Rumsfeld sued over torture authorization

[rmcrobertson]

Because it is impossible to prove a negative.

For example, if I tell you that you're a space alien, and you respond that no you're not, and I demand that you prove that you're not a space alien--I'm demanding that you prove a negative. Can't be done.

The ACLU has made its argument, the legal bases, and a number of specific documents available at:

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17572&c=206

Perhaps it would be good to at least look at them before continuing to claim that they're doing it, "for the publicity."

It is unfortunate that so many either a) are going to try and dismiss torture by any means necessary; b) that so many Americans believe that nobody in their right mind does things because they are the right thing to do.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) It has been distinguished by several cases with different facts.

Actually, Johnson v. Eisentrager:

-- Does not deal with torture
-- Does not deal with the rights of foreign nationals to file suit in a federal court
-- Deals with the rights of foreign combatants (or rather, the lack thereof) to the writ of habeas corpus
-- As has already been pointed out in this thread, has been at least partially superseded by Rasul et al v Bush et al, 03-334 US (2004), which held that United States courts have jurisdiction to hear foreigners' habeas challenges, particularly those foreigners held at Guantanamo Bay. See:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-334.ZS.html

If foreign nationals had no right to sue in these matters, then the US Supreme Court would never have even heard this case, let alone decided as they did.

 

[ginshun]

Because it is impossible to prove a negative.

I could have told Duece that that was coming. Regardless of anything else, I can't claim that rmcrobertson doesn't know his logic!!:uhyeah:

 

[modarnis]

Well if you took the time to read my response, I did indicate it had been distinguished by other cases. Those detained at Guantanamo are differently situated persons than persons in Iraq where we are actively engaged in combat. Try Shepardizing (Shepards is available on lexis or at most public libraries)both cases and see whether or not Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) was actually overturned. I took the time to do that before I posted the original post and know that the holding in Johnson was not overturned by Rasul, but the facts were distinguished.

Specificly on jurisdiction issues, the facts as presented in the ACLU's pleadings should be dismissed under Johnson for the reasons of lack of jurisdiction addressed by the court in that case.

I was not speaking to the merits of the claim. Without proper jurisdiction, the merits are somewhat moot

 

[Ray]

Because it is impossible to prove a negative.

For example, if I tell you that you're a space alien, and you respond that no you're not, and I demand that you prove that you're not a space alien--I'm demanding that you prove a negative. Can't be done.

It is a false statment to say that you cannot prove a negative. You must examine the negative statement to determine if it is provable or not. "Five is not equal to four" is negative and provable.

And I am fairly certain that he can be proven to not be a space alien. However, if it is his assertion that he is not, he will be lacking in motivation to prove it. He will not likely provide the evidence to prove that he is not a space alien, but it can be proven.

 

[Deuce]

I can prove that I'm human, which would contradict me bing a space alien. I didn't ask for a proof of a negative, I suggested contradictory evidence of the positve which would reinforce the negative. But I'd say were getting off topic.

To be honest, I don't really have an opinion on the ACLU's motives, but if the allegations have any truth to them, then action needs to be taken, and I'm not too concerned with who's involved as long as the results are just.

Torture of this sort needs to be dealt with appropriatly and punishments need to be dished out. I'm just hoping that justice will be prevail and those responsible for these inhumane acts will get what they deserve, and not have the ability to hide behinde their political status.

 

[rmcrobertson]

First off, you "suggested," no evidence whatsoever. You made an allegation, and refused to provide any basis for that allegation.

As for the example of basic math, sorry, it won't wash. First off, it's far more elementary--elementary enough, in fact, that you can rely upon general agreement that (5 does not equal 4," in anybody you're going to be talking to. Second, it's an inaccurate analogy because the claim is self-evidently true--which is not at all the case with a claim such as, "the ACLU only wants publicity."

I mention the complete lack of evidence and the leap of logic because, regrettably, these are exactly the sorts of things we see used all the time to support this particular War, and then to justify torture that has been (to say the least) encouraged by our government.

If you'd like evidence, well, please take at least a look at the many citations on these threads, or at the Army's own reports.

I suspect, however, that you will refuse to do so, and continue to believe in the politically-correct line spouted by Limbaugh et al. In fact, I suspect you will take even this post as further evidence that them pointy-head liberals don't know nothing.

We're talking about the official legitimation of torture here, gentlemen. Call me crazy, but I'd like to see a little more than dogma and illogic.

 

[Ray]

As for the example of basic math, sorry, it won't wash. First off, it's far more elementary--elementary enough, in fact, that you can rely upon general agreement that (5 does not equal 4," in anybody you're going to be talking to.

I'm confused...several websites and a philosophy book that I have give this and several other examples when they say it is a false statment that a negative cannot be proved.

Second, it's an inaccurate analogy because the claim is self-evidently true--which is not at all the case with a claim such as, "the ACLU only wants publicity."

If we were Vulcan's I suppose we would all have better grounded opinions. But, hey they're opinions.

I mention the complete lack of evidence and the leap of logic... If you'd like evidence, well, please take at least a look at the many citations on these threads, or at the Army's own reports.

I think I'll do that.

I suspect, however, that you will refuse to do so, and continue to believe in the politically-correct line spouted by Limbaugh et al. In fact, I suspect you will take even this post as further evidence that them pointy-head liberals don't know nothing.

All I take this post as is evidence that you have low opinion of those who have a different opinion than you.

But I am taking a real liking to the way you present your ideas and how well thought out they are. You seem very intelligent.

 

[rmcrobertson]

If I were really all that intelligent, I'd present my points better.

 

[Phoenix44]

Bear in mind that if the Congress used its investigative authority to look into the allegation of torture as an official policy, the ACLU would not have had to sue, but Congress did not investigate.