http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pelosi-torture15-2009may15,0,2174313.story

the choice comment comes from Boner:

"It is hard for me to imagine that anyone in the intelligence area would ever mislead a member of Congress," Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Republican minority leader, said today.

I bet he still finds it hard that the Easter Bunny isn't real either.  Everyone know that what they did was torture, but to think the CIA would come right out and admit it in front of the Congress critters?  That shows some naivety right there.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pelosi-torture15-2009may15,0,2174313.story

the choice comment comes from Boner:

"It is hard for me to imagine that anyone in the intelligence area would ever mislead a member of Congress," Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Republican minority leader, said today.

I bet he still finds it hard that the Easter Bunny isn't real either.  Everyone know that what they did was torture, but to think the CIA would come right out and admit it in front of the Congress critters?  That shows some naivety right there.



What?!!! The Easter Bunny isn't real??  :o :o :o




Cat

I think she knew it all along.  Nancy's not stupid just politically steered wherever the power is.

Nancy knew that the waterboarding was going on.  Heck, I doubt that there is anybody in the U.S. of A. who did not know it was going on.

As to the comment about intelligence agencies not misleading the Congress?  Heh heh... Gave me a good chuckle.  Disinformation is part and parcel to the intelligence biz.

Nancy knew that the waterboarding was going on.  Heck, I doubt that there is anybody in the U.S. of A. who did not know it was going on.

As to the comment about intelligence agencies not misleading the Congress?  Heh heh... Gave me a good chuckle.  Disinformation is part and parcel to the intelligence biz.


Yeah, I'm with you on both counts 'cept I think Mr. Boner said that out of sheer cynicism.
::)

Nancy is a powerhungry opportunist, just like Boehner.

Nancy is a powerhungry opportunist, just like Boehner.


It sounds like Nancy does not like Bohner

Yeah, I'm with you on both counts 'cept I think Mr. Boner said that out of sheer cynicism.
::)
THAT'S PRONOUNCED "BAYNER"!  >:(

Nancy knew that the waterboarding was going on.  Heck, I doubt that there is anybody in the U.S. of A. who did not know it was going on.

As to the comment about intelligence agencies not misleading the Congress?  Heh heh... Gave me a good chuckle.  Disinformation is part and parcel to the intelligence biz.


Depends on when. 

I don't trust Nancy any more than I trust Boehner.  I would like to see her gone and forgotten

Depends on when. 


Well she's already admitted she knew by 2003.

THAT'S PRONOUNCED "BAYNER"!  >:(

Depends on when.
:P

Nancy isn't exactly my favorite person but this doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever!!!! So rather than going after the people who authorized it-like say Dick Cheney, let's go after someone who may or may not have been briefed about it. And even if she was briefed, what could she do? She couldn't say anything because it was top secret.



Cat

Nancy isn't exactly my favorite person but this doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever!!!! So rather than going after the people who authorized it-like say Dick Cheney, let's go after someone who may or may not have been briefed about it. And even if she was briefed, what could she do? She couldn't say anything because it was top secret.

Cat


So far, so good.  Except why does she want to lie about it now?  There is certainly no legal reason to lie, unless the Congressional committee gave its approval to the action, which could make her complicit, and a target of the legal proceedings that she is trying to start.

We might be able to charge Pelosi as an accessory if we had the moral fiber in this country to put Bush and Cheney on trial as war criminals.
::)

It sounds like Nancy does not like Bohner


No, that's the Secretary of State, but this is a torture thread, not a gay/lesbian rights thread.  *rimshot*

We might be able to charge Pelosi as an accessory if we had the moral fiber in this country to put Bush and Cheney on trial as war criminals.
::)


I didn't like Bush and Cheney much, but charging them wouldn't accomplish much.  Neither would charging Pelosi.

I didn't like Bush and Cheney much, but charging them wouldn't accomplish much.  Neither would charging Pelosi.


It would accomplish a great deal.  Like showing that no one is above the law, serving justice, and demonstrating to the world that when we make a mess we will clean it up.  Weigh torture against Bill Clinton's embrollios.

