Loonie Liberal Activist Court says "torture is A-OK!"

When I saw this, my jaw dropped to the floor.

The uber-liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to dismiss a case involving the government sanctioned torture of so-called "terrorist" suspects.

Appeals Court Bars Suits on Government Torture

The court ruled that victims of the U.S. government's policy of "extraordinary rendition," whereby terrorist suspects in U.S. custody are sent overseas for interrogation by foreign governments or by CIA officials in foreign prisons, may not sue in federal court because a court case would compromise government secrets needed to protect the nation. Writing for the majority in the 6-5 decision, Judge Raymond C. Fisher described the case as "a painful conflict between human rights and national security." But the court assigned all the pain to human rights and all the security to government officials who imprisoned and allegedly had suspects tortured without the legal protections generally referred to as "due process of law."

The court dismissed a lawsuit filed against Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., a Boeing subsidiary accused of arranging flights to transport captives to other countries for imprisonment and interrogation. Five former prisoners alleged they were tortured during their overseas imprisonment and claimed Jeppesen was complicit in the abuse. The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which won a favorable ruling last year from a three-judge panel of the same court, allowing the suit to proceed. The government appealed and Wednesday's ruling overturned the panel's decision. The case appears headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, giving the nation's highest tribunal the opportunity to decide the limits of a President's power to restrict litigation that could result in the revealing of state secrets.

The New American


When you can't count on the most liberal court in the whole darn country to stick it to 'em for Bush-era torture policies, who can you count on?

Hmm.. I guess this makes torture 100% ok now. First it was the "conservatives" who were demanding that people be tortured because national security was on the line and now it is the "liberals".

We're doomed.

reply to post by rogerstigers


Yep, its a shame when they decide that "state secrecy" is more important than our civil rights.


Next they'll say they can pick you up in the street, take you away and beat you up for no reason and when you ask why, they'll say "Its a national security secret".

The new Federal get out of responsibility free card.

reply to post by FortAnthem

When you can't count on the most liberal court in the whole darn country to stick it to 'em for Bush-era torture policies, who can you count on?

Because they are now Obama-era policies. Haven't you noticed how quiet the war protesting and anti-Gitmo crowd has been since January 2009?

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II


Because they are now Obama-era policies. Haven't you noticed how quiet the war protesting and anti-Gitmo crowd has been since January 2009?

No, I didn't hear anything about that.


Kinda hard to hear 'em when they all went home to enjoy all their Hope nad Change.

reply to post by rogerstigers


Sorry, I think you meant to say the Neo Conservatives.

You know who Neo Conservatives are? They are classic liberal progressives. Also known as RINO's.

Very conservative here and do not like the Patriot Act and the unlawful use of rendition.

Let alone the nation building and unlawful wars against "terrorists".

Question folks, it has been 19 months now. Not one trial against anyone at Gitmo as far as I can tell from news reports.

Hell, the guy they have for the Cole bombing has had the case dropped.

Do you THINK that just MAYBE all these color of law legislation and unlawful privacy invasions has NOTHING to do with "terrorists" and actually is being used for something else entirely? Like invading our rights and privacy?

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Nope I meant to say exactly what I said. That is why I said it. If you notice, I put both "liberals" and "conservatives" in quotation marks.

I do not believe in the paradigm of left/right, liberal/conservative. There are no black and white distinctions in real life.

Can you say 'bought and sold'?

Let me first state that if they were any sort of TRUE LIBERAL then this case would have been a stern 'hell no' and 'those damn conservatives!' This just shows you how far the elite have gone from mainstream where what looks like Liberals and what looks like Conservatives are nothing more than phony elitists wearing the masks 'Liberal' to get elected just to push their own agenda against the will of the people who elected them to office.

They stick us with this whole 'The Conservatives did this' and 'The Liberals did that', while at the same time they are sneaking everything out the back door. This brings up the titles 'DINO' and 'RINO', basically what the elite are anyway.

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

When you can't count on the most liberal court in the whole darn country to stick it to 'em for Bush-era torture policies, who can you count on?

Because they are now Obama-era policies. Haven't you noticed how quiet the war protesting and anti-Gitmo crowd has been since January 2009?

edit on 9/9/10 by Ferris.Bueller.II because: (no reason given)

Actually i'm still just as loud and annoying!

I apologize in advance for the long post. The following is from the "SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY". I find this to be a very interesting read and have copy and pasted just a few paragraphs from the 19 page document. The full document is available here:
levin.senate.gov...

