Religions > Atheism > C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"stoney" |
| Date: |
12 Feb 2005 07:42:40 PM |
| Object: |
C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021105J.shtml
C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial
By Scott Shane
The New York Times
Friday 11 February 2005
WASHINGTON - A contract interrogator for the Central Intelligence
Agency, charged with beating an Afghan prisoner who died the next day,
is basing his defense in part on statements by President Bush and
other officials that called for tough action to prevent terrorist
attacks and protect American lives.
Documents unsealed this week in federal court in Raleigh, N.C.,
show that the interrogator, David A. Passaro, 38, may cite top
officials' written legal justifications for harsh interrogation
techniques and a Congressional resolution passed after the Sept. 11,
2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon calling on the president
"to use all necessary and appropriate force" to thwart further
terrorism.
Mr. Passaro's lawyers contend in court filings that in passing
the legislation under which their client is charged, Congress "cannot
have contemplated" the use of the law to "provide grounds for criminal
prosecution of a battlefield interrogation of a suspected terrorist
linked to constant rocket attacks."
Thomas P. McNamara, Mr. Passaro's lead defense lawyer, has
officially notified the government that he will pursue a "public
authority defense." Such a defense involves a claim that the defendant
believed, even if incorrectly, that he was acting with the authority
and approval of the government.
Mr. Passaro, a former Army Special Forces soldier from North
Carolina was hired by the C.I.A. in 2003 to capture fighters from the
Taliban and Al Qaeda and question them at a base at Asadabad, in
northeast Afghanistan.
He was charged in June with four counts of assault, accused of
using his hands and feet and a large flashlight to beat a prisoner
named Abdul Wali over two days. Mr. Wali, who had turned himself in to
the American military after learning he was under suspicion of firing
rockets at the base, died in his cell on June 21, 2003. Mr. Passaro is
not charged in his death.
In court papers, Mr. Passaro's lawyers say the interrogation was
considered urgent because Mr. Wali might have had information that
could protect the American military from further rocket attacks.
On a Web site set up by friends and relatives to raise money for
his defense, www.savedave.us, Mr. Passaro says: "The allegations
against me are false! The Army had control of the prisoner, who
apparently died of a heart attack."
Mr. Passaro, who is free on bond but subject to a nighttime
curfew, faces up to 40 years in prison. His trial is scheduled to
begin May 1.
In court papers filed in December, Mr. McNamara, a federal public
defender, objected to the use of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 in
prosecuting his client. Among its provisions was an expansion of the
government's power to prosecute crimes committed at United States
facilities overseas.
"To subject Mr. Passaro to prosecution for actions taken in battle
and in furtherance of this wartime mission under a criminal statute
not intended for battlefield application violates the United State
Constitution, contravenes Congressional intent, and turns the Patriot
Act on its head," Mr. McNamara wrote.
Mr. McNamara declined to comment on the case.
The prosecutor, James A. Candelmo, an assistant United States
attorney, said his written response to Mr. Passaro's public authority
defense has been sealed by the court.
I. Michael Greenberger, a former Justice Department
counterterrorism official who now teaches at the University of
Maryland law school, said Mr. Passaro's claim to have been acting
under governmental authority was unlikely to result in the charges'
dismissal before trial. But it may provide some leverage to Mr.
Passaro if he tries to negotiate a plea agreement, he said.
"He's saying to the government, 'If you put me on trial, I'll drag
in a lot of your questionable past statements,' " Mr. Greenberger
said. "It could make the trial very embarrassing for the government."
While some military police officers charged with abusing detainees
at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq have tried a similar tactic, which so
far has proved unsuccessful, their cases are being handled in
courts-martial. Mr. Passaro will face a civilian jury, which may find
his arguments more appealing, Mr. Greenberger said.
Torture, American Style
By Bob Herbert
The New York Times
Friday 11 February 2005
Maher Arar is a 34-year-old native of Syria who emigrated to
Canada as a teenager. On Sept. 26, 2002, as he was returning from a
family vacation in Tunisia, he was seized by American authorities at
Kennedy Airport in New York, where he was in the process of changing
planes.
Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen, was not charged with a crime. But,
as Jane Mayer tells us in a compelling and deeply disturbing article
in the current issue of The New Yorker, he "was placed in handcuffs
and leg irons by plainclothes officials and transferred to an
executive jet."
In an instant, Mr. Arar was swept into an increasingly common
nightmare, courtesy of the United States of America. The plane that
took off with him from Kennedy "flew to Washington, continued to
Portland, Maine, stopped in Rome, Italy, then landed in Amman,
Jordan."
Any rights Mr. Arar might have thought he had, either as a
Canadian citizen or a human being, had been left behind. At times
during the trip, Mr. Arar heard the pilots and crew identify
themselves in radio communications as members of "the Special Removal
Unit." He was being taken, on the orders of the U.S. government, to
Syria, where he would be tortured.
The title of Ms. Mayer's article is "Outsourcing Torture." It's a
detailed account of the frightening and extremely secretive U.S.
program known as "extraordinary rendition."
This is one of the great euphemisms of our time. Extraordinary
rendition is the name that's been given to the policy of seizing
individuals without even the semblance of due process and sending them
off to be interrogated by regimes known to practice torture. In terms
of bad behavior, it stands side by side with contract killings.
Our henchmen in places like Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Uzbekistan and
Jordan are torturing terror suspects at the behest of a nation - the
United States - that just went through a national election in which
the issue of moral values was supposed to have been decisive. How in
the world did we become a country in which gays' getting married is
considered an abomination, but torture is O.K.?
As Ms. Mayer pointed out: "Terrorism suspects in Europe, Africa,
Asia and the Middle East have often been abducted by hooded or masked
American agents, then forced onto a Gulfstream V jet, like the one
described by Arar. ... Upon arriving in foreign countries, rendered
suspects often vanish. Detainees are not provided with lawyers, and
many families are not informed of their whereabouts."
Mr. Arar was seized because his name had turned up on a watch list
of terror suspects. He was reported to have been a co-worker of a man
in Canada whose brother was a suspected terrorist.
"Although he initially tried to assert his innocence, he
eventually confessed to anything his tormentors wanted him to say,"
Ms. Mayer wrote.
The confession under torture was worthless. Syrian officials
reported back to the United States that they could find no links
between Mr. Arar and terrorism. He was released in October 2003
without ever being charged and is now back in Canada.
Barbara Olshansky is the assistant legal director of the Center
for Constitutional Rights, which is representing Mr. Arar in a lawsuit
against the U.S. I asked her to describe Mr. Arar's physical and
emotional state following his release from custody.
She sounded shaken by the memory. "He's not a big guy," she said.
"He had lost more than 40 pounds. His pallor was terrible, and his
eyes were sunken. He looked like someone who was kind of dead inside."
Any government that commits, condones, promotes or fosters torture
is a malignant force in the world. And those who refuse to raise their
voices against something as clearly evil as torture are enablers, if
not collaborators.
There is a widespread but mistaken notion in the U.S. that
everybody seized by the government in its so-called war on terror is
in fact somehow connected to terrorist activity. That is just wildly
wrong.
Tony Blair knows a little about that sort of thing. Just two days
ago the British prime minister formally apologized to 11 people who
were wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for bombings in England by
the Irish Republican Army three decades ago.
Jettisoning the rule of law to permit such acts of evil as
kidnapping and torture is not a defensible policy for a civilized
nation. It's wrong. And nothing good can come from it.
/end
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever
with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or
sponsored by the originator.)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
13 Feb 2005 12:24:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:42:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> said in
alt.atheism:
Thomas P. McNamara, Mr. Passaro's lead defense lawyer, has
officially notified the government that he will pursue a "public
authority defense." Such a defense involves a claim that the defendant
believed, even if incorrectly, that he was acting with the authority
and approval of the government.
IOW, the "I was only following orders" defense.
