[Vision2020] Habeas Corpus at Bagram

[lfalen]

Lets turn this around a bit.
Do you and Sunil believe we are a nation of laws? The Civil Rights Movement was built on civil disobedience. Do you think that was wrong and that those discrimination laws should have been obeyed? My nephew was killed by two guys at Lowell hot Springs, near Banks. This was premeditated murder. His body was left to scald in the hot water. They were sentenced to 10 years, but served less than five. Do you think that Miller should serve a life sentence unless it is proven that he killed someone? I do not think very much of throwing people up against walls. there should be better ways than what might cause physical damage. Sleep deprivation is sometimes used by the police. Do you want to send all police officers that have used this technique to jail for life?. I think that this technique might be applicable in some cases, but should be used with caution, since prolonged  sleep deprivation can sometimes bring on epileptic seizures. I have not heard you or Sunil voice any concern !
 for those
that might be killed. Instead you seem to be only concerned with the welfare of those who want to murder us. I find this disturbing. You should remember that this is not an ordinary war and that these are not the normal enemy combatants.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Andreas Schou ophite at gmail.com
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:04:00 -0700
To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Habeas Corpus at Bagram

> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:55 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> 
> > Andreas
> > 1. One might start by changing the definition of torture or by making
> > several categories of torture.
> 
> 
> Actually, until we provided retroactive immunity to US torturers through
> revisions to the War Crimes Act, our treatment of prisoners were covered
> under the War Crimes Act. We have not provided such retroactive immunity
> under either our international obligations or under otherwise existing US
> law.
> 
> 
> > 2. The Constitution not the UN should be our highest authority.
> 
> 
> Treaties, when ratified, have the weight of law. Actually, slightly higher
> than other laws. This is because for all intents and purposes, a ratified
> treaty *is* a law. The UN Convention on Torture was signed by Ronald Reagan
> in 1988 and became the law of the United States. That aside, US law
> independently prohibits torture. 18 USC 2340 criminalizes torture committed
> "under color of law." Its definition is relatively broad:  “[T]orture” means
> an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically
> intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than
> pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within
> his custody or physical control;"
> 
> Waterboarding, sensory deprivation, and sleep deprivation fall under 18 USC
> 2340(2)(D), which criminalizes "[p]rocedures calculated to disrupt
> profoundly the senses or the personality."  A profound disruption in the
> senses and personality -- in particular, to break the will of our victims --
> was the particular intention of our interrogators and those that directed
> them. Further, waterboarding was also found to be torture under US law in
> the only relevant case on the subject, U.S. v. Lee (744 F.2d 1124) in which
> three Texas deputies waterboarded a murder suspect in order to obtain a
> confession. You're most likely to find the affirmation (on other grounds) by
> the Fifth Circuit if you search for it; the District Court opinion is
> actually far more relevant.
> 
> Incidentally, on the subject of the lawyering that went into the relevant
> opinions neither US v. Lee nor the Japanese waterboarding cases were
> discussed in any detail in the so-called "torture memos."
> 
> 3. I think one should listen to all side and try to get a balanced picture(
> > Warren type Commission)
> 
> 
> You're saying that the FBI investigation, the Taguba Report, the internal
> memoranda of the OLC, the testimony of the interrogators, and the admissions
> of the Bush Administration that the President himself authorized
> waterboarding were insufficient? That we need yet more investigation? And
> that we should take seriously the protestations of people accused of crimes
> similar in severity to murder?
> 
> Whether or not we actually legalize torture, torture was a crime at the time
> it was committed. OLC opinions provided in bad faith -- as the OLC opinons
> legalizing torture must have been -- do not bar prosecution. You say we're a
> nation of laws. But what effect do those laws have when the President,
> instead of repealing those laws and withdrawing from the obligations,
> decides to evade and blithely violate them?
> 
> -- ACS
> 
>