It would accomplish a great deal.  Like showing that no one is above the law, serving justice, and demonstrating to the world that when we make a mess we will clean it up.  Weigh torture against Bill Clinton's embrollios.


The impeachment of Clinton didn't accomplish much either.

My argument is that none of this makes a difference.  The prosecution of Nixon was one of the few cases where something had to be done.

With torture, the laws are too murky to actually impeach or prosecute Bush and Cheney.  For example, the Geneva Conventions don't quite apply to terrorists (or suspected foreign nationals).  Neither does the Constitution.

A much more proactive approach would be to pass legislation that prevents anything like this from happening again in the future.  Dwelling on the past does little to better the world (as Israel and Palestine need to learn as well).

The impeachment of Clinton didn't accomplish much either.

My argument is that none of this makes a difference.  The prosecution of Nixon was one of the few cases where something had to be done.

With torture, the laws are too murky to actually impeach or prosecute Bush and Cheney.  For example, the Geneva Conventions don't quite apply to terrorists (or suspected foreign nationals).  Neither does the Constitution.

A much more proactive approach would be to pass legislation that prevents anything like this from happening again in the future.  Dwelling on the past does little to better the world (as Israel and Palestine need to learn as well).




It makes a hell of a difference. If members of the Bush Administration-including the big honcho himself, are NOT prosecuted for crimes against the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions & against humanity, this country is doomed. It will set a precedence where any future president can break any law they wish to. We may go forward with no problem and then some future date, some asshole is elected president and all hell breaks loose. It has already happened. Nixon was pardoned by Ford before any charges against him were issued. The Bush Administration has used that rational to do whatever they wanted. Even Condi Rice used Nixon's rational-"If the President does it, it is not illegal." Do you seriously want the President-ANY President from either the right or the left to be able to do whatever they want without any consequences? I for one, do not want that. I don't want ANYBODY, I don't care if they live at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, D.C. to take away my rights under the Constitution-and I don't care what reason they use!



Cat   

It makes a hell of a difference. If members of the Bush Administration-including the big honcho himself, are NOT prosecuted for crimes against the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions & against humanity, this country is doomed. It will set a precedence where any future president can break any law they wish to. We may go forward with no problem and then some future date, some asshole is elected president and all hell breaks loose. It has already happened. Nixon was pardoned by Ford before any charges against him were issued. The Bush Administration has used that rational to do whatever they wanted. Even Condi Rice used Nixon's rational-"If the President does it, it is not illegal." Do you seriously want the President-ANY President from either the right or the left to be able to do whatever they want without any consequences? I for one, do not want that. I don't want ANYBODY, I don't care if they live at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, D.C. to take away my rights under the Constitution-and I don't care what reason they use!



Cat   


Um...  I don't mean to burst your bubble, but again, the Geneva Conventions are limited in their application to things like Gitmo.  In addition to this, international law is usually pretty impotent on these things.

To be honest, I prefer that.

I don't want some international body superceding our own laws just because some council in Belgium doesn't like what we're doing.  I much prefer sovereignty over international governments.

For the most part, the U.N. is useless.  About the only point it has is giving an intervention international credibility.

So again, I'd much rather we set our own explicit laws against torture, which would be much easier to prosecute a president on.  The main problem is that we don't really have much in the way of laws against torture on terror suspects.  Because of this, Bush and Cheney can't really be charged with much.

If Bush and Cheney can't be convicted of crimes against the Constitution, I'm sure there are numerable lesser crimes they could be convicted of that would result in prison sentences. The story of Al Capone comes to mind.

Ant

Um...  I don't mean to burst your bubble, but again, the Geneva Conventions are limited in their application to things like Gitmo.  In addition to this, international law is usually pretty impotent on these things.

To be honest, I prefer that.

I don't want some international body superceding our own laws just because some council in Belgium doesn't like what we're doing.  I much prefer sovereignty over international governments.

For the most part, the U.N. is useless.  About the only point it has is giving an intervention international credibility.

So again, I'd much rather we set our own explicit laws against torture, which would be much easier to prosecute a president on.  The main problem is that we don't really have much in the way of laws against torture on terror suspects.  Because of this, Bush and Cheney can't really be charged with much.



