Rumsfeld sued over torture authorization

Ah, the relentless bucket joke of Freud's!

Draping underpants over someone's head would not, most likely, be torture. Regrettably, merely draping underpants over someone's head IS NOT THE FRICKIN' ISSUE.

For the forty-eleventh time: the issue here is that our government actively, systematically encouraced the use of what they euphemistically called, "physical coercion."

This included, more or less in ascending order: sleep deprivation; tying prisoners up in interesting ways and leaving them there; threats that included dogs, mock firing squads, and sticking guns in prisoners' mouths; beatings; anal rape with sticks; a drowning-like torture called in Latin America, if memory serves, "the airplane;" beating prisoners to death on several occasions.

Ancillary to this has been a pattern of shipping prisoners to countries such as Egypt with the tacit understanding that they would be unequivocally tortured (a violation of at least two international treaties to which we are signatory), "preventative detentions," denial that many of our prisoners have any protection whatsoever under the Geneva accords--and, most recently, the charming assertion that even United States citizens may be arrested without warrant or probaable cause, held indefinitely, refused any and all counsel, and denied even the right to confront their accusers and know the charges against them.

You may find this sort of thing the equivalent of a frat prank; I do not. You may find it the sort of realpolitik that us liberals just need to git used to; I find this sort of morbid cynicism reprehensible. I find it revolting that, for the first time, an American administration has publicly advocated torture, the abrogation of the Geneva Accords, and the Constitution.

But then, I was taught some time ago that my country did not do this sort of thing, which was one of the many reasons that I should be proud of being an American. I was taught, too, that Americans did not pussyfoot around and try to cover up with words.

I suggest, gentlemen--and I wish that I were exaggerating--that you seriously consider the many ha-has and ho-hos, the thigh-slapping fun, the trivializations of suffering, that so many in European armies must have enjoyed circa 1937 or so.
 
ginshun said:
Personally I think that the ACLU's filing of this lawsuit has a lot more to do with politics, than it has to do with them really caring about the acts or the people who were allegedly tortured.
This powerful theory also explains why the ACLU defends such bastions of leftist, liberal, Democratic thinking as Rush Limbaugh, right?
 
Sharp Phil said:
Draping somebody's underwear over his head while interrogating him isn't torture.
Holding a GI Joe doll hostage isn't kidnapping.
 
ginshun said:
Personally I think that the ACLU's filing of this lawsuit has a lot more to do with politics, than it has to do with them really caring about the acts or the people who were allegedly tortured.

I also feel pretty confident that Rumsfeld will never see the inside of a courtroom. They might as well have sue W himself.

Ooops, don't want to give them any idea's.

You know, this anti-ACLU nonsense is really getting tiring. The ACLU is just about the only organization that consistently fights FOR all civil rights. As often as not, they defend causes on the right. But you never hear about those cases from the right-wing propaganda machine. The truth doesn't serve conservative purposes.
 
When did I ever say that they didn't defend people on the right? Quit assuming and putting words in my mouth.

I pesonally just think that the ACLU is a bunch of lawyers trying to make names for themselves, and going out and specifically looking to sue people and organizations for whatever they possibly can.

Do they do some good? Sure I suppose they do, I don't pretend to follow all the cases that the ACLU brings up or all the people they defend. The thing is that more often than not, if I actually hear the ACLU mentioned, I am either on the opposite side of the issue as them, or even more often, I think the case/lawsuit/whatever, is just totally frivolous, and couldn't care less either way. They seem to love making big stinks over stuff that really doesn't even affect anyone.

I suppose that I just figure this country has about 50 times the amount of lawyers and court cases that it needs, and the ACLU is leading the fight to sue people over stuff that raelly doesn't matter.

This case is a prime example. Were crimes committed? Ya, they were. Were people punished? Ya, they were. Is it doing anybody any good to bring more charges up against the Secratary of Defense? Hell no its not. Its a case that is just filed for publicity. I am 99% sure that nothing will ever come of it, and I'd be willing to bet that they are too. Its a fivolous, stupid lawsuit that shouldn't even be bothered with.

Maybe I am wrong, and Rumsfeld will get fired and thrown in jail over it. I highly doubt it though.
 
ginshun said:
Is it doing anybody any good to bring more charges up against the Secratary of Defense? Hell no its not.
So if the Secretary of Defense orders torture, in violation of US and international law and Constitutional standards, you don't think anything should be done about it? Just trying to clarify your position.
 
The thing is, the pentagon already issued statements denying that he had any knowledge or involvement with it. Its all he said, she said as far as I can tell. Where is the proof of anything? Plus the lawsuit is filed on the behalf of foriegners, over things that happened in a foriegn country, that as far as anything that I have seen, Rumsfeld had no direct involvement with, maybe not even any knowlege of. It seems that the ACLU is overstepping its bounds a little. Plus they are bringing civilian lawyers into what in my opinion is a military issue.

The lawsuit is a stretch at best. Like I said, it has been filed for publicity, and to make Rumsfeld look bad, not because they think they can win, or because they give a damn about what really happened.

I don't know if he actually did anything wrong, or what, if anything should happen to him. Either way, the ACLU filing this lawsuit is a pointless exersise in my opinion.
 
ginshun said:
The thing is, the pentagon already issued statements denying that he had any knowledge or involvement with it. Its all he said, she said as far as I can tell. Where is the proof of anything?
As has already been mentioned here and in the filing, the ACLU has uncovered over 20,000 memos in which Rumsfeld and the other defendants specifically authorized and ordered the techniques used.
 
I suppose we will have to wait and see.

Wanna make a wager on whether or not the ACLU wins the case against Rumsfeld?
 
Let me see if I understand the logic here: the PENTAGON says that we checked, and hey, no problem, so that's the end of it? Is anyone actually that naive?

