About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Monday, April 20, 2009 - 7:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If justice is defined in terms of getting what one deserves or has earned, then it is hard to see what role "punishment" could have.  It does nothing for the immediate victim or those others who have also lost value due to the harm done to their friend, lover, relative, employee, employer, neighbor, etc.  Punishment only makes sense in a twisted kind of psychology in which we take pleasure in the perception that someone who has hurt us is now also hurting.  In rationality, why should we care one way or another what happens to the criminal?  Why do we give him that power over us?

Justice is achieved when, through restitution, the original victim, and those who also suffered injury as a consequence of the crime, are all returned to a position that they would have been in had the crime never occurred, including remittance for pain, compound interest, time preference and all other rational accounting of the costs imposed upon them.  If it takes incarceration and forced labor to induce a criminal to pay what is due, then so be it. 

It would probably be preferable all around, however, if a trained life coach or psychologist could step in and for a fee - perhaps a percentage of future earnings - convinced the criminal to give it up and behave more rationally.  This would likely reduce costs for everyone involved, and increase the likelihood of actually getting compensation for the victims.  Clearly, this would not work for a major psychopath, but for a slum kid who never had much of a role model or an education, this could work. 

An example of the possibility of "redemption" can be seen in the child soldiers of Africa, who were given the choice of killing - often their own parents or siblings, or being killed for not killing.  They chose to live, and then had to face the shame of what they had done.  Many of them, however, have reportedly managed to reconcile with their relatives after escaping. 

Michael is entirely correct about the nature of what we are doing.  The real consequence of a revenge and collective deterrent philosophy of "justice" is a growing class of committed criminals, as evidenced by the fact that the U.S. has the highest number and percentage of persons incarcerated of any nation on the planet.


Post 41

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 3:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While still less than sanguine about your leftie friends, I am on the same page with you on the matter of restorative justice.  In my homepage Article contra Sullivan and Tifft, I refered to the $100,000 of psychological counseling to help a robber get over his personal problems.  In point of fact, Texas has such a program.  It is a sieve: the criminal must qualify; so there is some pre-selection.  However, that $100,000 is only the cost of four years of incarceration, so it is a bargain. Amd it seems to be 90% successful.

It is a fact that most people hurt others because they were hurt themselves.  They pass it along.  If you can break the chain, you can reduce the violence.

Sometimes, that cannot be done.  "Criminality" (so-called) may, in some cases at least, be genetic and in other cases, clearly a matter of rational choice, coldly calculated.  Most often, reintegrative shaming works.

I wrote that homepage Article contra Sullivan and Tifft for a criminology class.  For that class, my term paper was on Reintegrative Shaming and Restorative Justice.  The primary researcher is John Braithwaite of the Australian National University.  He came to his theory while investigating regulation of the pharamaceutical industry.  Then, he found that this is how we actually deal with offenders in most times and places.  From the Vikings and Visigoths to the Cheyenne and Navajo to America and Europe in the Victorian Era, shaming and reintegration were the most common ways to deal with most offenders.  (The exceptions are interesting, also.)

That then brings us to John Yoo and former President Bush, the CIA and all the rest.

Do you think we can reintegratively shame them toward justice that restores their victims?


Post 42

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 4:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan: "There is precedent for holding lawyers criminally liable for giving legally erroneous advice that resulted in great physical or mental harm or death. In U.S. v. Altstoetter, Nazi lawyers were convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity for advising Hitler on how to 'legally' disappear political suspects to special detention camps."
They were not "lawyers."  They were judges.

Furthermore, US v Altstoetter itself was creative, admitting that the prohibition against ex post facto laws only applies when there is a written constitution and does not apply in international law.  Moreover, unlike Anglo-American law which is "bench made" other nations follow "civil law" (not "torts as opposed to criminal law) but the idea that all the laws are written down clearly for each case.  The judge only decides if the facts in the case meet the law.  The judge under civic law does not interpret the law as in the Anglo-American tradition.    Addressing that, US v Altstoetter explicitly denied the principle nullum crimen sine lege.

Moreover, two of John Yoo's memos remain part of the legal thought of the Obama Administration.
  • June 8, 2002 Memorandum for the Attorney General, "Determination of Enemy Belligerency and Military Detention" (signed by Jay S. Bybee). Concludes that the US military has the legal authority to detain US citizen Jose Padilla as a prisoner captured during an international armed conflict. Not yet repudiated.
  • November 6, 2001 Memorandum to Alberto Gonzales, "Legality of the Use of Military Commissions To Try Terrorists" (by Patrick F. Philbin). Not yet repudiated.  -- Wikipedia: John Yoo
So, the present Administration retains the right to detain US citizens as enemy aliens and then to try them by a military commission.