There were many high level people who saw this was torture and felt confused that we would use techniques that were illegal under Geneva Convention rules, and known to illicit false confessions.

The question I have is why would a government that's invading a country based on intel of WMDs need to get false confessions? Were these false confessions intentionally used to support the existence of WMDs in Iraq and our invasion under those false pretenses?



SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY

The collection of timely and accurate intelligence is critical to the safety of U.S. personnel deployed abroad and to the security of the American people here at home. The methods by which we elicit intelligence information from detainees in our custody affect not only the reliability of that information, but our broader efforts to win hearts and minds and attract allies to our side.

Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists are taught to expect Americans to abuse them. They are recruited based on false propaganda that says the United States is out to destroy Islam. Treating detainees harshly only reinforces that distorted view, increases resistance to cooperation, and creates new enemies.

Presidential Order Opens the Door to Considering Aggressive Techniques

On February 7, 2002, President Bush signed a memorandum stating that the Third Geneva Convention did not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda and concluding that Taliban detainees were not entitled to prisoner of war status or the legal protections afforded by the Third Geneva Convention. The President’s order closed off application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees.

JPRA is the DoD agency that oversees military Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape (SERE) training. During the resistance phase of SERE training, U.S. military personnel are exposed to physical and psychological pressures (SERE techniques) designed to simulate conditions to which they might be subject if taken prisoner by enemies that did not abide by the Geneva Conventions. As one JPRA instructor explained, SERE training is “based on illegal exploitation (under the rules listed in the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War) of prisoners over the last 50 years.” The techniques used in SERE school, based, in part, on Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean war to elicit false confessions.

JPRA and CIA Influence Department of Defense Interrogation Policies

Plans to use aggressive interrogation techniques generated concerns by some at GTMO. The Deputy Commander of the Department of Defense’s Criminal Investigative Task Force (CITF) at GTMO told the Committee that SERE techniques were “developed to better prepare U.S. military personnel to resist interrogations and not as a means of obtaining reliable information” and that “CITF was troubled with the rationale that techniques used to harden resistance to interrogations would be the basis for the utilization of techniques to obtain information.” Concerns were not limited to the effectiveness of the techniques in obtaining reliable information; GTMO’s request gave rise to significant legal concerns as well.

Military Lawyers Raise Red Flags and Joint Staff Review Quashed

In early November 2002, in a series of memos responding to the Joint Staff’s call for comments on GTMO’s request, the military services identified serious legal concerns about the techniques and called for additional analysis.

CITF’s Chief Legal Advisor wrote that certain techniques in GTMO’s October 11, 2002 request “may subject service members to punitive articles of the [Uniform Code of Military Justice],” called “the utility and legality of applying certain techniques” in the request “questionable,” and stated that he could not “advocate any action, interrogation or otherwise, that is predicated upon the principle that all is well if the ends justify the means and others are not aware of how we conduct our business.”

The Chief of the Army’s International and Operational Law Division wrote that techniques like stress positions, deprivation of light and auditory stimuli, and use of phobias to induce stress “crosses the line of ‘humane’ treatment,” would “likely be considered maltreatment” under the UCMJ, and “may violate the torture statute.” The Army labeled GTMO’s request “legally insufficient” and called for additional review.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld Approves Aggressive Techniques

With respect to GTMO’s October 11, 2002 request to use aggressive interrogation techniques, Mr. Haynes said that “there was a sense by the DoD Leadership that this decision was taking too long” and that Secretary Rumsfeld told his senior advisors “I need a recommendation.” On November 27, 2002, the Secretary got one. Notwithstanding the serious legal concerns raised by the military services, Mr. Haynes sent a one page memo to the Secretary, recommending that he approve all but three of the eighteen techniques in the GTMO request. Techniques such as stress positions, removal of clothing, use of phobias (such as fear of dogs), and deprivation of light and auditory stimuli were all recommended for approval.

On December 2, 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld signed Mr. Haynes’s recommendation, adding a handwritten note that referred to limits proposed in the memo on the use of stress positions: “I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?”

Interrogation policies endorsed by senior military and civilian officials authorizing the use of harsh interrogation techniques were a major cause of the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody. The impact of those abuses has been significant. The fact that America is seen in a negative light by so many complicates our ability to attract allies to our side, strengthens the hand of our enemies, and reduces our ability to collect intelligence that can save lives.