We don't accept it from others, but we're going to accept it from an
American? Now there's something that'll make the world think a lot
better of us.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
13 Feb 2005 01:58:37 AM |
|
|
In article <vhst011a373tqifc3as0bhh80jgjldf7b3@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:42:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> said in
alt.atheism:
Thomas P. McNamara, Mr. Passaro's lead defense lawyer, has
officially notified the government that he will pursue a "public
authority defense." Such a defense involves a claim that the defendant
believed, even if incorrectly, that he was acting with the authority
and approval of the government.
IOW, the "I was only following orders" defense.
We don't accept it from others, but we're going to accept it from an
American? Now there's something that'll make the world think a lot
better of us.
I don't believe in the 'following orders' defense either, but I believe
in degrees of guilt. The one who carried out the orders should be
punished, but the one who gave the orders should be punished more. That
should go right up the chain of command to the one who initiated the
policy in the first place.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
13 Feb 2005 01:11:53 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:58:37 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> said in
alt.atheism:
In article <vhst011a373tqifc3as0bhh80jgjldf7b3@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:42:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> said in
alt.atheism:
Thomas P. McNamara, Mr. Passaro's lead defense lawyer, has
officially notified the government that he will pursue a "public
authority defense." Such a defense involves a claim that the defendant
believed, even if incorrectly, that he was acting with the authority
and approval of the government.
IOW, the "I was only following orders" defense.
We don't accept it from others, but we're going to accept it from an
American? Now there's something that'll make the world think a lot
better of us.
I don't believe in the 'following orders' defense either, but I believe
in degrees of guilt. The one who carried out the orders should be
punished, but the one who gave the orders should be punished more. That
should go right up the chain of command to the one who initiated the
policy in the first place.
I'm not sure about that. The one who issued the order "Get the
information at any cost" should pay more than the one who took a week
torturing the victim to death? I think depraved indifference murder
is worse than not realizing what someone will make of your
not-well-thought-out orders.
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
13 Feb 2005 02:21:44 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:dg9v01lqcur0mdei37s4icgd951jg3jrbt@4ax.com:
I don't believe in the 'following orders' defense either, but I believe
in degrees of guilt. The one who carried out the orders should be
punished, but the one who gave the orders should be punished more. That
should go right up the chain of command to the one who initiated the
policy in the first place.
I'm not sure about that. The one who issued the order "Get the
information at any cost" should pay more than the one who took a week
torturing the victim to death? I think depraved indifference murder
is worse than not realizing what someone will make of your
not-well-thought-out orders.
That's the job of the civilian government. They make policy and the
military carries out that policy. That DOES NOT excuse the soldier who
carries out the illegal order, but "Get the information at any cost" is a
pretty clear order, and it doesn't take any stretching to get "including
torture" out of "at any cost".
--
Enkidu AA# 2165
Fear of power invisible, feigned by the mind or imagined from tales
publicly allowed, religion; not allowed, superstition.
-- Thomas Hobbes
Now playing: David & David - Swallowed by the Cracks
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
14 Feb 2005 12:30:16 AM |
|
|
In article <dg9v01lqcur0mdei37s4icgd951jg3jrbt@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:58:37 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> said in
alt.atheism:
In article <vhst011a373tqifc3as0bhh80jgjldf7b3@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:42:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> said in
alt.atheism:
Thomas P. McNamara, Mr. Passaro's lead defense lawyer, has
officially notified the government that he will pursue a "public
authority defense." Such a defense involves a claim that the defendant
believed, even if incorrectly, that he was acting with the authority
and approval of the government.
IOW, the "I was only following orders" defense.
We don't accept it from others, but we're going to accept it from an
American? Now there's something that'll make the world think a lot
better of us.
I don't believe in the 'following orders' defense either, but I believe
in degrees of guilt. The one who carried out the orders should be
punished, but the one who gave the orders should be punished more. That
should go right up the chain of command to the one who initiated the
policy in the first place.
I'm not sure about that. The one who issued the order "Get the
information at any cost" should pay more than the one who took a week
torturing the victim to death? I think depraved indifference murder
is worse than not realizing what someone will make of your
not-well-thought-out orders.