As to your initial point, many of John Yoo's memoranda were repudiated by a closing statement of the Bush Administration Justice Department.
u.s. Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel
Washington. DC 20530
January 15, 2009
Office of the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
MEMORANDUM FOR THE FILES
Re: Status of Certain OLC Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001

The purpose of this memorandum is to confirm that certain propositions stated in several opinions issued by the Office of Legal Counsel in 2001-2003 respecting the allocation of authorities between the President and Congress in matters of war and national security do not reflect the current views of this Office. We have previously withdrawn or superseded a number of opinions that depended upon one or more of these propositions. For reasons discussed herein, today we explain why these propositions are not consistent with the current views of OLC, and we advise that caution should be exercised before relying in other respects on the remaining opinions identified below.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memostatusolcopinions01152009.pdf
(link found via Wikipedia article "John Yoo" cited in References. )

 


Post 43

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 5:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Advisability of Torturing Kurt Eichert and Jay Abbott
An opinion offered to the Special Justices for Economic Crimes Against the Nation
by Michael E. Marotta, Criminologist, BSc.

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 21 Apr 2009 at 09:52:40 PM GMT is:
$11,193,190,620,843.77
The estimated population of the United States is 306,043,799
so each citizen's share of this debt is $36,573.82.

The government has a legal obligation under law to collect all taxes due as defined by the laws that empower the government to collect said taxes. The abovenamed individuals in conspiracy with themselves and others are known to have special information about large treasuries of assets, hidden from public view, including but not limited to gold coins, gold bars, silver coins, and silver bars.  Moreover, the abovenamed in conspiracy between themselves and with unnamed others have deprived the government of unaccounted large sums of current money owed to the government under law.

Therefore, in light of the overwhelming terrible shocking and disturbingly deep and unprecedented national economic emergency, the government can save lives, achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, maintain order, enforce the law of the land, and gain much needed assets by using whatever means necessary to compel the two abovenamed conspirators to identify their compatriots, colleagues, cohort, associates, affiliates, business partners, suppliers and buyers and any and all others known to themselves or to said others.

Evidence of their public statements has been forwarded to your office and the sheer volume generates incontrovertable confidence that our course of action is in the national interest. 

This is not to be done lightly but only consequent to the gravest of considerations.  Only carefully trained and fully operational personnel who are certified in the required skills shall ascertain the absolute knowledge required to proceed under law with the interrogations.


Post 44

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 5:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Just so there's no confusion, those were not my points. They were excerpted from a Daily Journal article. They were relevant, so I posted them.

Jordan

Post 45

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 11:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And just to make it perfectly clear that the use of torture is contrary to American culture, here is a post from the nominally liberal Andy Worthington, from the
FUTURE OF FREEDOM FOUNDATION.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0904i.pdf

 Again, as I said in his defense, Yoo just crafted an opinion as requested.  Lawyers do that.  Prosecuting the people who ordered and carried out the tortures is another matter.
  
John Yoo's memoranda included an argument against posse comitatus, a justification of the use of the Army as police.  That memo has not been repudiated.

Note that President Obama wants to protect the torturers because they acted "in good faith."  Faith.  How much clearer can it be?  Goes right along with Hope and Charity.

Did you honestly expect these crimes against humanity to be  used only against that fraction of humanity whom you do not like?  Did you never think that you would be the next victim?

It's going to be  lo-n-g four years.... which might be better than finding it cut short...

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 4/22, 11:48am)


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 46

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 12:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
look I just disagree - a legit use of government is protection from our enemies - criminals and terrorists and enemy states apply.  so far our military has not done anything I regard as off the normal limits, in fact, of any service of government they seem closest to doing what they are supposed to do.  The rest of it is a whole different issue.  They are NOT related - I can be FOR say, lifetime prison, death penalty, for certain crimes under certain conditions, and NOT automatically extend it to traffic violations, ok?  That is not a valid counter-argument.  That is a slippery slope fallacy writ large. 

essentially your argument says, well if we torture muslim terrorists so they don't kill 10,000 people in LA, then next thing you know we will torture people for running stop signs and jay walking - well I reject that argument.


Post 47

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 1:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What about 'threatening' the security of the party in power, eg - the 'government', eg 'internal terrorists' ?
(Edited by robert malcom on 4/22, 1:16pm)


Post 48

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 6:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh, come ON...   You don't seriously think that our OWN government would ever lie to us or say that someone was a terrorist when they weren't, do you?  Wait, let me get your full name and address, please...  Just so that I can refer you to the appropriate agencies as a model citizen, of course.

