A step in the direction of justice for post-9/11 abuses

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

Actually I made a statement that was taken out of context apparently. I do not support torture, and the nuke comment was to a person that I was just wondering what level of commitment he/she had to their beliefs, it was not the "GRRRR GRRR Torture before the nuke goes off!" thing people seem to think it was.

But fine, maybe I should have been clearer.

A great poster on the old forum, who still posts here on the new one, said something like this:

I have learnt from posting here, that I did not write as clearly and explicitly as I thought I did. I have learnt to consider the possible misinterpretations of my words, and to be more plain in what I mean.

Well, it was better than that. The subject (on Jolt NSG) was something like "what have your learnt from NSG?" so it was right on-topic. (A cookie for anyone who can name that poster.)


I learnt in one thread, just what was wrong with the way I posted. Readers could not tell if I was serious or satirical or joking. I didn't fix it right away, of course, but I have come to see that this is exactly how my private thoughts work: the purely serious ones are heart-attack material, psychotic or paranoid. The satirical ones are entertaining for me, thoughts I enjoy having but don't expect any consequence of. And the humorous ones are the ones I want to share, and have no guilt about sharing. It's like they weren't mine to begin with.

I learnt that in one thread, and I learnt it from two posts by Muravyets. She did to me what was doing to others, and I didn't like it. Not one little bit. The thread was "Genetically-engineered Toaster."

So, after all this portentious "NSG is serious business" stuff, you will be expecting a real profound bit of advice. Here it is: you're doing fine.

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

I'll post again, and on-topic. I have a question to ask about Qualified Immunity.

For now ... Scrabble.

[SaintB]

Idiocy.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will take the opportunity once again to punch the 9th Circuit in the face.

Hands off our intelligence agents and agencies! No persecutions of Bush administration members!

http://www.iwillnotconvict.com

You know, your camp seems to be ready to support anything as long as it doesn't hurt you or doesn't help someone else. The very second you recieved something resembling the kind of indignant (and unconstitutional) treatment he did you would cry injustice. Base you opinions on how YOU would feel if it happened to you and I bet you'd find out how sane us 'crazy liberals' really are.

[Daistallia 2104]

If you want to crucify the Bush admin people, then go ahead. Nothing will probably stop that at this time. All I say is the field agents at the intel agencies should not be prosecuted.

Do people want intelligence agents having to think "Will I get crucified for political or moral reasons 4+ years down the pipe, for doing something that is currently legal?"

Such were the excuses of Dachau and My Lai...

[EternalNight]

If you want to crucify the Bush admin people, then go ahead. Nothing will probably stop that at this time. All I say is the field agents at the intel agencies should not be prosecuted.

Do people want intelligence agents having to think "Will I get crucified for political or moral reasons 4+ years down the pipe, for doing something that is currently legal?"

Such were the excuses of Dachau and My Lai...

Ok, fine then. Prosecute everyone.

[EternalNight]

To Muravyets:

Fine, in public.


I was not "waging war against you". I made a philosophical comment (NOT an approval of torture) to another poster. In the future I will have any discussions like that as private messages, so to not cause any confusion.

I do not support in any way torture, making people dissappear from the streets, or any other such extremist insanity. Nor do I advocate crushing people's rights in support of a fantasy. The US Citizen who was detained illegally was indeed an illegal act, and those involved with that should be prosecuted.

So far as Qualified Immunity, I may not have all the details, but wasn't that principle and Sovereign Immunity originally intended to prevent lawsuits/civil litigation? If so they have no place being used as a shield for possible criminal activity.

I am willing to accept that I took your use of YOU personally, and so I apologize for that mistake.

[Muravyets]

To Muravyets:

Fine, in public.


I was not "waging war against you". I made a philosophical comment (NOT an approval of torture) to another poster. In the future I will have any discussions like that as private messages, so to not cause any confusion.

I do not support in any way torture, making people dissappear from the streets, or any other such extremist insanity. Nor do I advocate crushing people's rights in support of a fantasy. The US Citizen who was detained illegally was indeed an illegal act, and those involved with that should be prosecuted.

So far as Qualified Immunity, I may not have all the details, but wasn't that principle and Sovereign Immunity originally intended to prevent lawsuits/civil litigation? If so they have no place being used as a shield for possible criminal activity.

I am willing to accept that I took your use of YOU personally, and so I apologize for that mistake.

Thank you.

[EternalNight]

As far as Qualified Immunity. Found this.

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY - The defense of qualified immunity protects "government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The rule of qualified immunity " `provides ample support to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.'

The last part reinforces the point that this is not in any way intended as a shield against criminal activity. If Cheney is trying to invoke this as a shield against possible criminal prosecution, he should DEFINATELY be prosecuted. Adding Obstruction of Justice to the indictment.

[Geniasis]

Idiocy.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will take the opportunity once again to punch the 9th Circuit in the face.

