Is the Mystery/Anonymous Poster back at TPM Muck Comment Section?

Interesting analysis of the illegality of torture (found under the comments-look at the time posted):


Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 4:50 PM:

Recall, in part, how we got here: President declared -- illegally -- the people at GTMO were not entitled to Geneva protections; and those illegal orders were applied to Iraq POWs at Abu Ghraib. The President's argument was the prisoners -- not yet correctly called POWs under Geneva -- were not protected under Geneva. The truth: GTMO prisoners were not necessarily part of either Taliban or AlQueda; many were civilians detained/imprisoned on the basis of false charges.

If, as we are to believe, the treatment of the prisoners -- "using waterboarding" -- was lawful; then there should be memoranda concluding this. Making these types of arguments, but without any connection to OLC legal memoranda raises the issue:

- Where are the legal memoranda related to these narrow issues of whether waterboarding was or was not "OK for the GTMO prisoners"

- In light of the early prisoner-treatment memos/status relative to Geneva, where are the memoranda related to how prisoners would be treated on the FALSE assumption that they were not entitled to any Geneva protections?

Whether Congress does or doesn't legalize/outlaw a specific tactic does not address the larger issue: What frivolous legal arguments are OLC legal counsel STILL MAKING relative to the EVIDENCE in re prisoner abuse, memoranda, and other activities related to alleged war crimes. Once the legal counsel's arguments are CLEARLY FRIVOLOUS -- as evidenced by a review of their memoranda, TBD -- then a case can be made that legal counsel were complicit in the unlawful war crimes against prisoners of war.

It appears the motivation of counsel isn't to narrowly protect a state secret, but to prevent -- once again -- judicial review of frivolous OLC arguments which, despite the Supreme Court ruling that GTMO prisoners were entitled to Geneva protections, failed to ensure there were policies in place to correctly handle/treat POWs in EASTERN EUROPE. The timing of the departure of the prisoners from Europe -- after the Supreme Court ruling -- shows OLC and the President knew the treatment did not meet Geneva Standards.

-snip

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004671.php#comments

Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 8:08 PM:
Follwoup to November 8, 2007 7:43 PM:

FYI: Here are some sample working group memos showing prisoner treatement was well discussed within DoD immediately after 9-11: There was no confusion within DoD what the standards were: < http://snipurl.com/powworkinggroupmemos >

No need for Congress to debate "new rules". This debate belongs in the Senate during an impeachment-trial after the House charges the President and VP with war crimes. It's the job of the House managers -- during the trial phase in the Senate -- to present the evidence from the working groups showing the standards were clear; well discussed and understood; but the policy memos/lack of Geneva enforcement was based on FRIVOLOUS legal excuses of counsel and civilian leadership.

Said another way: It is allegedly a frivolous legal defense of counsel in 2007 for DoJ OLC/DoD to argue, "The Standards were unclear" when DoD working group memos from 2002 shows the standards were clear; the legal discussions were exhaustive; and despite that understanding of the legal requirements and stated policy, no effective oversight existed to ensure prisoners of war were treated, as required, per the Geneva conventions. The problem isn't lack of clarity; but the opposite: An alleged decision to violate Geneva, despite working group information showing the civilian leadership well knew the legal requirements under the laws of war. That is not a mistake; it is alleged reckless, wilfull, knowing breach of the Geneva Conventions, despite a sworn oath of office to enforce those legal requirements. This forms the basis to broaden the war crimes indictments not just against military personnel involved, but also the civilian leadership and civilian legal counsel for alleged violations of the laws of war.

Blocking a witness from appearing on waterboarding, and telling Congress to "clarify" something isn't an error: It's part of the President's legal defense to dissuade Congress from enforcing the laws of war against him, his legal counsel, and senior policy advisers.


at the link in OP

FISA, Geneva Laws of War wrote on November 8, 2007 9:27 PM:
Comment in re < Al Swearengen wrote on November 8, 2007 9:11 PM >

The power of the President to "declare" something "unconstitutional" is in dispute, and not a "power" of the President. He only has Article II power to enforce the law, not interpret it, Article III power, delegated only to the Judiciary, even in wartime.

FISA and Geneva are laws -- once the AUMF was passed, these laws apply to the President during war time. President can't argue, "but they constrain power" as his power was EXPANDED under FISA: He's been given legal options to lawfully violate the Constitution, as long as he follows specific procedures in re FISA/FISA Court. When he ignores FISA/FISA Court, he wanders outside the protection of FISA.

His signing statements are not force of law; they are evidence of his decision to violate the law. President may not, after violating the laws of war -- FISA or Geneva -- say he will not follow the laws of war. It's not consistent for someone to argue "some laws of war" shall be followed; but other laws of war shall be ignored. Power must be used only within what the law -- Acts of Congress -- permit. Once the President crosses that line, he's outside the Constitution. ( For more, see at the link above, "FISA, Geneva Laws of War"] )

under link in OP

violated not only the Geneva Convention but the Fifth Amendment of our own United States Constitution.

The Fifth Amendment provides "Nor shall any person be . . . be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . . .

The Fifth Amendment is very broad. It applies in any "criminal case." Therefore, we must assume that the prisoners we are holding are captured because they are involved in criminal conduct and their cases are criminal cases. The Fifth Amendment applies to "any person," without qualification. Even Afghani nationals are protected by the Fifth Amendment. Since the Fifth Amendment does not limit its application to the territory within the United States, it presumably applies anywhere in the world including Afghanistan, Guantanamo or Iraq.

As far as I can see, the only conceivable purpose of torture or waterboarding other than to force prisoners to make up lies to avoid pain is to force them to testify against themselves. Therefore, it seems to me that torture violates the prisoner's rights under the Constitution. This would mean that any information obtained through torture may not be used in court against the prisoner. So what is the point? Surely there are easier ways to obtain reliable information about potential future terrorist acts. Are the extreme interrogation techniques simply exercises in sadism? And what legal recourse do the prisoners have for the violation of their Constitutional rights?

(regardless of how or if it is made up under duress) to fit your agenda.

If you read the comments at Muck you'll see the writers view the anti torture legislation proposed by the Dems is not needed and may serve to complicate things.

Last night kpete had this thread:

Well, well, well - Spector Reveals The Truth About Mukassey


Senate moves to confirm Mukasey as AG By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Senate moved to confirm Michael Mukasey as the nation's newest attorney general Thursday despite differences over his position on the legality of harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects.

..............

"He felt that he could not make that pronouncement without placing people at risk to be sued or perhaps even criminally prosecuted," said Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071109/ap_on_go_co/senate_... ;_ylt=AiW0iTe7JUJrjgRIaFsnq0Os0NUE

I wondered if this new legislation might be a way to give immunity for past crimes. Torture is a high crime and needs to be dealt with in that manner.

There were a series of research threads, and the identity of the "mystery poster" seems to have been resolved.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1692772