Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: prosecute torturers!  (Read 8662 times)

bl825

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
  • There are just so many reasons to smile.
    • View Profile
Re: prosecute torturers!
« Reply #110 on: April 23, 2009, 07:44:29 AM »
Okay, I'll try one more time to clarify. I don't disagree at all that there's a constitutional issue involved. All I was trying to say was that I expected, when I heard the discussion going into upholding the constitution, to hear something like this:

"Torture is unconstitutional because it violates such and such clause or amendment of the constitution."

rather than this:

"Torture is unconstitutional because it violates such and such statute, which congress has authority to pass under the constitution."

I mean yes the second is right, but it's not quite the same as something being unconstitutional because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment or because it is an illegal search and seizure. Eh, maybe I was just thrown off by things not going the way I expected, I don't know. :)

it not your writing that at fault, but your reading: early on, discussion veered off into what laws in place enforce ban on torture, and leverage over members military mentioned. so, julie bring up oath required of them (as well as president). then you apparently believe this center of discussion, and so forth.

relax. julie absolutely agree torture morally reprehensible. for those who believe otherwise, that their option--but, thankfully, our laws limit their options inflict torture. of course, it appear our laws broken and so julie glad see so much support here for enforcing those laws.

You don't exactly make the reading part easy you know. :P

But like I said before, I don't think we disagree.

not mock handicapped.

julie admit certain sensitivity this point because former (ah, that lovely word!) preznit gump pretend there no limits his authority, and this country need get back to realization this patently untrue regardless however many specious legal opinions produced.

even obama fudge this somewhat in recent discussion of prosecutions:  it not his decision.  decisions about prosecution those of attorney general, and it always understood ag must make these decisions independently and without political motive.  so, those in cia who tortured prisoners may be off hook, but properly so only if "following orders" operate as defense.  however, this not available protect gump administration high-ups, who ones issued orders.  job of ag prosecute those violate law.

I don't see anyone doing any mocking.  :P

But that's a fair point in terms of why we might want to emphasize the constitutional aspect of the issue.  I wouldn't want to bring it up if it wasn't already on the table though, because it would open the door to exactly the same kind of arguments that were used to justify the last administration's actions.  But I guess the door's already open and all.
Oh yea...you're delicious and lean, but unsustainable and not to be consumed daily.

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27222
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: prosecute torturers!
« Reply #111 on: April 23, 2009, 07:48:37 AM »
To be fair, the line that I'm drawing might be arbitrary. I just think that if Congress has the power to forbid X but could also allow X, then it's more of a statutory than a constitutional issue, because otherwise it would be a constitutional issue every time Congress passed a law.

And I'm not clear on why executive violation of a law that makes something a crime is more of a constitutional issue than executive violation of any other law.

when congress enact statute and executive claim not bound by it, that inherently constitutional issue.  if president obey statute, then no problem unless statute itself unconstitutional.  is no statute at all, then any challenge to executive action presumably inherently on constitutional grounds.

constitutional issues apparently much more common you think.

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27222
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: prosecute torturers!
« Reply #112 on: April 23, 2009, 08:04:03 AM »
I don't see anyone doing any mocking. :P

julie have brain cloud.  show some sensitivity.


But that's a fair point in terms of why we might want to emphasize the constitutional aspect of the issue. I wouldn't want to bring it up if it wasn't already on the table though, because it would open the door to exactly the same kind of arguments that were used to justify the last administration's actions. But I guess the door's already open and all.

it open because asshats like tricky male private part nixon and gump (even "honest" abe) knock it down.  someone who morally oppose torture simply won't do it.  laws are for those who need other constraints.  happily, our new president has made clear he is closing door.  (now if he'd only do same on wiretapping.)

bl825

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
  • There are just so many reasons to smile.
    • View Profile
Re: prosecute torturers!
« Reply #113 on: April 23, 2009, 08:10:12 AM »
So you agree with me when I say that the reason the whole Constitutional argument is in play is the fact that the administration brought it out?

And sensitivity isn't one of my strong suits, I'm afraid.  :P
Oh yea...you're delicious and lean, but unsustainable and not to be consumed daily.

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27222
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: prosecute torturers!
« Reply #114 on: April 23, 2009, 08:20:44 AM »
So you agree with me when I say that the reason the whole Constitutional argument is in play is the fact that the administration brought it out?

not exactly.  constitutional issues always center defining limits of presidential power, although this usually come up with presidents who--for whatever reason--push those limits (most notably jackson, lincoln, both roosevelts, nixon, gump).

again:  laws become focus when we disagree on morals.

bl825

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
  • There are just so many reasons to smile.
    • View Profile
Re: prosecute torturers!
« Reply #115 on: April 23, 2009, 08:23:13 AM »
So you agree with me when I say that the reason the whole Constitutional argument is in play is the fact that the administration brought it out?

not exactly.  constitutional issues always center defining limits of presidential power, although this usually come up with presidents who--for whatever reason--push those limits (most notably jackson, lincoln, both roosevelts, nixon, gump).

again:  laws become focus when we disagree on morals.

But we wouldn't have to discuss the constitutional issues if the president had not tried to push the limits of his power, right?  It would just be, there's a statute against torture and that's that.  Yes there's a constitutional argument behind the statute existing, but we wouldn't have to discuss it, right?

And I can't believe you left out Truman.  :P
Oh yea...you're delicious and lean, but unsustainable and not to be consumed daily.

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27222
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: prosecute torturers!
« Reply #116 on: April 23, 2009, 11:30:55 AM »
So you agree with me when I say that the reason the whole Constitutional argument is in play is the fact that the administration brought it out?

not exactly. constitutional issues always center defining limits of presidential power, although this usually come up with presidents who--for whatever reason--push those limits (most notably jackson, lincoln, both roosevelts, nixon, gump).

again: laws become focus when we disagree on morals.

But we wouldn't have to discuss the constitutional issues if the president had not tried to push the limits of his power, right? It would just be, there's a statute against torture and that's that. Yes there's a constitutional argument behind the statute existing, but we wouldn't have to discuss it, right?

well, ok:  if preznit gump not try push limits by torturing, not necessary discuss what limits--sort of.  but actually, discussion must be had in any case so that preznits know what limits they supposedly avoiding.

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27222
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: prosecute torturers!
« Reply #117 on: April 23, 2009, 11:32:11 AM »

And I can't believe you left out Truman. :P

truman not notable for pushing limits presidential power, with arguable exception seizure of steel mills.

bl825

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
  • There are just so many reasons to smile.
    • View Profile
Re: prosecute torturers!
« Reply #118 on: April 23, 2009, 11:34:04 AM »

And I can't believe you left out Truman. :P

truman not notable for pushing limits presidential power, with arguable exception seizure of steel mills.

Yeah but that's where half our conversations about this stuff start.

But fair enough.
Oh yea...you're delicious and lean, but unsustainable and not to be consumed daily.

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27222
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: prosecute torturers!
« Reply #119 on: April 23, 2009, 11:42:42 AM »
what, with truman?  how unimaginative.  and he only get precedent that limit presidential power.

of course, preznit actually have care about what limits are.