The complexities of prosecuting torture

[MikeWaters]

http://nymag.com/news/politics/nationalinterest/56439/

Of the possible prosecutions, those against the Bush lawyers who authorized torture—John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Steven Bradbury—are probably the most difficult. The lawyers could be charged for conspiring to violate the federal anti-torture statute, which has an eight-year statute of limitations. Passed in 1994, the law defines torture and sets out a range of harsh punishments—from twenty years to the death penalty if the torture results in death—for those who commit acts of torture outside the United States. The charge would be that the Bush lawyers conspired to violate the anti-torture law when they said waterboarding wasn’t the kind of intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” that the law forbids. But to prove the charge, a prosecutor would have to establish that the lawyers knew the advice they were giving was wrong but gave it anyway because they were determined to justify torture by any means necessary. “The lawyers are pretty hard to prosecute unless you regard their legal advice as a sham,” says Stephen Saltzburg of the George Washington University Law School. “For better or worse, the people who wrote the opinions are true believers—they actually believe the advice they gave, which means the advice may have been unreasonable, but it’s not criminal.”

There will also be pressure from within the Justice Department itself. The Office of Professional Responsibility will at some point release a report on whether the Bush lawyers acted unethically in justifying torture. If the report is as damning as some insiders expect, local bar associations might open investigations about whether to deprive Yoo, Bybee, or Bradbury of their licenses to practice law. Although a judge does not have to be a member of the bar, if a disciplinary authority went so far as to disbar Bybee, for example, Congress might consider impeachment proceedings. In the past, judicial impeachments have been limited to cases involving perjury or corruption, but it’s possible that Congress could conclude that a lawyer could corrupt himself by giving reckless and unreasonable legal advice. If Bybee were actually impeached by the House of Representatives, let alone convicted by the Senate, the pressure on Holder will rise.

[il Padrino Ute]

Mike, perhaps you ought to disassociate yourself with the Mormon church if you feel so much angst about Mormons and torture.

Why torture yourself with this?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Mike, perhaps you ought to disassociate yourself with the Mormon church if you feel so much angst about Mormons and torture.

Why torture yourself with this?

I'd rather agitate to get people like Bybee out than remove myself because evil people are in the church.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Mike, perhaps you ought to disassociate yourself with the Mormon church if you feel so much angst about Mormons and torture.

Why torture yourself with this?

Better yet: why are you not bothered by this and what does that tell you about yourself?

[MikeWaters]

You know what is irony?

Last night the area authority, or maybe it was the stake president related the story of a LDS San Quentin prison warden who set about reforming the prison and treating the prisoners humanely. How people were shocked that he could walk amongst the prisoners unarmed. How he was told "You know leopards can't change their spots." "I don't deal with leopards. I deal with men. And men change all the time."

Does that sound like a torturer to you?

Do you think God is on Bybee's side, or this man in San Quentin? Who carries more of the light?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You know what is irony?

Last night the area authority, or maybe it was the stake president related the story of a LDS San Quentin prison warden who set about reforming the prison and treating the prisoners humanely. How people were shocked that he could walk amongst the prisoners unarmed. How he was told "You know leopards can't change their spots." "I don't deal with leopards. I deal with men. And men change all the time."

Does that sound like a torturer to you?

Do you think God is on Bybee's side, or this man in San Quentin? Who carries more of the light?

I don't know if the warden in the story was LDS, but this is the warden:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...5769-1,00.html

Clinton Duffy.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Better yet: why are you not bothered by this and what does that tell you about yourself?

It tells me that when Waters and Cali are together on one side of an issue, the best place to be is on the other.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

It tells me that when Waters and Cali are together on one side of an issue, the best place to be is on the other.

Luckily the number of times that Tex has backed me up on my position is close to zero.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Luckily the number of times that Tex has backed me up on my position is close to zero.

No question. Perhaps my best argument at the pearly gates for admission will be that Tex never agreed with me.

[MikeWaters]

Even when Tex does agree with me, it is too painful for him to admit, so he keeps his mouth shut.

That's my theory anyway.