Someone should bear the responsibility for oversight. If the person who
did the deed did so in a way that was not the intent of the one in
authority, then the commander has the responsibility to call the
perpetrator to account for his/her actions. If the person in charge
knows about the violation and does nothing, that person is at least an
accessory after after the fact.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
13 Feb 2005 09:26:43 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:58:37 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <vhst011a373tqifc3as0bhh80jgjldf7b3@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:42:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> said in
alt.atheism:
Thomas P. McNamara, Mr. Passaro's lead defense lawyer, has
officially notified the government that he will pursue a "public
authority defense." Such a defense involves a claim that the defendant
believed, even if incorrectly, that he was acting with the authority
and approval of the government.
IOW, the "I was only following orders" defense.
We don't accept it from others, but we're going to accept it from an
American? Now there's something that'll make the world think a lot
better of us.
I don't believe in the 'following orders' defense either, but I believe
in degrees of guilt. The one who carried out the orders should be
punished, but the one who gave the orders should be punished more.
Indeed.
That
should go right up the chain of command to the one who initiated the
policy in the first place.
BushCo.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
14 Feb 2005 12:23:56 AM |
|
|
In article <ti6011drgqla80j5gdt4h50m34qtopkn4k@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:58:37 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <vhst011a373tqifc3as0bhh80jgjldf7b3@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:42:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> said in
alt.atheism:
Thomas P. McNamara, Mr. Passaro's lead defense lawyer, has
officially notified the government that he will pursue a "public
authority defense." Such a defense involves a claim that the defendant
believed, even if incorrectly, that he was acting with the authority
and approval of the government.
IOW, the "I was only following orders" defense.
We don't accept it from others, but we're going to accept it from an
American? Now there's something that'll make the world think a lot
better of us.
I don't believe in the 'following orders' defense either, but I believe
in degrees of guilt. The one who carried out the orders should be
punished, but the one who gave the orders should be punished more.
Indeed.
That
should go right up the chain of command to the one who initiated the
policy in the first place.
BushCo.
One of the wisest sayings: "A fish rots from the head first."
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
13 Feb 2005 08:27:20 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-8DA3F2.23583712022005@news.giganews.com:
In article <vhst011a373tqifc3as0bhh80jgjldf7b3@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:42:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> said in
alt.atheism:
Thomas P. McNamara, Mr. Passaro's lead defense lawyer, has
officially notified the government that he will pursue a "public
authority defense." Such a defense involves a claim that the
defendant believed, even if incorrectly, that he was acting with the
authority and approval of the government.
IOW, the "I was only following orders" defense.
We don't accept it from others, but we're going to accept it from an
American? Now there's something that'll make the world think a lot
better of us.
I don't believe in the 'following orders' defense either, but I
believe in degrees of guilt. The one who carried out the orders should
be punished, but the one who gave the orders should be punished more.
That should go right up the chain of command to the one who initiated
the policy in the first place.
Give the man a cigar! That's exactly right. The poor dumb private is
less culpable than the general, who is slightly less culpable than the
Secratary of Defense, and the ultimate blame belongs with the prestident
if it can be shown he approved orally or in writing, or that he knew and
failed to put a stop to illegal policies of his repellent minions.
--
Enkidu AA# 2165
I cannot see how a man of any large degree of humorous perception can
ever be religious -- unless he purposely shut the eyes of his mind &
keep them shut by force.
-- Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
13 Feb 2005 01:12:58 PM |
|
|
On 13 Feb 2005 14:27:20 GMT, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> said in
alt.atheism:
Give the man a cigar! That's exactly right. The poor dumb private is
less culpable than the general, who is slightly less culpable than the
Secratary of Defense, and the ultimate blame belongs with the prestident
if it can be shown he approved orally or in writing, or that he knew and
failed to put a stop to illegal policies of his repellent minions.
You're assuming a certain level of intelligence for Shrub that I don't
think is warranted. Maybe holding Cheney responsible would work.
