|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's not so much that I'm thinking they will do it as that it seems very likely a situation will arise in Trump's presidency where someone in the military should refuse an order. As long as one loud voice in the room puts "duty" before reason the institutions of state power will follow trump's orders -- even the few that likely hate him now.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:. I just want to say that although this is a derail, it has been super fascinating and informative and I hope people aren't disinclined to continue the discussion. Thanks for your posts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
I'm not quite sure what you're looking for when you're asking what legal theory am I using the concludes that indefinite detention of people is illegal. Like clearly I have one. If you want to call it "The twodot Doctrine" we can, but I don't know where that gets us. Do you want me to distinguish between the prisoners at Guantanamo and some other prisoners where you think I've argued that indefinite detention of them is ok? I don't think I've done that, so I don't understand what you're asking for. Meanwhile I have asked you a direct question multiple times which you've refused to answer I'll put here and at the bottom of my post just in case you miss it: Also please answer my question about who would even have standing to contest the relevant laws are Constitutional and the President has some obligation to follow them, and what remedy they would seek. quote:(Oh, and nice attempt to shift the goalposts from detention to torture.) quote:Oh, you mean the West Point cadet who married a general's daughter upon graduation, rose to the highest military rank achievable, commanded MNF-I, was named director of the CIA, and was getting metaphorical blowjobs from the mainstream press and D.C. establishment to the point that there was an editorial calling for five star rank to be revived just for him, until he blew it all up by getting a literal blowjob from his attractive biographer and had to settle for a retirement of honorary professorships and six figure consultant salaries? Yeah, that sounds like a guy who doesn't know how to play the game. Also please answer my question about who would even have standing to contest the relevant laws are Constitutional and the President has some obligation to follow them, and what remedy they would seek. To be super clear, I don't even think the law that Congress passed is Constitutional in the first place, and the President should ignore it as any unconstitutional law. Given you've argued in favor of our existing institutions, how would these institutions even demonstrate the law is Constitutional? edit: I forgot this, on the "ffffucking drone" comment (which I've never said). It's not that I'm blaming individual soldiers for following illegal orders. Most of them were forced into their position by the need to survive personally and possibly provide for loved ones, so I get why a person in that situation would prefer following illegal orders (which is very safe) over challenging orders that are in their view illegal, but as soldiers and not lawyers have at best a shaky view of what is illegal, and even if they are 100% correct the orders are illegal, challenging them is still a risky proposition both for their career and avoiding prison. twodot fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Jan 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 19:31
|
|
"Every single soldier from the gate guard to the Commandant who has rotated through Guantanamo Bay since 2002 is a ffffucking drone who never questions their government or values, unlike twodot who sees the truth." Tell me, O enlightened one, under what legal theory exactly are they supposed to be concluding that indefinite detention of enemy combatants is illegal? Seriously, I want to know what you're basing this argument that what we're doing is facially illegal on. Congress authorized it. The Supreme Court signed off on it. Tradition, law, and treaty allow it.
|
UberJew posted:The internment of Japanese-Americans and the imprisonment of pacifist figures for unacceptable speech in WWI are probably better examples The internment of Japanese-Americans wasn't even a "could they get away with it" case - the Supreme Court gave it their blessing in Korematsu. And it was faithfully carried out by both civilian and military authorities, despite the blatant racism and obvious constitutional difficulties involved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The internment of Japanese-Americans wasn't even a "could they get away with it" case - the Supreme Court gave it their blessing in Korematsu. And it was faithfully carried out by both civilian and military authorities, despite the blatant racism and obvious constitutional difficulties involved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz20lu2AM2k
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't understand how this is goalpost shifting, I'm discussing whether military members obey illegal orders, and the documented history of the military torturing people means either there is a precedent of obeying illegal orders, or someone is arguing torture is legal. His name is "John Yoo." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Indefinite detention is of course constitutional, and legal under international law If we still had any Korean POWs in custody from the Korean War, we'd be under no legal obligation to release them
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
ulmont posted:His name is "John Yoo." Correction: "War criminal John Yoo". Alternatively if you're a stickler, "torture apologist John Yoo."