How the Bush Administration conducted Gitmo violates:



Amendment 8: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 6: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The Bush Administration held these guys at Gitmo-which is NOT part of the U.S. so they can use the excuse that it was not on U.S. territory so therefore not subject to the Constitution and I say that is total bullsh!t! They are being held by the U.S. so therefore they fall under the U.S. jurisdiction and are subject to the laws of the U.S. They also titled them "Enemy Combatants" so therefore they are NOT P.O.W.s and are not subject to the laws governing P.O.W.s such as the Geneva Conventions. Again, total bullsh!t!


BTW, other amendments they violated at home.

Amendment 1 - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 4 - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



Cat

I think people would be surprised (I would not) at what has been authorized "behind closed doors" by presidents of both the Democrat and Republican persuasion.

CIA "renditions" have been going on for decades. Bill Clinton, with the enthusiastic counsel of Al Gore, undertook extraordinary renditions of suspected terrorists to Egypt back in 1995 or so.  And the Egyptians were not greeting the rendees with a bubble bath and a foot massage, that's for sure.  Ronald Reagan practiced rendition as well, and while I cannot find any references to Bush #1, I would imagine that he too was a practitioner.

It's interesting that the same people who would want to prosecute Bush et al for these programs are the same ones who would rather sweep under the rug the fact that senior Democratic legislators were fully aware of the various programs and supported them and were therefore "accessories to the act".

So if we are to open up prosecutions, we'll have to clear out plenty of senior legislators.  Let the games begin!

As to "violations of the Geneva Convention", as far as I know, none of the people at Gitmo (or otherwise rendered persons of interest) fit the following definition under the 4th Article of the Geneva Conventions: (items that I have bold-faced are specific areas in which terrorists clearly are in noncompliance)

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (Terrorists are not part of any armed force, they are militias of their own making)

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

How the Bush Administration conducted Gitmo violates:



None of those rules are violations because the criminals are not American citizens, they never set foot on American soil, and therefore they have no rights under the CONUS.

However as regards Gitmo, from the beginning I have felt, and said, that it was a mistake.  Gitmo was destined from the beginning to be a festering political problem which would only get worse.  There was really no end-game, exit strategy.

The "law of common sense" was violated with the creation of Gitmo.  Why the Bush Administration created the Gitmo jail baffles me.  The small-potato guys should have been dispatched on the battlefield with a bullet through their heads, and the "high value" guys should have been rendered to third-party countries who could do the dirty work, as has been our custom for decades.

How the Bush Administration conducted Gitmo violates:



Amendment 8: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 6: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The Bush Administration held these guys at Gitmo-which is NOT part of the U.S. so they can use the excuse that it was not on U.S. territory so therefore not subject to the Constitution and I say that is total bullsh!t! They are being held by the U.S. so therefore they fall under the U.S. jurisdiction and are subject to the laws of the U.S. They also titled them "Enemy Combatants" so therefore they are NOT P.O.W.s and are not subject to the laws governing P.O.W.s such as the Geneva Conventions. Again, total bullsh!t!


BTW, other amendments they violated at home.

Amendment 1 - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 4 - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



Cat


The Constitution only apples to U.S. citizens, not foreign nationals.

The Constitution only apples to U.S. citizens, not foreign nationals.


What about American citizens who are in there for "suspected" terror activities?  I haven't heard news of any of them getting the fair trial.

What about American citizens who are in there for "suspected" terror activities?  I haven't heard news of any of them getting the fair trial.


Very true.  That is something with more prosecution potential.  If you limit the case to prosecuting those directly responsible for torturing American citizens suspected of terror, then you might send a few people to jail.

It would be harder to actually prosecute Bush and Cheney for that though.

Even if you can find a loop in the law allowing the torture of unlawful enemy combatants, it's still torture, and it's still morally degrading!

Even if you can find a loop in the law allowing the torture of unlawful enemy combatants, it's still torture, and it's still morally degrading!



What's immoral and what's illegal are often two very different things.  Only the latter guarantees punishment.