--
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
13 Feb 2005 02:13:15 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:ck9v01dmi74tsp57bra2ukmkc701g10b4u@4ax.com:
On 13 Feb 2005 14:27:20 GMT, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> said in
alt.atheism:
Give the man a cigar! That's exactly right. The poor dumb private is
less culpable than the general, who is slightly less culpable than the
Secratary of Defense, and the ultimate blame belongs with the
prestident if it can be shown he approved orally or in writing, or
that he knew and failed to put a stop to illegal policies of his
repellent minions.
You're assuming a certain level of intelligence for Shrub that I don't
think is warranted. Maybe holding Cheney responsible would work.
"Ignorance is no excuse under the law." And underlings can be held
accountable, as at Nuremberg.
--
Enkidu AA# 2165
Fear of power invisible, feigned by the mind or imagined from tales
publicly allowed, religion; not allowed, superstition.
-- Thomas Hobbes
Now playing: David & David - Swallowed by the Cracks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
13 Feb 2005 02:42:19 PM |
|
|
On 13 Feb 2005 20:13:15 GMT, Enkidu <zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com> said in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:ck9v01dmi74tsp57bra2ukmkc701g10b4u@4ax.com:
You're assuming a certain level of intelligence for Shrub that I don't
think is warranted. Maybe holding Cheney responsible would work.
"Ignorance is no excuse under the law."
Ignorance of the law isn't. Sheer idiocy may be. It goes to
competency, and so far Shrub has never shown any.
--
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
13 Feb 2005 02:58:12 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:jrev01hl3nl6pedn72p5k4jkacccqo9qr9@4ax.com:
On 13 Feb 2005 20:13:15 GMT, Enkidu <zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com> said in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:ck9v01dmi74tsp57bra2ukmkc701g10b4u@4ax.com:
You're assuming a certain level of intelligence for Shrub that I
don't think is warranted. Maybe holding Cheney responsible would
work.
"Ignorance is no excuse under the law."
Ignorance of the law isn't. Sheer idiocy may be. It goes to
competency, and so far Shrub has never shown any.
You may have a point there. "Incompetent to stand trial" might get him
off. Pretty much worked for Reagan. They just didn't use that exact
wording.
--
Enkidu AA# 2165
The being cannot be termed rational or virtuous, who obeys any
authority, but that of reason.
-- Mary Wollstonecraft
Now playing: David & David - Welcome to the Boomtown
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
14 Feb 2005 12:34:00 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns95FC84006C7255229@130.133.1.4>,
Enkidu <zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:jrev01hl3nl6pedn72p5k4jkacccqo9qr9@4ax.com:
On 13 Feb 2005 20:13:15 GMT, Enkidu <zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com> said in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:ck9v01dmi74tsp57bra2ukmkc701g10b4u@4ax.com:
You're assuming a certain level of intelligence for Shrub that I
don't think is warranted. Maybe holding Cheney responsible would
work.
"Ignorance is no excuse under the law."
Ignorance of the law isn't. Sheer idiocy may be. It goes to
competency, and so far Shrub has never shown any.
You may have a point there. "Incompetent to stand trial" might get him
off. Pretty much worked for Reagan. They just didn't use that exact
wording.
I'm sure if the Shrub were declared 'incompetent' not too many would be
surprised.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
13 Feb 2005 09:27:12 PM |
|
|
On 13 Feb 2005 14:27:20 GMT, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-8DA3F2.23583712022005@news.giganews.com:
In article <vhst011a373tqifc3as0bhh80jgjldf7b3@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:42:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> said in
alt.atheism:
Thomas P. McNamara, Mr. Passaro's lead defense lawyer, has
officially notified the government that he will pursue a "public
authority defense." Such a defense involves a claim that the
defendant believed, even if incorrectly, that he was acting with the
authority and approval of the government.
IOW, the "I was only following orders" defense.
We don't accept it from others, but we're going to accept it from an
American? Now there's something that'll make the world think a lot
better of us.
I don't believe in the 'following orders' defense either, but I
believe in degrees of guilt. The one who carried out the orders should
be punished, but the one who gave the orders should be punished more.