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Correction: "War criminal John Yoo". The Obama Justice Department doesn't agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
quote:Also please answer my question about who would even have standing to contest the relevant laws are Constitutional and the President has some obligation to follow them, and what remedy they would seek It is a debatable issue whether you have standing to sue for being forced to carry out what you think are illegal orders. You can read the briefings in Nathan Smith v Obama to understand the different sides of the argument (the case was recently dismissed on standing)
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:The Obama Justice Department doesn't agree with you. Yeah, but you don't see him taking overseas trips to Spain or Germany either, do you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Indefinite detention is of course constitutional, and legal under international law Morbid curiousity: What international standards, if any, are set to define what constitutes a good faith effort to confirm a POW is in fact an enemy agent? What national standards or tribunals does the U.S. military use?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 00:47
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, but you don't see him taking overseas trips to Spain or Germany either, do you? I quit stalking him in 2013, so I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Morbid curiousity: What international standards, if any, are set to define what constitutes a good faith effort to confirm a POW is in fact an enemy agent? What national standards or tribunals does the U.S. military use? quote:3 In this case, the Government contends that it is lawfully authorized to detain Al Kandari because he was part of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated enemy forces. See Jt. List of Contested Issues, Docket No. [663]. Although the D.C. Circuit “has yet to delineate the precise contours of the ‘part of’ inquiry,” Barhoumi, 609 F.3d at 424, this Court is not without guidance. The Court of Appeals has emphasized that the focus of this inquiry is whether an individual is “functionally part of” al Qaeda, the Taliban or affiliated forces. Bensayah v. Obama, 610 F.3d 718, 725 (D.C.Cir.2010) (emphasis added). For example, while proof that “a detainee was part of the ‘command structure’ of al Qaeda *22 [ ] satisfies the requirement to show that he was ‘part of’ al Qaeda,” such a showing is not necessary. Awad, 608 F.3d at 11 (rejecting claim that “there must be a specific factual finding that [the detainee] was part of the ‘command structure’ of al Qaeda”); Bensayah, 610 F.3d at 725 (“That an individual operates within al Qaeda's formal command structure is surely sufficient but is not necessary to show he is ‘part of’ the organization.”). Similarly, proof that an individual actually fought for or on behalf of al Qaeda or the Taliban, while sufficient, is also not required to demonstrate that an individual is a “part of” such enemy forces. See Al–Bihani, 590 F.3d at 872–73. Ultimately, the determination whether an individual is a “part of” al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces, “must be made on a case-by-case basis by using a functional rather a formal approach and by focusing upon the actions of the individual in relation to the organization.” Bensayah, 610 F.3d at 725. The court looks at the evidence presented by both sides and makes a decision
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Indefinite detention is of course constitutional, and legal under international law welllllllllllll yes but you're obligated under Common Article 2 to return them to their home country as soon as possible. Now if they're an unprivileged combatant, like everyone in Gitmo is, then lol there's no obligation. Hell, those guys aren't even entitled to Prisoner of War status. None of which changes the fact that torture is illegal under domestic and international law, but we're talking detention, not torture. And detention, even indefinite detention, most absolutely is when there's an armed conflict. Which, incidentally, is the standard. Armed conflict, which does not require any official "declaration of war" (and the 2001 AUMF would count regardless).
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 01:10
|
|
Cat Army 
|
The Iron Rose posted:welllllllllllll yes but you're obligated under Common Article 2 to return them to their home country as soon as possible. Poor Georg Gärtner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
twodot posted:Korematsu is still valid precedent, so "Historically we've detained anyone we want, the three branches of government all agree we can detain whoever we want, therefore it's legal to detain everyone we want" doesn't really work for me as an argument. I'm really unclear on both 1) What sort of legal analysis you think a soldier should perform when evaluating whether to perform an order and 2) What sort of analysis you think the average soldier (or even an above average soldier) is capable of. From what you've written here if the President issued an order to round up all the Arabs because they share an ethnicity with someone we're at war with (note: I don't actually agree we're at war for this purpose, but we need to be for your argument to work), you seem to be arguing that not only would soldiers agree to do this, but that they should given that historical precedent backs up the legality of such an order. Also, the fact that you are apparently unaware of the analysis of the lawfulness of orders that soldiers and officers are taught should give you some pause. twodot posted:I don't understand how this is goalpost shifting, I'm discussing whether military members obey illegal orders, and the documented history of the military torturing people means either there is a precedent of obeying illegal orders, or someone is arguing torture is legal. I think there are also other examples, I just assumed there would be the most agreement here. Your rebuttal to my position that General Officers are political operators was "but General Petraeus." David Petraeus based his entire career on successful maneuvering through institutional and national politics. Was Bill Clinton not an otherwise savvy political operator because he nearly torpedoed his administration with a sex scandal? What the gently caress are you trying to say? Mr. Nice! already answered your question (Congress, preventing/reversing any attempt to transfer detainees), so I felt no need to pile on. twodot posted:To be super clear, I don't even think the law that Congress passed is Constitutional in the first place, and the President should ignore it as any unconstitutional law. twodot posted:I forgot this, on the "ffffucking drone" comment (which I've never said). It's not that I'm blaming individual soldiers for following illegal orders. Most of them were forced into their position by the need to survive personally and possibly provide for loved ones, so I get why a person in that situation would prefer following illegal orders (which is very safe) over challenging orders that are in their view illegal, but as soldiers are not lawyers have at best a shaky view of what is illegal, and even if they are 100% correct the orders are illegal, challenging them is still a risky proposition both for their career and avoiding prison.