Bottom Line....the big deal isn't wether Nancy Pelosi might be telling the truth or may not be. The Big deal is she said the CIA misled us. In my opinion she should have never said that because you don;t ever want to make an organization like the CIA look bad.

All John Boehner said was if she's not lieing provide proof. If she can't provide proof she should apologize. Its not like Boehner wants Pelosi to resign as Speaker Of the House.

How could she not have known?  How can someone be mislead about waterboarding.  It was used in the Spanish Inquisition for pete sake!!! >:(

Bottom Line....the big deal isn't wether Nancy Pelosi might be telling the truth or may not be. The Big deal is she said the CIA misled us. In my opinion she should have never said that because you don;t ever want to make an organization like the CIA look bad.

All John Boehner said was if she's not lieing provide proof. If she can't provide proof she should apologize. Its not like Boehner wants Pelosi to resign as Speaker Of the House.


Well, to be fair, the CIA already does a great job of making itself look bad without Pelosi.

The Constitution only apples to U.S. citizens, not foreign nationals.



That is NOT true. That is what the Bush Administration wants everyone to believe. If a foreign national in this country either legally or illegally, is suspect of any type of crime, they are subject to the same judicial rights as an U.S. citizen. And if it is during the time of war-such as the people in Gitmo are, then they are P.O.W.s and are subject to treatment under the Geneva Conventions. By naming the "enemy combatants", the Bush Administration tried to skirt around their treatment.


What all of this means is that the Bush Administration committed crimes and need to be held accountable. NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW!!!!



Cat

That is NOT true. That is what the Bush Administration wants everyone to believe. If a foreign national in this country either legally or illegally, is suspect of any type of crime, they are subject to the same judicial rights as an U.S. citizen. And if it is during the time of war-such as the people in Gitmo are, then they are P.O.W.s and are subject to treatment under the Geneva Conventions. By naming the "enemy combatants", the Bush Administration tried to skirt around their treatment.


What all of this means is that the Bush Administration committed crimes and need to be held accountable. NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW!!!!



Cat


Where does the Constitution explicitly say that it applies to non-citizens?  This is a serious question, because I've yet to see it, but I acknowledge that I could be wrong.

Where does the Constitution explicitly say that it applies to non-citizens?  This is a serious question, because I've yet to see it, but I acknowledge that I could be wrong.
the constitution doesn't really "apply" or "not apply" to citizens or non-citizens. it puts restraints on the exercise of government power, and is directed toward the government more than toward a select group of people. where it does talk about individual rights, it seems to be talking about human rights, not about the rights that apply only to the citizens of a certain country.

That is NOT true. That is what the Bush Administration wants everyone to believe. If a foreign national in this country either legally or illegally, is suspect of any type of crime, they are subject to the same judicial rights as an U.S. citizen. And if it is during the time of war-such as the people in Gitmo are, then they are P.O.W.s and are subject to treatment under the Geneva Conventions. By naming the "enemy combatants", the Bush Administration tried to skirt around their treatment.


What all of this means is that the Bush Administration committed crimes and need to be held accountable. NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW!!!!



Cat



Right as rain.  When in our country they are bound to our rules just as when we are in their countries we are bound by their rules. It is a matter of basic elevation of human rights that we as a country have supposedly been fighting for for over 250 years.  To say that anyone, for any reason, do not deserve those rights is to set back the clock on civilization for all.

Where does the Constitution explicitly say that it applies to non-citizens?  This is a serious question, because I've yet to see it, but I acknowledge that I could be wrong.


As Tia and Danoota said, the PROTECTIONS of the Constitution apply to anyone under the jurisdiction of the US, which includes US military or diplomatic properties over seas.  Even illegal aliens accused of crimes are entitled to all of the protections. 

As Tia and Danoota said, the PROTECTIONS of the Constitution apply to anyone under the jurisdiction of the US, which includes US military or diplomatic properties over seas.  Even illegal aliens accused of crimes are entitled to all of the protections.   


Here's an interesting counterargument.

http://www.lifelikepundits.com/archives/002789.php

How could she not have known?  How can someone be mislead about waterboarding.  It was used in the Spanish Inquisition for pete sake!!! >:(


Plausible Deniability.

