Legal Precedents Regarding Waterboarding

[catzmeow]

Are you referring to Gitmo or what?

How quickly we forget. Is Gitmo in Iraq? Please try to keep up.

 

[catzmeow]

That was a defining moment, wasn't it?

It reminded me of the McCarthy hearings where the witness says, "Have you no sense of decency sir? Have you, at long last, left no sense of decency?"

I've never agreed with you on anything before, and I find it a little bothersome, but the fact that we even have to have a conversation about why torture is wrong in this country scares the shit out of me.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

On further consideration it wasn't the waterboarding in any of those cases so much as the purpose for which the waterboarding was used. Especially so in the case of the first and the last.

And by the way, spies and saboteurs are exempt from the rules found in Geneva. The three people upon whom it was used are buy any rational definition both. Frankly in the case of those three assholes waterboarding them till they quit breathing would be little more than poetic justice for the lives they are responsible for ending.

This is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever seen. Each case clearly defines waterboarding as torture. It wasn't the purpose for which it was used that was wrong. For what other purpose would it be used for? It was used to extract info. Just as it is being employed now by our country. The case of Sheriff Parker shows that it is a federal crime. Not against the Geneva convention, a federal fucking crime. This clearlty shows a precedent set by the US that is 100 years old against the use of this technique. Only those that are terminally stupid would deny this. Apparently you suffer from this affliction.

 

[jreeves]

Are you referring to Gitmo or what?

How quickly we forget. Is Gitmo in Iraq? Please try to keep up.

So you are accusing our troops of using chemical weapons on the Iraqi population? Your accusing our troops of intentionally raping and killing women and children?

 

[Toro]

Reporter Scott Shane On 'Torture Memo' News : NPR

 

[DiveCon]

Shepard Smith Curses On National Television*Video

Shepard Smith channels Samuel Jackson in a lively discussion on the recently released torture memos. Fox News, where debate means keeping your pimp hand strong.

I have a crush on Shepard Smith now.

That was a defining moment, wasn't it?

It reminded me of the McCarthy hearings where the witness says, "Have you no sense of decency sir? Have you, at long last, left no sense of decency?"

McCarthy was a senator, the hearings were in the house
you prove once again you are a moron

 

[Yurt]

noticeably absent is a specific law saying that waterboarding is torture

all i see is case law that is not binding

 

[CrimsonWhite]

noticeably absent is a specific law saying that waterboarding is torture

all i see is case law that is not binding

Case law isn't binding? When did that happen?

 

[Yurt]

noticeably absent is a specific law saying that waterboarding is torture

all i see is case law that is not binding

Case law isn't binding? When did that happen?

was there a scotus ruling that said waterboarding is illegal? i thought they were lower court rulings as to those people, not a ruling the specifically said waterboarding is torture. lower courts are only binding as to their circuit or district.

 

[Yurt]

from the OP link

Yet President Theodore Roosevelt defended the practice. "The enlisted men began to use the old Filipino method: the water cure," he wrote in a 1902 letter. "Nobody was seriously damaged."

 

[CrimsonWhite]

noticeably absent is a specific law saying that waterboarding is torture

all i see is case law that is not binding

Case law isn't binding? When did that happen?

was there a scotus ruling that said waterboarding is illegal? i thought they were lower court rulings as to those people, not a ruling the specifically said waterboarding is torture. lower courts are only binding as to their circuit or district.

Okay, thanks for claryfying. I didn't realize that SCOTUS makes all case law. I must have missed that somewhere.

However, you said it wasn't binding. In this case it is. We have a precedent in Texas on waterboarding as torture. Though the High Court has not had ruling on waterboarding specifically, it will in the very near future. Now Back to your, "It doesn't specifically say waterboarding argument." I call bullshit. Those cases specifically cite torture. Since waterboarding is the technique used as evidence, it is therefore defined as torture. The case in Texas is federal, that means that our Justice department went and defined, by case law, waterboarding as torture. At this point I could give two shits if anybody thinks that it is okay to use because it does no harm. That matters not, because the US Government has defined it as torture and as it has been said throughout our history, "we don't torture." Legally speaking, it isn't illegal everywhere. Legally speaking though, it is torture.

 

[Yurt]

i didn't say only scotus makes case law. since i am assuming any trials will be at the federal level, i am only referring to federal law. there are 3 levels of federal courts, scotus, apps, districts...a 9th circuit ruling is only binding to the courts in its circuit, a district ruling is only binding in its district, a scotus ruling binds all courts in the nation.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

i didn't say only scotus makes case law. since i am assuming any trials will be at the federal level, i am only referring to federal law. there are 3 levels of federal courts, scotus, apps, districts...a 9th circuit ruling is only binding to the courts in its circuit, a district ruling is only binding in its district, a scotus ruling binds all courts in the nation.