Hands off our intelligence agents and agencies! No persecutions of Bush administration members!

http://www.iwillnotconvict.com

You're as un-American as they come. You claim to love this country but you expose your own deception when you by allowing people to disgrace the constitution you admit that you actually despise everything this country stands for.

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

Here is what I'm wondering. Qualified Immunity seems to apply the "reasonable person" test. A reasonable person would be expected to know that their actions were unconstitutional.

Shouldn't a higher standard than that apply to the Attorney General? I mean, the AG is the most senior law enforcement officer, right? Shouldn't he be expected to have a far better grasp of what is or is not constitutional than the generic "reasonable person" ?

Also, that being his job, shouldn't we expect that he would have advice (ie, a competent legal staff) which would make his judgement more than reasonable ... in fact, impeccable?

This question is directed to anyone who has an answer ...

[Muravyets]

Here is what I'm wondering. Qualified Immunity seems to apply the "reasonable person" test. A reasonable person would be expected to know that their actions were unconstitutional.

Shouldn't a higher standard than that apply to the Attorney General? I mean, the AG is the most senior law enforcement officer, right? Shouldn't he be expected to have a far better grasp of what is or is not constitutional than the generic "reasonable person" ?

Also, that being his job, shouldn't we expect that he would have advice (ie, a competent legal staff) which would make his judgement more than reasonable ... in fact, impeccable?

This question is directed to anyone who has an answer ...

Since the "reasonable person" standard is a variable one, I would guess that a "reasonable person" would think exactly what you are thinking and therefore the "reasonable person" standard for the US AG would be higher than for someone outside the Justice Department.

[Pope Joan]

Looking at the internal Bush administration memos and legal advice concerning torture and what is covered by that definition, it seems to me that the task of these aids was not to add reason or wisdom.

It was to provide justification and excuses.

[Ashmoria]

Here is what I'm wondering. Qualified Immunity seems to apply the "reasonable person" test. A reasonable person would be expected to know that their actions were unconstitutional.

Shouldn't a higher standard than that apply to the Attorney General? I mean, the AG is the most senior law enforcement officer, right? Shouldn't he be expected to have a far better grasp of what is or is not constitutional than the generic "reasonable person" ?

Also, that being his job, shouldn't we expect that he would have advice (ie, a competent legal staff) which would make his judgement more than reasonable ... in fact, impeccable?

This question is directed to anyone who has an answer ...

Since the "reasonable person" standard is a variable one, I would guess that a "reasonable person" would think exactly what you are thinking and therefore the "reasonable person" standard for the US AG would be higher than for someone outside the Justice Department.

thats what im thinking...that the AG cant be expected to know that the supreme court might later make some obscure ruling that makes it wrong to detain us citizens without warrant or suspicion but damned well knows that it is wrong today.

[Ashmoria]

Looking at the internal Bush administration memos and legal advice concerning torture and what is covered by that definition, it seems to me that the task of these aids was not to add reason or wisdom.

It was to provide justification and excuses.

even then the torturers went well beyond the justice department guidelines and STILL dick cheney finds that it would be wrong to even look into these abuses.

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

Here is what I'm wondering. Qualified Immunity seems to apply the "reasonable person" test. A reasonable person would be expected to know that their actions were unconstitutional.

Shouldn't a higher standard than that apply to the Attorney General? I mean, the AG is the most senior law enforcement officer, right? Shouldn't he be expected to have a far better grasp of what is or is not constitutional than the generic "reasonable person" ?

Also, that being his job, shouldn't we expect that he would have advice (ie, a competent legal staff) which would make his judgement more than reasonable ... in fact, impeccable?

This question is directed to anyone who has an answer ...

Since the "reasonable person" standard is a variable one, I would guess that a "reasonable person" would think exactly what you are thinking and therefore the "reasonable person" standard for the US AG would be higher than for someone outside the Justice Department.

If so, it bodes well for the Supreme Court appeal which (I'm tired, may have this wrong) is pretty much certain to follow.

A couple months ago, you argued at some length that the approach should be like going after the mob. Catch the little fish first, and offer then some kind of plea bargain to "turn over" on whoever gave them orders. I see the wisdom of that now.

Ironically, it would also throw a sop to those who call for the immunity of torturers and persecutors who were "just following orders." But it's worth it, if it avoids the Oliver North situation, of subordinates falling on the swords to protect their bosses.

Wow, I really am tired. 'Night.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to respond individually to some of the points and questions raised.

I do want to remind people of a couple of things:

1. This has nothing to do with whether the CIA tortured anyone and/or whether anyone in the Bush Administration will be investigated or prosecuted for that.

2. This has nothing to do with whether former AG Ashcroft or anyone else will face criminal charges.

3. This is a civil suit brought by a U.S. citizen who was (allegedly) unlawfully detained and abused pursuant to policies made by Ashcroft.