A statement like "Sen. Pelosi, we're waterboarding people" offers no plausible deniability.  What's there in that for either side?

But a statement like "Sen. Pelosi, we have a memo from the Attorney-General that says that waterboarding isn't torture", that's pure gold.  It means the same thing as "Of course we're doing it!", but offers both sides plausible deniability.  The CIA can claim they're not torturing.  Pelosi can claim she was never told that CIA was waterboarding, and that the CIA told her that whatever they were doing, they certainly weren't torturing. 

It's all about the doublethink.  Torture's illegal, this is legal, therefore it's not torture.  Since nobody actually said it was being done, only that if it were to be done, it would be considered legal, it doesn't even matter if it's torture or not.  Since it was considered legal by the Attorney-General, it doesn't matter if the Supreme Court would agree, because the only person who could bring charges would be the Attorney-General, and he - having decided it was legal - chose not to bring charges. 


What's immoral and what's illegal are often two very different things.  Only the latter guarantees punishment.


Even if we were a nation of laws, and not a nation of men, we have a legal system, not a justice system. 

Whether we're talking about the War on Some Drugs ("booze is legal, therefore it's not as dangerous as pot, which is illegal") or the torture question ("it's legal, therefore it's not torture, because torture is illegal"), the Party maintains much of its hold on power by the conflation of legality with morality. 

Of course, we're no longer a nation of laws, we're a nation of men.  Those with the most political pull make it legal.  In a government of lawyers, by lawyers, for lawyers, that's the only morality any of the Inner Party is capable of understanding.  Today we passed a law saying it's legal to be at war with Eastasia; it's always been legal to be at war with Eastasia.

What's immoral and what's illegal are often two very different things. 


No sh*t Sherlock!
::)

OK. Now let's read that 14th Amendment again

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

They can pretty it up with rigamarole and try to justify their actions, just as they justified denial of rights to African Americans by saying they were only 3/5ths human, but that is all it is, justifications that, hopefully, will not stand the test of time

OK. Now let's read that 14th Amendment again

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

They can pretty it up with rigamarole and try to justify their actions, just as they justified denial of rights to African Americans by saying they were only 3/5ths human, but that is all it is, justifications that, hopefully, will not stand the test of time


Karma to you

Plausible Deniability.

A statement like "Sen. Pelosi, we're waterboarding people" offers no plausible deniability.  What's there in that for either side?

But a statement like "Sen. Pelosi, we have a memo from the Attorney-General that says that waterboarding isn't torture", that's pure gold.  It means the same thing as "Of course we're doing it!", but offers both sides plausible deniability.  The CIA can claim they're not torturing.  Pelosi can claim she was never told that CIA was waterboarding, and that the CIA told her that whatever they were doing, they certainly weren't torturing. 

It's all about the doublethink.  Torture's illegal, this is legal, therefore it's not torture.  Since nobody actually said it was being done, only that if it were to be done, it would be considered legal, it doesn't even matter if it's torture or not.  Since it was considered legal by the Attorney-General, it doesn't matter if the Supreme Court would agree, because the only person who could bring charges would be the Attorney-General, and he - having decided it was legal - chose not to bring charges. 

Even if we were a nation of laws, and not a nation of men, we have a legal system, not a justice system. 

Whether we're talking about the War on Some Drugs ("booze is legal, therefore it's not as dangerous as pot, which is illegal") or the torture question ("it's legal, therefore it's not torture, because torture is illegal"), the Party maintains much of its hold on power by the conflation of legality with morality. 

Of course, we're no longer a nation of laws, we're a nation of men.  Those with the most political pull make it legal.  In a government of lawyers, by lawyers, for lawyers, that's the only morality any of the Inner Party is capable of understanding.  Today we passed a law saying it's legal to be at war with Eastasia; it's always been legal to be at war with Eastasia.



When did Pelosi get elected to the Senate?  ;) :D :D ;D ;D


Ok, just yanking you chain.



Cat

No sh*t Sherlock!
::)


Again, just because it's not counterintuitive, it doesn't make it worth ignoring, which is what some people in this thread seem to be doing.