Thanks. I didn't learn any of that stuff in Law School. I especially enjoyed how you ignored the meat of my argument and instead attacked an inane portrion that had no bearing on the subject at hand and offering facts that I assure you I am well aware of.

Thanks for playing, you are dismissed.

 

[Yurt]

i didn't say only scotus makes case law. since i am assuming any trials will be at the federal level, i am only referring to federal law. there are 3 levels of federal courts, scotus, apps, districts...a 9th circuit ruling is only binding to the courts in its circuit, a district ruling is only binding in its district, a scotus ruling binds all courts in the nation.

Thanks. I didn't learn any of that stuff in Law School. I especially enjoyed how you ignored the meat of my argument and instead attacked an inane portrion that had no bearing on the subject at hand and offering facts that I assure you I am well aware of.

Thanks for playing, you are dismissed.

i didn't know you went to lawschool, exfuckingscuse me for thinking your comments were serious and i thought my answer helpful...

maybe you should put up a banner that says, hey i went to lawschool and gosh darn it, i'm special and its like so obvious and stuff

 

[CrimsonWhite]

i didn't say only scotus makes case law. since i am assuming any trials will be at the federal level, i am only referring to federal law. there are 3 levels of federal courts, scotus, apps, districts...a 9th circuit ruling is only binding to the courts in its circuit, a district ruling is only binding in its district, a scotus ruling binds all courts in the nation.

Thanks. I didn't learn any of that stuff in Law School. I especially enjoyed how you ignored the meat of my argument and instead attacked an inane portrion that had no bearing on the subject at hand and offering facts that I assure you I am well aware of.

Thanks for playing, you are dismissed.

i didn't know you went to lawschool, exfuckingscuse me for thinking your comments were serious and i thought my answer helpful...

maybe you should put up a banner that says, hey i went to lawschool and gosh darn it, i'm special and its like so obvious and stuff

Guess I'm not that good at conveying sarcasm. Also, I have been here long enough that I though it was common knowledge.

 

[DiveCon]

i didn't say only scotus makes case law. since i am assuming any trials will be at the federal level, i am only referring to federal law. there are 3 levels of federal courts, scotus, apps, districts...a 9th circuit ruling is only binding to the courts in its circuit, a district ruling is only binding in its district, a scotus ruling binds all courts in the nation.

i'm not sure, but i think you are wrong on that
any circuit that makes a ruling sets precedent unless overturned by SCOTUS


thats my understanding

 

[CrimsonWhite]

i didn't say only scotus makes case law. since i am assuming any trials will be at the federal level, i am only referring to federal law. there are 3 levels of federal courts, scotus, apps, districts...a 9th circuit ruling is only binding to the courts in its circuit, a district ruling is only binding in its district, a scotus ruling binds all courts in the nation.

i'm not sure, but i think you are wrong on that
any circuit that makes a ruling sets precedent unless overturned by SCOTUS


thats my understanding

DING DING DING!!!!

You win rep for being able to correctly identify the process of making federal case law.

 

[jreeves]

noticeably absent is a specific law saying that waterboarding is torture

all i see is case law that is not binding

Case law isn't binding? When did that happen?

If waterboarding is illegal then why isn't JFK up on waterboarding charges?

 

[Iriemon]

noticeably absent is a specific law saying that waterboarding is torture

all i see is case law that is not binding

Case law isn't binding? When did that happen?

If waterboarding is illegal then why isn't JFK up on waterboarding charges?

What did JFK do?

 

[Yurt]

i didn't say only scotus makes case law. since i am assuming any trials will be at the federal level, i am only referring to federal law. there are 3 levels of federal courts, scotus, apps, districts...a 9th circuit ruling is only binding to the courts in its circuit, a district ruling is only binding in its district, a scotus ruling binds all courts in the nation.

i'm not sure, but i think you are wrong on that
any circuit that makes a ruling sets precedent unless overturned by SCOTUS


thats my understanding

by binding, i mean, its prececent is binding only in that circuit. the 9th is not bound by an 8th circuit opinion, it is still precedent, but only binding in the 8th circuit, it is persuasive precedent, not binding or mandatory precedent outside of the 8th circuit.

i guess i did not make myself clear to you and crimson, as i told crimson, i never said it was not precent or not case law, i spoke only in that those prior cases, unless a scotus case, are binding case only as to their district or circuit.

does that make sense now?

edit, in fact district courts are not bound to follow other districts in their circuit, same with state app. courts, the 6th dist of CA is not bound to follow a 2nd district ruling. hence why appeals to higher courts or petition for review etc are often done in order to secure uniformity of decisions or "case law"