That should go right up the chain of command to the one who initiated
the policy in the first place.
Give the man a cigar! That's exactly right. The poor dumb private is
less culpable than the general, who is slightly less culpable than the
Secratary of Defense, and the ultimate blame belongs with the prestident
if it can be shown he approved orally or in writing, or that he knew and
failed to put a stop to illegal policies of his repellent minions.
Shrub initiated it in the first place.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
13 Feb 2005 09:26:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 06:24:10 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:42:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> said in
alt.atheism:
Thomas P. McNamara, Mr. Passaro's lead defense lawyer, has
officially notified the government that he will pursue a "public
authority defense." Such a defense involves a claim that the defendant
believed, even if incorrectly, that he was acting with the authority
and approval of the government.
IOW, the "I was only following orders" defense.
We don't accept it from others, but we're going to accept it from an
American?
IIRC, the convicted soldiers (abu prison) tried it and it wasn't
accepted.
Now there's something that'll make the world think a lot
better of us.
There's not a latitude left for being though worse.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
13 Feb 2005 11:22:45 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:26:11 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> said in
alt.atheism:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 06:24:10 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
IOW, the "I was only following orders" defense.
We don't accept it from others, but we're going to accept it from an
American?
IIRC, the convicted soldiers (abu prison) tried it and it wasn't
accepted.
In Nuremberg we didn't accept it from the leaders. Here we don't
acknowledge that it came from the leaders. Quis custodiet ipsos
custodes?
Now there's something that'll make the world think a lot
better of us.
There's not a latitude left for being though worse.
There's any at all?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
14 Feb 2005 05:54:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:22:45 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:26:11 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> said in
alt.atheism:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 06:24:10 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
IOW, the "I was only following orders" defense.
We don't accept it from others, but we're going to accept it from an
American?
IIRC, the convicted soldiers (abu prison) tried it and it wasn't
accepted.
In Nuremberg we didn't accept it from the leaders. Here we don't
acknowledge that it came from the leaders. Quis custodiet ipsos
custodes?
Now there's something that'll make the world think a lot
better of us.
There's not a latitude left for being though worse.
There's any at all?
Probably not. Don't worry, the Rethugs will restart digging.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
14 Feb 2005 08:51:55 AM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021105J.shtml
C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial
By Scott Shane
The New York Times
Friday 11 February 2005
WASHINGTON - A contract interrogator for the Central Intelligence
Agency, charged with beating an Afghan prisoner who died the next day,
is basing his defense in part on statements by President Bush and
other officials that called for tough action to prevent terrorist
attacks and protect American lives.
If this were any other situation at all -- say, a person who used the
words of a white supremacist as an excuse for beating a black man to
death, or a person who used the statements of a fundamentalist preacher as
an excuse for beating a gay man to death -- then not only would the
perpetrator of the violence be found guilty on confession of murder, but
the person used as an excuse would be arrested and tried for incitment to
commit murder.
I hope this "contract interrogator" is convicted. That would allow decent
folks to grab Bush when he's out of office and charge him for incitement.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial |
14 Feb 2005 05:55:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 06:51:55 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
stoney wrote:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021105J.shtml
C.I.A. Interrogator's Defense to Cite Bush at Brutality Trial
By Scott Shane
The New York Times
Friday 11 February 2005
WASHINGTON - A contract interrogator for the Central Intelligence
Agency, charged with beating an Afghan prisoner who died the next day,
is basing his defense in part on statements by President Bush and
other officials that called for tough action to prevent terrorist
attacks and protect American lives.
If this were any other situation at all -- say, a person who used the
words of a white supremacist as an excuse for beating a black man to
death, or a person who used the statements of a fundamentalist preacher as
an excuse for beating a gay man to death -- then not only would the
perpetrator of the violence be found guilty on confession of murder, but
the person used as an excuse would be arrested and tried for incitment to
commit murder.
I hope this "contract interrogator" is convicted. That would allow decent
folks to grab Bush when he's out of office and charge him for incitement.
Decent folks are all too few to prevail.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
