client to lie while under oath but, also to not report it if they believe their client intends to lie under oath. I'll take that silence as agreement.
It's because it's complete apples and oranges.
When you advise a client to perjure, you are knowingly advising them to break the law. There's no room for good faith.
When you make a good-faith effort to devise a plan of action that, in your estimation, stays within the law, you're doing your job.
So, in order to convict on the same basis as your spurious perjury example, you add a new level of proof, a new element of the crime -- you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these attorneys were NOT making a good-faith effort to stay within the law.
... fortunately, the justice system is a bit more dispassionate and deliberate.
My prediction: we will see no prosecutions, because no prosecutor will think he/she can get a conviction on the fact pattern. If there's anything at all to be done, it will be on some low-fruit ancillary thing falling far short of the TORTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! convictions you want.
No, it wasn't. Not with the technique that the CIA was using, as I've told you on so many other threads covering the same topic.That is what a trial would do. And there precedents. Water boarding was clearly illegal.
That is what a trial would do. And there precedents. Water boarding was clearly illegal. Modifying its application does not change what it is.
On this we disagree. There is plenty of proof against them. Holder just needs to have the balls to go after them, even if Obama is against it for political reasons.
Ref: The Murat Kurnaz Story: An Innocent Man Tortured at Gitmo Tells All [VIDEO] | Rights and Liberties | AlterNetTortured at Gitmo Tells All
Posted by Adam Howard, AlterNet at 8:49 AM on March 31, 2008.
An innocent man held as a terror detainee for years talks about how Americans tortured him in Afghanistan and Gitmo.
At the age of 19, Murat Kurnaz vanished into America's shadow prison system in the war on terror. He was from Germany, traveling in Pakistan, and was picked up three months after 9/11. But there seemed to be ample evidence that Kurnaz was an innocent man with no connection to terrorism. The FBI thought so, U.S. intelligence thought so, and German intelligence agreed. But once he was picked up, Kurnaz found himself in a prison system that required no evidence and answered to no one. The story Kurnaz told 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley is a rare look inside that clandestine system of justice, where the government's own secret files reveal that an innocent man lost his liberty, his dignity, his identity, and ultimately five years of his life. Check out the video to your right for more.
Uh-huh.
There is a type of person who would believe this unquestioningly upon first blush and not bother with finding a shred of corroborating evidence.
There have been many, many such stories coming out which turned out to be complete BS.
Did you watch the entire video?
I watched about three quarters of it. (Yes, I did get to the part where he said "soldiers" have said they beat people hanging from ceilings.)
Anything like this should be met with extreme skepticism, not the full-throated endorsement you instantly attached to it.
If US soldiers beat prisoners hanging from ceilings, then they and anyone responsible should be punished for it.
But first, you need credible evidence for it.
Oh, and CBS's track record? NOT fabulous.
You should be able to understand what you just said then.I'll put it simply, for simple minds: The people who should be prosecuted are those who break the law. It's really that simple.
That means if someone (President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, etc) authorizes an illegal policy - he can be prosecuted.
If a lawyer gave advice, contrary to our laws there are ways to deal with him also. Prosecution is only one of them. i.e. (that means "for instance") It is against the law to lie under oath. If a lawyer advised his client to lie under oath he himself could be prosecuted. He could also be prosecuted if he even knew his client was going to lie because he is an "Officer of the Court".
Do you really think your name calling intimidates anyone? Do you think it gives any credence to your argument?
And that would be what, you seeing it happen? :doh
There were facts in the video but, they're not good enough for you, right?
Typical "kill the messenger" bs. :bs
There has been many CIA, FBI, gov't prosecutors who worked at GITMO and soldiers who has said that what the gov't was doing was torture, that it was wrong. Some even walked out of torture rooms because they were disgusted.
Typical "kill the messenger" bs. :bs
Yes, that is absolutely what we want. No question about it. Should we torture? No. Did we torture? Yes according to both standing US and international definitions and law. Should the people who ordered it be tried for war crimes? Yes. We are America, we are better than those we are fighting but unfortunately some of you don't act like it.
You wouldn't recognize a "credible" link if it bit you in the butt. :roll:
Credible link, please.
what is the harshest interrogation method that should be legal for CIA interrogators to use on a known terrorist mastermind, who is responsible for the murders of thousands of American civilians?
You wouldn't recognize a "credible" link if it bit you in the butt. :roll:
Looky here, we have a brown nosing groupee for the Chicago Crime Machine in Washington, feigning moral discussed over harsh questioning of terrorists. It could be worse for these goons, we could use Chicago style methods get them to talk.Yes, that is absolutely what we want. No question about it. Should we torture? No. Did we torture? Yes according to both standing US and international definitions and law. Should the people who ordered it be tried for war crimes? Yes. We are America, we are better than those we are fighting but unfortunately some of you don't act like it.
And I had a feeling you were going to dodge the following question.
"By the way: in your opinion, what is the harshest interrogation method that should be legal for CIA interrogators to use on a known terrorist mastermind, who is responsible for the murders of thousands of American civilians?"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?