Latest Breaking News

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)

13. I was not asked to convince the 9th circuit. I only wish I had been

Wed May 2, 2012, 11:34 PM

May 2012

afforded the opportunity to so convince.

Listen to yourself: you seem to support a decision that says Padilla's nebulous status somehow renders his torture while in US custody 'legal.'

I hope Padilla's attorneys appeal the 9th Circuit ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. We'll see what it has to say about whether 'enemy combatants' can be tortured with impunity while in U.S. custody.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Berkeley law professor cannot be sued over Bush-era torture memos [View all] shawn703 May 2012 OP

He deserves the same treatment he coined, KARMA! Dont call me Shirley May 2012 #1

Fuck Yoo!!! Odin2005 May 2012 #2

Ain't that America. Solly Mack May 2012 #3

Damn Patriot Act! 'Enemy combatant' so has zero rights. sinkingfeeling May 2012 #4

There are lawful combatants and unlawful combatants. If you treat unlawful combatants the same 24601 May 2012 #11

You are a disgrace to your chosen username. Nihil May 2012 #14

You are of course entitled to your misguided opinion. Just how would you enforce adherence to 24601 May 2012 #16

"The laws of war," that's a hoot. JackRiddler May 2012 #18

Go ahead and split hairs on the terminology used. It is, however, used in US law as defined by 24601 May 2012 #24

Soldiers do go to trial but receive simple slaps on the wrist. Arctic Dave May 2012 #19

So life in prison is your idea of a slap on the wrist? 24601 May 2012 #21

What are the ratios of those to crimes committed? Arctic Dave May 2012 #26

Interesting that you bring up ratios. So what is the ratio of US military personnel to those who 24601 May 2012 #27

Could be a very large number if Iraq is Arctic Dave May 2012 #29

You completely dodged it the question because the facts don't back up your agenda, 24601 May 2012 #31

I don't have an exact number but maybe you can help find them. Arctic Dave May 2012 #32

We must look FORWARD not backwards about these events. Justice wanted May 2012 #5

Yes, let us refuse to learn from the past! OrwellwasRight May 2012 #7

How convenient for the judges. Roland99 May 2012 #6

No fucking shit... truebrit71 May 2012 #8

For all those who say this can't happen to American citizens: sudopod May 2012 #9

Yoo should be on criminal trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, under coalition_unwilling May 2012 #10

The most liberal Circuit of Court of Appeals in the country disagrees with you. If you can't 24601 May 2012 #12

I was not asked to convince the 9th circuit. I only wish I had been coalition_unwilling May 2012 #13

snip* Jefferson23 May 2012 #25

It's highly offensive and inaccurate to even remotely equate an opinion on interrogation 24601 May 2012 #17

It wasn't an 'opinion on interrogation.' It was an opinion on TORTURE. Before coalition_unwilling May 2012 #20

At least you admit it was an opinion - yet still equate it to genocide? 24601 May 2012 #22

Judges equal legal flunkies issuing opinions? boppers May 2012 #28

I guess this is one of those times when condoning torture isn't condoning torture. LanternWaste May 2012 #35

It's a fundamental disagreement on where the threshold for torture rests. And yet some 24601 May 2012 #36

1984, blkmusclmachine May 2012 #15

THAT is disgusting, period. n/t Jefferson23 May 2012 #23

I hate to say it but in this case it might have been the correct decision. cstanleytech May 2012 #30

REVOLUTION - K&R n/t DeSwiss May 2012 #33

I'm sure this idea has been put forward before... Volaris May 2012 #34

Letting Reagan, Bush, Bush appoint judges is going to haunt the US Doctor_J May 2012 #37