Daylife/Reuters Pictures
|
Republicans on Wednesday delayed a confirmation vote on attorney general nominee Eric Holder, some demanding assurances he would not prosecute U.S. agents for torture if they thought their methods were in compliance with the law…
With questions about torture and other matters, Republicans invoked their right to delay for one week the Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote on Holder, who had already been expected to endure one of the rockier confirmation processes in President Barack Obama’s new cabinet.
Holder still appears virtually certain to eventually win confirmation by the full Senate…
During his confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee last week, Holder broke with the Bush administration and said waterboarding, an interrogation technique that involves simulated drowning, was torture and thus illegal.
Asked if he would prosecute for torture, Holder said “no one is above the law.” But he also quoted Obama about the need to move ahead…
Holder said he would ensure that interrogations complied with treaty obligations and were effective. He pledged to review all Justice Department legal opinions on the matter.
I don’t recall Republicans defending the “Good Germans” who only “followed orders” while working in concentration camps.
#92, Ah Yea,
There are two types of precedents, Binding and Persuasive. Persuasive only has the force of opinion, and therefore is not important to us here.
Wrong again. If a court in one circuit makes a ruling, then that opinion becomes persuasive to the same case appearing in a different circuit. Although it is not binding, because another honorable Judge has taken the time to review it the second Judge is obliged to consider it. He may dismiss it, but he is expected to give an opinion why he disagrees. Appeal Courts will savage any lower court that ignores a contrary opinion without any explanation.
Attorney General Letters and “Friend of the Court” briefs may also be submitted to help the Judge make his opinion. Examples here include the Electronic Frontier Foundation interceding in a music piracy case or several Attorneys General writing a brief to the Supreme Court supporting one side in an appeal.
Where you err is in not differentiating what makes a court case. First there are the questions of law. “Is torture illegal.” Since there is statute that says it is and an explanation of what constitutes “torture” then it meets that threshold. Then, did the act alleged (the crime) fall within that definition. Only Judges can determine these “questions of law.” A question of law may be appealed by either side.
The second part is for the jury to decide, the question of culpability – is he guilty of the crime. This is usually called “questions of fact.” Juries are only allowed to decide questions of fact. Questions of fact are only appealable under extremely narrow guidelines.
The defense alleged here is called “color of law”, or that they had a right to do this to obtain information. A question of law. For example, a police officer has the authority to do things that would be a crime for ordinary citizens in the pursuit and apprehension of criminals, such as speeding or possessing drugs. To now add torture to that list is reprehensible, especially considering the DoJ already prosecuted that Texas Sheriff and his Deputies for water boarding his prisoners in order to obtain confessions. That is, coincidentally, the exact same rational used by the CIA.
So there you have case law. That case law does not have to match exactly. It only needs to be sufficiently close enough that a reasonable person can see the parallel.
Imagine what would happen if the Supreme Court ruled a law unconstitutional, and instead of changing the law, the Government simply changed the constitution instead!
That has happened several times in our history.
One of the most famous was the 1856 Dred Scott case that upheld slavery in “Free States”. That led to the XIII and XIV Amendments abolishing slavery.
Then there was the Income Tax issue so Congress changed the Constitution to allow Personal Income Taxes to be levied.
#99, Ah Yea,
Just actually read the link I already posted in #84. It gets tiring to tell you to do your homework.
You posted a link to a story where a lot of comments were made by unnamed sources.
You also cherry picked your comments while avoiding (or ignoring) the comments that contradict you.
Who made those comments and who is the politician that wanted stronger measures? Your sly innuendo of trying to say the Democratic Leadership is responsible for waterboarding is BS. Both Senatot Dashle and Representative Pelosi were Minority leaders and did not have much power.
The facts remain that the Administration ordered the torture of prisoners. There is no court that could possibly convict Pelosi or Dashle.
Telling some members of Congress who were sworn to secrecy BEFORE the briefing is not the same as briefing the entire Congress or even the Intelligence committees. Even the Intelligence Committees are sworn to secrecy and may not reveal what they were told in secret. By the time the Intelligence Committees were informed, Bush announced that they would not torture anymore.
None of that lets the CIA or the Administration off the hook nor is an alibi for the right wing nuts to shift blame from where it rightly belongs.