 jatfla says: Another insight into the testimony before the House Judiciary. With this kind of behavior I can understand the contempt one might feel towards the inquisitors. He wasn't interested in a dignified or responsible discussion with Addington; he was interested in being a smart-mouth Congressman who revealed his lack of decorum needed for his office. That hearing was a nightmare. I watched it on CSPAN. Delahunt knew absolutely nothing about the case, but they let him question the witnesses anyway. He didn't even pronounce Professor Yoo's name right... Our Congress is a circus... and a media one at that. We were warned of this when cameras were proposed to be allowed in the halls. But instead of a more informed electorate, we got sound bites and blurbs from media publications that have nothing in context. Disgraceful. Oh I know. I read an AP report on the hearing and I had to pick my jaw up off the floor. They weren't just twisting the story either, they were out right lying in some cases. Bull. A member of congress expecting honest answers from a sworn witness in the light of public observation is true American democracy in action. This is the accountability which makes us the great country we supposedly are and separates us from tyrannical rule. Did you watch the hearing, or did you just read about what happened in a newspaper? He had good reason not to answer his question in front of practically the whole nation, and anyone who cannot see that is being biased and foolish. Not to mention it was just party bashing. Yoo and Addington work/worked for Republican politician(s), (I forget the other guy's name) worked for Bill Clinton (Democrat). They bashed Yoo and Addington, didn't give them any time to answer their questions (I will admit there was quite a bit of stalling, but the congressmen should have been given more then 5 minutes to ask some very complicated questions), and even tried to put words in their mouths (exactly what happ... Why wouldn't he answer in front of the nation whether he knows that the U.S. tortures or not? It's not that simple. I believe Delahunt asked him if the U.S. engages in waterboarding. First of all, it's debatable what waterboarding even entails (which is why Addington didn't answer his question, because he would have had to go into details about what techniques might have been used ). Then it's being debated whether or not waterboarding (the technique the media describes) is even torture. Then there's the fact that they really don't personally know what did or did not happen. Yoo only wrote a memo, and Addington is just a lawyer to the VP (he was only summoned because he made trips to Gitmo). That's why it's ludicrous that these Democrats even did this, because it should have been Co... There is no debate, water boarding is torture. It has always been torture. They did define torture, those memos where used to circumvent Congressional authority and the law. Read the memos, especially Yoo's. Their scary. No, torture was not defined in the laws passed by Congress before the recently passed law that does define torture. That's why Yoo's memo is so controversial. He wrote a legal memo that gave what he believe the legal definition of torture to be. That's what's being debated, if you don't understand that then you need to read up on the case. If you had listened to the hearing you would know that, even the congressmen were talking about it. A federal anti-torture statute The War Crimes Act of... It was not until the McCain law that the loopholes where created to allow torture. That plus the use of signing statements by the President based on those memos to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions)This is exactly what is being debated. This is vague. Now torture is more exactly defined (I'll do some digging around to show you if you like). Again, there's no point in debating about this, because if you had watched the hearing you would realize that you're wrong. This wasn't even debated by the Congressmen, they all admitted that torture was loosely defined at the time the memo was written. That still means that water boarding is torture, using vagueness is an empty and cowardly excuse. And I'm not defending them ethically, I have no idea what the ethics are behind all this. And I'm sure the Bush administration did find legal loop holes to use. But legally they seemed to be sound. Rat, we're talking about LEGALLY. The people are robots, they don't care about morals or emotions. It is being debated what severe physical or mental pain entails. It's not even certain what waterboarding actually is, all we know is the media account of it. No I read the memos and their not. not what? legal? Again you should watch the hearing, all of this was talked about in the hearing. The congressmen readily admitted that torture was loosely defined, are you saying that they're wrong too? I;m saying that is not even an issue. We are not talking about the incidental use of force, or how do you restrain a prisoner, or even how long you can keep him in a cell (if properly provided for), we are talking about the deliberate infliction of harm, that is torture and there is no debate about that. Using washingtonese to get around that is deplorable to say the least. Deliberate infliction of harm was not the definition of torture. severe