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Please cite a documented example since 1980 of a military member torturing a prisoner on the orders of their superiors. I'll refrain from posting Abu Gharib pictures here. Can you explain how the actions of American military personnel at Abu Gharib aren't torture? Is it because they fail to meet some hair-splitting definition of torture techniques, and prisoners were merely detainee-abused to death? Or because there's no signed-in-triplicate written order to use specific methods of torture, just testimony about verbal orders and a documented "keep the prisoners compliant and talking, use whatever techniques you want, and we won't be asking any questions about what we hear you're doing" approach from senior leadership?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
He covered that above; his argument is that Abu Ghraib wasn't explicitly ordered, just tacitly allowed. I'm not sure why "since 1980" matters, that seems an arbitrary cutoff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:He covered that above; his argument is that Abu Ghraib wasn't explicitly ordered, just tacitly allowed. Do you have a reason to think it was "tacitly allowed"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Do you have a reason to think it was "tacitly allowed"? Hey I ain't agreeing with him here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Do you have a reason to think it was "tacitly allowed"? That more or less fits with the official Army line, which (based on the court martials and punishments) seems to be that the low-ranking soldiers came up with all the torture entirely on their own without orders from anybody, and the senior officers at Abu Ghraib simply authorized some questionable things and failed to properly supervise and train their subordinates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
So who's the least sane Federal judge Trump could nominate? That seems like it'd be a safe bet
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Korematsu has never been overturned, but that is very different from being valid precedent. It's also wholly irrelevant, because we aren't discussing detaining American citizens. There is a fairly clear-cut argument that Korematsu was wrongly decided because the government's interest failed to meet the 5th Amendment standard to deprive a person of liberty. Your argument has been that everyone involved in Guantanamo is following illegal orders, but you have not advanced any sort of explanation of why those orders are illegal or unconstitutional. This is an essential and underlying part of what you are arguing, and you can't handwave it as "The twodot Doctrine". I can't believe you aren't going to be banned for saying something that deliberately stupid and obtuse. The detention of enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities has been a longstanding part of the formal and normative laws of armed conflict, it is explicitly provided for under the Geneva Conventions, and has been recognized as legal by the Supreme Court. If you think it should be illegal, that is certainly a thing you could argue, but you have thus far totally failed to do so, and in any case you cannot reasonably accuse people of doing something unlawful for not following what you think the law should be. Wealthy volunteers are probably more likely to follow illegal orders because they see the people on the other side as their lessers, hth. The army was politically unreliable when there was a draft, the NG was the old boys' club and somehow ended up shooting protesters. Were the full time military deployed on police duties nowadays, I would actually find it easier to imagine the army or marines opening fire than the NG (which is where the economic draft happens). For identical reasons. The individual soldier doesn't matter, militaries are large groups.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:So who's the least sane Federal judge Trump could nominate? That seems like it'd be a safe bet I'm quietly hoping he nominates his sister even though she's retired
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Do you have a reason to think it was "tacitly allowed"? From the official report on the whole thing Findings of fact posted:[After a previous incident of prisoner abuse at Camp Bucca] Testimony from soldiers who witnessed the abuse posted:MI wanted to get them to talk. It is Grainer and Frederick’s [MP NCOs] job to do things for MI and OGA to get these people to talk. Now, the report reviews all of this and comes to the conclusion that, gosh, discipline in the prison was just so bad that the MPs came up with the idea to abuse prisoners independently and nobody stopped them from carrying it out. Therefore, the officers in question were just staggeringly bad at their jobs and didn't give anybody any kind of explicit authorization to torture detainees. The report also notes that soldiers were "asked" to perform specific acts of abuse by military intelligence personnel. Also, in the little "here's the people who did the right thing" section at the end, it's noted that at least two soldiers saw the abuses and immediately reported them up the chain of command. No action was taken until it became a PR nightmare. Now, it doesn't meet Dead Reckoning's hypothetical of a direct written order to torture signed by the President of the United States. But, given the apparent explicit instructions to commit acts of abuse, and the complete failure of command to respond to or investigate reports of abuse, I believe we have reason to think it was at least "tacitly allowed."