It is particularly troubling that senior officials approved the use of interrogation techniques that were originally designed to simulate abusive tactics used by our enemies against our own soldiers and that were modeled, in part, on tactics used by the Communist Chinese to elicit false confessions from U.S. military personnel. While some argue that the brutality and disregard for human life shown by al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists justifies us treating them harshly, General David Petraeus explained why that view is misguided. In a May 2007 letter to his troops, General Petraeus said “Our values and the laws governing warfare teach us to respect human dignity, maintain our integrity, and do what is right. Adherence to our values distinguishes us from our enemy. This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we - not our enemies - occupy the moral high ground.”

Conclusions

Conclusion 3: The use of techniques similar to those used in SERE resistance training – such as stripping students of their clothing, placing them in stress positions, putting hoods over their heads, and treating them like animals – was at odds with the commitment to humane treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. Using those techniques for interrogating detainees was also inconsistent with the goal of collecting accurate intelligence information, as the purpose of SERE resistance training is to increase the ability of U.S. personnel to resist abusive interrogations and the techniques used were based, in part, on Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to elicit false confessions.

Conclusion 13: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there. Secretary Rumsfeld’s December 2, 2002 approval of Mr. Haynes’s recommendation that most of the techniques contained in GTMO’s October 11, 2002 request be authorized, influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity, and stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Conclusion 19: The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own. Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at GTMO. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Loonie Liberal Activist Court says "torture is A-OK!"

When I saw this, my jaw dropped to the floor.

The uber-liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to dismiss a case involving the government sanctioned torture of so-called "terrorist" suspects.

Yah...Damn those "loonie liberal activist" judges....thank god we have the "ultra-conservative" ACLU to appeal the case and fight on!

ACLU staff attorney Ben Wizner said the organization "absolutely" intends to seek U.S. Supreme Court review of the case.

www.reuters.com...

Wait a minute...the ACLU? Apparently they were the ones that filed this human rights case in the first place!
www.aclunc.org...

Hmmmm. Apparently you support those liberal loonie activisits?

But you are saying the Court that ruled against them are "Loonie Liberal Activists"?...

Now I am just confused. Can you tell me again who is the Loonie Liberal's here? I just want to be told who I should be calling partisan hack names, Please clear that up for me and I promise I will stop asking questions and just repeat what I am told to by GOP blogs etc. and attach the phrase "loonie Liberal" where I am told.

FYI Here is the transcript of the decision...
www.ca9.uscourts.gov...

The judges that dissented (disagreed with the ruling of the majority) were..
HAWKINS...Clinton appointee
SCHROEDER, ...Carter Appointee
CANBY...Carter Appointee
THOMAS...Clinton Appointee
PAEZ...Clinton Appointee

Hmmm...ALL THE JUDGES WHO DISAGREED WITH THE MAJORITY RULING WERE APPOINTED BY "LIBERALS"

Now if these judged DISAGREED with the ruling..are they still considered "Loonie Liberals"??

And these are the "LOONY LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDGES that made the ruling...
Alex Kozinski...Reagan Appointee
Raymond C. Fisher...Clinton Appointee
Richard C. Tallman ...Clinton Appointee
Johnnie B. Rawlinson...Clinton Appointee
Consuelo M. Callahan...Bush Appointee
Carlos T. Bea...Bush Appointee

HMMM..HALF OF THE JUDGES THAT RULED TO SAY "TORTURE IS OK" WERE APPOINTED BY REPUBLICAN ICONS.

www.ce9.uscourts.gov...

So the ACLU loses a case in the 9th district appeals court...with 3 Bush Appointees and 3 Clinton Appointees ruling against them...with 5 Clinton/Carter Appointees dissenting on the decision and the Conservative Blogs come up with "Loonie Liberal Activist Court says torture is OK"

LOONIE LIBERAL ACTIVIST COURT???? NICE TRY THOUGH.

PARTISAN DIVISIVE HACKERY...CONSERVATIVE PROPAGANDA...SAME OLD SAME OLD

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Hmm.. I guess this makes torture 100% ok now. First it was the "conservatives" who were demanding that people be tortured because national security was on the line and now it is the "liberals".

We're doomed.

I guess this makes it official.

The "they're all the same" people have had it right all along ...

As Yoda might say, "Doomed we are".

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Hmm.. I guess this makes torture 100% ok now. First it was the "conservatives" who were demanding that people be tortured because national security was on the line and now it is the "liberals".

We're doomed.

I guess this makes it official.

The "they're all the same" people have had it right all along ...

As Yoda might say, "Doomed we are".

Yup, coolest thing you've ever posted, I am there too - this is insane

"Oh Yesss"