infliction of harm was the definition. The question is, what constitutes crossing the line between normal and severe?? Legally. And again, we're not even certain what the techniques are. Apparently they're not what is described by the media, otherwise Addington would have had no problem answering Delahunt's question. Addington doesn't want to answer the question because he doesn't want to admit to torture. He can certainly describe them and put them to the legal test. And he will do that, if the congressmen decide that his refusal to answer was a priveledge. He just didn't want to answer them on television. And again I'm certainly not defending waterboarding. If it's anything like it is described by the media then I would certainly think that it does constitute torture. And why not answer them on television? Because it's classified. Or at least that what he sort of asserted :\ (it was kind of confusing, he was being stupid on that one) The truth is that they're trying to blame two lawyers for what Bush and other people did.When those two lawyers played patsy with BushCo. and gave them the answers they wanted to hear, such as legal opinions supporting strong unitary executive action usurping the powers of Congress and the people who put them there, or executive signing statements being bent to the force of law to the absurd extreme, then they are getting exactly what they set themselves up for. Play patsy in the service of dogmatic belief which flouts the spirit and history of established legal precedent and you can be a fall-guy, too. As far as the "classified" bull, that's totally a BushCo. dodge for anyt... You're assuming that they "played patsy with BushCo." and gave him exactly what he wanted to hear. Now, am I disenclined to agree with you? No, I'm not. It seems reasonable (and maybe even probable). But until that can be established as fact, they cannot be held responsible for what Bush and Congress screwed up. Congress is just angry because Bush didn't come to them first (if you litsen to the hearing you'll hear a congressman ask why he didn't), like he did with the patriot acts and FISA. They have no problem with his illiegal powers, but they do have a problem with not having it themselves. I'm saying blame the POLITICIANS, not their legal counsel. If you do you're just falling right into their hands. As far as the "classified" bull, that's totally a BushCo. dodge for anything they want to do in the shadows regardless of how it plays in the light of the notion of honest government guided by the law of the land. Maybe, maybe not. We'll see if Congress subpeona's him for a private meeting. (if Bush pulls that "he doesn't have to testify" crap then I'll agree with you) If they don't, then obviously they don't think the information is very valuable. The point from the article was not the issue of torture...why do we think it's called "torture"? The issue was the imbecilic, adolescent behavior of the Congressman. Some information pertaining to these discussions needed to be held behind closed doors and not for "public" consumption. Despite the American assumption, all things are not our "need to know". Yoo and Addinton did, they are part of the problem. Lawyers have an ethical duty to follow the law, not subvert it or expand it. So I guess that we are both in general agreement on this one jmjones, both sides are playing a farce. Perhaps Jafla, but are we talking about position of troops, current intelligence sources or that kind of thing or is it the now common cop out of "its secret, I can't tell you, even though I made it secret so I didn't have to tell you". I thought I heard Addington offer to discuss some of the issues privately. Actually no... He even told the Chairman that he would have to subpoena him to get him back lol... He tried to pull a fast one by saying that he wasn't asserting a priveledge. Back at the public hearings?? or in private sessions. I would think that some of his information was "priveledge yikes! clicked wrong button. some of the information was priviledged and not to be aired in a situation where the World and the enemies of the US could hear all that was being revealed. Back in private. You see, every time him or Yoo didn't answer a question they were supposed to assert a priveledge. If they did, they would come back to answer that question in private. Delahunt asked addington if the us engages in waterboarding. Addington referred back to a speech that the president supposedly made about not disclosing what torture techniques entail. He tried to say by not answering the question he wasn't asserting a priveledge, which was slightly ludicrous. the Chairman asked him if he would be willing to come back to a private meeting if the Congressmen felt that he asserted a priveledge, and Addington said he would have to supeona him. Apparently I only heard the sound bite where he said that he could discuss those things in 'private'. Granted, I did not watch the entire proceedings. It really boils down to who you trust or who you believe is acting in the best interests of you/me/US. There are some I would never trust, some I might trust but would watch carefully, some I trust who share my core values, but very few that I would ever trust explicitly. |
View the Top Clips from June 28, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