Let me see if I can explain three things: a) Rumsfield isn't IN the military, and public officals in this country are not exempt from the law; b) our military has civilian commanders and is responsible to the civilian government; c) the ACLU does not sue people to win publicity for itself.

Criminy.
 
rmcrobertson said:
Let me see if I understand the logic here: the PENTAGON says that we checked, and hey, no problem, so that's the end of it? Is anyone actually that naive?

Let me see if I can explain three things: a) Rumsfield isn't IN the military, and public officals in this country are not exempt from the law; b) our military has civilian commanders and is responsible to the civilian government; c) the ACLU does not sue people to win publicity for itself.

Criminy.
a & b you are probably be right, I don't really know, but if you believe c, then you really shouldn't be accusing others of being naive.
 
ginshun said:
a & b you are probably be right, I don't really know, but if you believe c, then you really shouldn't be accusing others of being naive.
Do you have evidence to show that the ACLU only sues in order to provide publicity for itself?
 
ginshun said:
a & b you are probably be right, I don't really know, but if you believe c, then you really shouldn't be accusing others of being naive.
Is there a case argued by the ACLU that you can prove was argued only for publicity, or is it only that they won't just shut up and take their place?
 
PeachMonkey said:
Do you have evidence to show that the ACLU only sues in order to provide publicity for itself?
Oh come on, how am I actually supposed to sight a case that proves that? Its impossible. Its obviously an opinion. One which you happen to not agree with, thats fine.

I could sight the very case we are talking about, that is a perfect example IMO. Everybody knows that nothing will come of it.
 
ginshun said:
Oh come on, how am I actually supposed to sight a case that proves that? Its impossible. Its obviously an opinion. One which you happen to not agree with, thats fine.
Simple, you go onto LexisNexis.com, or Westlaw.com, or if you dont have accounts with them, I'm sure FindLaw.com or Oyez.com would be happy to accomodate. I'm pretty sure that, by now, the ACLU itself has its own website on which it would be happy to inundate you with cases it's supported. You then look up some of the ACLU's cases and find one (preferably more) that shows that they only care about publicity. When you're citing the case, make sure to include at least one party name, and the year it was decided in. That's how you cite a case. Generally, anyway.

I could sight the very case we are talking about, that is a perfect example IMO. Everybody knows that nothing will come of it.
Then why don't you? The fact that you refuse to actually cite a case to show that the ACLU only cares about publicity kinda shows that you're, frankly, talking out of your ***.

:ultracool
 
RandomPhantom700 said:
Simple, you go onto LexisNexis.com, or Westlaw.com, or if you dont have accounts with them, I'm sure FindLaw.com or Oyez.com would be happy to accomodate. I'm pretty sure that, by now, the ACLU itself has its own website on which it would be happy to inundate you with cases it's supported. You then look up some of the ACLU's cases and find one (preferably more) that shows that they only care about publicity. When you're citing the case, make sure to include at least one party name, and the year it was decided in. That's how you cite a case. Generally, anyway.

Then why don't you? The fact that you refuse to actually cite a case to show that the ACLU only cares about publicity kinda shows that you're, frankly, talking out of your ***.

:ultracool
I am not asking how to cite a case you smartass.

You can't prove someones else's motivations for doing something. It just happens to be my opinion that many of the cases that the ACLU files, it does so simply to publisize itself and and the case, not because the case actually effects anybody.

IMO if you don't have anything better to worry about than whether or not the 10 commandments are dislplayed in a courthouse, or whether or not a guy gets fined for posting stickers of naked chicks in his car window, then you need to get a hobby.

I am not even a Christian by the way, so don't throw some bible thumping conservative comment in my face.
 
>>Do you have to be a US citizen to file suit in a US court? Can you provide a reference for this requirement?>>>


I've been too busy at work over the past few days, but in the context of foreign nationals detained off of American soil, the case on point is:

Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) It has been distinguished by several cases with different facts. In the scenario presented by the ACLU, this case seems to apply. Based on the court's analysis, these plaintiffs would not have standing.

On other issues foreign citizens may have standing in US federal courts. Admiralty and maritime claims, federal questions that involve foreign citizens on US soil, or jurisdictional issues of sufficient minimum contacts in a business context would be determinent of jurisdiction
 
The point isn't whether or not you know exactly how to write up a court case. The point is that you are insisting on a belief FOR WHICH YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.

This is very like the repeated poll finding that nearly 80% of Bush's supporters in the last election believed that Iraq had WMDs, though there was not--and has not been--any evidence for that belief.
 
War is hell, but please keep the arguement going.

I think I'm going to stick the martial arts posts area because these political threads just burn me up. The ones I disagree with upset me. The ones that I agree with that make good points make me wonder why I couldn't come up with something so witty.

Personally, I don't think torture is very effective as a means of getting reliable information. But we should fight to win; especially since the "other side" has no rules.

Besides, I'm a Bush supporter. I believe, like the Congress did, that we were justified in invading Iraq. It makes me happy to recently see 1,000 Iraqis stage a protest against terrorists/terrorism.

Let the ACLU sue. It will be good to find out if the accusations stand up in court; if they ever get there.
 
rmcrobertson said:
The point is that you are insisting on a belief FOR WHICH YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.
That's the beauty of a belief. You don't need evidence to back it up. Sure, evidence helps to illustrate your belief to ours, but may not have any bearing on your personal feelings toward the issue.

I agree with ginshun that providing evidence for a belief based on ones motive is not easy to come by. He's merely stating his opions on the ACLU's motives for what they do. Why dosen't someone show him some evidence that would contradict his belief, instead of demanding to see evidence that supports his opinions?
 
Back
Top