OK. Now let's read that 14th Amendment again

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

They can pretty it up with rigamarole and try to justify their actions, just as they justified denial of rights to African Americans by saying they were only 3/5ths human, but that is all it is, justifications that, hopefully, will not stand the test of time


From my above link...

"The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says that no 'person' shall be denied equal protection of the laws. Since the Equal Protection Clause specifically says 'person' and not 'citizen,' the Supreme Court long ago said that non-citizens have access to the protection of law in our court system. (See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)) But by looking at the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause in the same section we see it specifically says 'citizen.' Therefore some discrepency between citizen and non-citizen is established in the text. The Supreme Court has ruled, based on this wording, that discriminatory treatment of non-citizens by statute or executive order will not necessarily fail. Specifically, the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress’ plenary power to control some things (like immigration) and the President’s duty to protect the country both require greater judicial deference, and as such a far less strict judicial review takes place. (See e.g. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976), upholding a law denying Medicaid benefits to aliens not admitted for permanent residence) However, such deference is not extended to administrative agencies when they act without direct executive order. (See Hamptom v. Wong, 426 U.S. 88 (1976)) President Bush issued an executive order on the detention of non-citizens on November 13, 2001, and it is based on this executive order that terrorists are detained at Guantanamo."

Case law apparently allows for some ambiguity as to whether or not non-citizens apply, because of the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

I don't care how many ways you want to run it through the legal mill, if our country tolerates torture of anybody...and I mean anybody...it diminishes each and every one of us as Americans. 

Pelosi did not call the Geneva Conventions "quaint," and she did not write any of those wicked little memos profaning the spirit of Christianity.

And that's that.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/pfiade.gif

I don't care how many ways you want to run it through the legal mill, if our country tolerates torture of anybody...and I mean anybody...it diminishes each and every one of us as Americans. 

Pelosi did not call the Geneva Conventions "quaint," and she did not write any of those wicked little memos profaning the spirit of Christianity.

And that's that.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/pfiade.gif


I don't like the whole religious angle Rumsfeld took either, but the law is the law.  If no law explicitly bans torture, then one needs to be written before any real action to prosecute can be taken.

For example, we could clear up this whole ambiguity of whether or not the Constitution applies to non-citizens with another Amendment.

the 14th amendment passage is saying that no rightful US or state citizen will be denied the privileges afforded all citizens, and that in addition, it seems obvious the life, liberty or property applies to all people. but the citizen stuff is about not giving out the privileges of citizenship selectively, not about who gets or doesn't get basic human rights.

From my above link...

"The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says that no 'person' shall be denied equal protection of the laws. Since the Equal Protection Clause specifically says 'person' and not 'citizen,' the Supreme Court long ago said that non-citizens have access to the protection of law in our court system. (See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)) But by looking at the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause in the same section we see it specifically says 'citizen.' Therefore some discrepency between citizen and non-citizen is established in the text. The Supreme Court has ruled, based on this wording, that discriminatory treatment of non-citizens by statute or executive order will not necessarily fail. Specifically, the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress’ plenary power to control some things (like immigration) and the President’s duty to protect the country both require greater judicial deference, and as such a far less strict judicial review takes place. (See e.g. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976), upholding a law denying Medicaid benefits to aliens not admitted for permanent residence) However, such deference is not extended to administrative agencies when they act without direct executive order. (See Hamptom v. Wong, 426 U.S. 88 (1976)) President Bush issued an executive order on the detention of non-citizens on November 13, 2001, and it is based on this executive order that terrorists are detained at Guantanamo."

Case law apparently allows for some ambiguity as to whether or not non-citizens apply, because of the Privileges or Immunities Clause.


But that executive order has not been subjected to judicial review - although the military tribunals one was, and was held to be unconstitutional.  So the first one might also be found unconstitutional.

But that executive order has not been subjected to judicial review - although the military tribunals one was, and was held to be unconstitutional.  So the first one might also be found unconstitutional.

Good point.  If a judicial review conclusively deems Gitmo or torture unconstitutional, then a motion to prosecute would be much more attainable.