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
I can't believe there are people honestly arguing that torture taking place under the Bush administration was just 'tacticly allowed' and not a thing being pushed (subtly or otherwise) from the administration itself. The people running Abu Gharib were fully aware and on board with what was going on there until it became an international incident.FuturePastNow posted:So who's the least sane Federal judge Trump could nominate? That seems like it'd be a safe bet Peter Thiel. Or he picks his son-in-law who gets to be both a senior adviser and a member of the SCOTUS. I'm kinda looking forward to Trump pardoning Kushner's dad for his past crimes and then seeing Fox News and right wing assholes say it's perfectly ok and Trump's draining the swamp of DC corruption or some other stupid poo poo that the right will accept no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:So who's the least sane Federal judge Trump could nominate? That seems like it'd be a safe bet Roy Moore. Alternately, Gordon Klingenschmidtt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:So who's the least sane Federal judge Trump could nominate? That seems like it'd be a safe bet Supreme Court Justice Joe Arpaio
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:Supreme Court Justice Joe Arpaio I was googling better places for Joe Arpaio and found this: quote:Obama's last-minute appointments to the Civil Rights commission will make it difficult for Trump to fix campus culture. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I can't believe there are people honestly arguing that torture taking place under the Bush administration was just 'tacticly allowed' and not a thing being pushed (subtly or otherwise) from the administration itself. The people running Abu Gharib were fully aware and on board with what was going on there until it became an international incident. I'm not disagreeing with you about torture under Bush but 're: the military at Abu Ghraib it's not what you know it's what you can prove. As far as the CIA goes they're civilian. Dead Reckoning is on solid legal ground and he's being careful to qualify his claims.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-special-elections-in-north-carolina.html?_r=0 This is super depressing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-special-elections-in-north-carolina.html?_r=0 This is the usual response to a court finding district maps unconstitutional on racial grounds-- argue that it's too late to change them now, and so you might as well let the racist unconstitutional maps stand, because  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I'm not disagreeing with you about torture under Bush but 're: the military at Abu Ghraib it's not what you know it's what you can prove. As far as the CIA goes they're civilian. Dead Reckoning is on solid legal ground and he's being careful to qualify his claims. Does it count as solid legal ground if the prosecutors gave the most senior officer immunity in exchange for testifying against the second most senior officer, who had all charges related to detainee mistreatment dismissed because the investigators made incredibly basic procedural mistakes when investigating only those charges and not any of the others? Cover-ups and scapegoating are some of the US military's finest traditions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 23:17
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Does it count as solid legal ground if the prosecutors gave the most senior officer immunity in exchange for testifying against the second most senior officer, who had all charges related to detainee mistreatment dismissed because the investigators made incredibly basic procedural mistakes when investigating only those charges and not any of the others? Cover-ups and scapegoating are some of the US military's finest traditions. Yes, it counts as solid legal grounds because that is the way our legal system works.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Correction: "War criminal John Yoo". Alternatively if you're a stickler, "torture apologist John Yoo." quote:When CNN host Fareed Zakaria asked him about CIA techniques like "forced rectal feeding", "threatening to rape the mothers of prisoners" and "people with broken limbs being forced to stand for hours and hours," Attorney Yoo said that would be against the rules (if it in fact it happened):
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Most Americans support torture in certain circumstances, so I'm not sure he's an "apologist" for torture. It seems a minority of Americans owe him an apology.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Here's my, uh, favorite John Yoo quote. Apologies for Daily Kos. He is not contradicting himself, he is just saying that those specific tortures were not authorized but theoretically permissible under his ludicrous-on-its-face legal theory of president-as-divine-emperor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Most Americans support torture in certain circumstances, so I'm not sure he's an "apologist" for torture. It seems a minority of Americans owe him an apology. You're either being a funster, or you may want to look up what "apologist" means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:He is not contradicting himself, he is just saying that those specific tortures were not authorized but theoretically permissible under his ludicrous-on-its-face legal theory of president-as-divine-emperor. Ahh poo poo I forgot this part of the Bush years. Haven't forgot the "we don't torture prisoners" ("torture" and "prisoners" being definitions micro-engraved on the tips of a set of high-speed all-terrain motorized goalposts) part though. Trump's going to end up outlawing CTRs, gutting section 314 of the patriot act, and get the Bank Secrecy Act repealed, because one time a teller called to verify available funds for a check despite him swearing it was good. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 01:12
|
|