Post 49

Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 6:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
http://themovingtarget.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/the-trial-of-john-yoo/

Post 50

Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 6:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Your post 43. LOL LOL LOL ... but I still agree with Kurt.

jt

Post 51

Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 10:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

You wrote: "...Yoo just crafted an opinion as requested. Lawyers do that."

A lawyer who writes a memo counseling a client to break the law has violated the code of professional conduct. Depending on the law in question, the lawyer can be found guilty as an accessory and possibly more. The first question is whether Yoo is such a lawyer.

Jordan

Post 52

Friday, April 24, 2009 - 4:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
J:  A lawyer who writes a memo counseling a client to break the law has violated the code of professional conduct.

So I have been told.  As lawyers often write the laws that govern lawyers, the violation of a "code of ethics" may be a violation of law, or perhaps not.  Computer programmers and medical doctors have "oaths" that are not legally binding.  The Michigan State Numismatic Society has a Dealer Code of Ethics that has no legal force, though it defines our relations within the conclave.

So, we would have to know the jurisdiction to know what law John Yoo broke.

It also depends on what words John Yoo used.  There is a lot to read in these, but I downloaded and read some

04/21/2009  06:26 PM         5,104,375 Yoo_ABM_Not.pdf
04/21/2009  06:56 PM         2,590,267 Yoo_Bybee_Torture.pdf
04/21/2009  06:57 PM         6,193,377 Yoo_CrimesAgainstHumanity.pdf
04/21/2009  06:12 PM         2,759,584 Yoo_Memo_Warrantless.pdf
04/21/2009  06:52 PM         3,594,608 Yoo_Padilla.pdf
04/21/2009  06:55 PM         2,874,474 Yoo_Padilla_2.pdf
04/21/2009  06:14 PM         8,743,148 Yoo_Posse_Not.pdf
04/21/2009  06:50 PM         9,968,364 Yoo_Xfer_Prisoners.pdf
   
Where do you find him counseling his clients to break the law, as opposed to offering an opinion on (a) what the laws say and (b) what interpretations may be derived from those statements.

For instance, on another matter that might shed light, a VFW Hall in Dallas was raided for gambling.  The poker games were fundraisers for veterans causes.  The problem was that the VFW Hall was acting as the "house" and taking money.  That is against the law.  Had they asked players to contribute a portion of their winnings, that might have been within the law.  For a lawyer to explain that ahead of the event would not be to counsel the breaking of the law.


Post 53

Friday, April 24, 2009 - 8:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
We don't actually know how effective the interrogation methods that were used by the CIA were. Right now the Obama administration has only released legal memos authorizing the torture I believe, but has not released any reports on the efficacy of those interrogations. This is revealing a partial truth, in a free society we deserve to know all of the truth in order to come to a better judgment on its use. Dick Cheney has said these reports of the efficacy of these interrogations exist, and if he's telling the truth, they ought to be released. If not for the sake of evaluating the whole process and see if it is something the government should continue to do, or if it should change the process, or if it should abandon it all together.

If torture is effective, then I would say we need a system of due process for it. I don't like the idea of just the President authorizing its use. It removes the judicial branch from the decision.

But ethically, if these interrogation methods are effective, and if we set up a system of due process so that there are some protections for the innocent, I don't see any problem with it ethically, at all. If your standard is life, then torturing a terrorist for information that can save lives is in service to that standard. But there must be some oversight, some system of due process, and some transparency.

I'm trying to understand why a free society's principles would authorize capital punishment, but for known terrorists, we draw the line at torture?



Post 54

Friday, April 24, 2009 - 1:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Michael,

Attorney codes of professional conduct always come with risk of censure, suspension, or disbarment.

Your links don't work, but I would be interested to see what Yoo says. I don't know whether he broke laws (including the code of professional conduct). I am just framing the issue.

Jordan

Post 55

Friday, April 24, 2009 - 7:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Framing with Jordan...  They are not "links" they are files on my computer.  I got them by reading Wikipedia and other sources (Phil Osborn's) and so on.  These files are public and are on several (perhaps many) servers now.  IN fact, I think I got the Repudiated memos right off a DoJ  or White House Legal Counsel pages.  If you want links so that we can actually dig into the words, I can help if you can't find them. 


Post 56

Thursday, July 23, 2009 - 8:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And yet more information has come to light since, including the secret assasination plan by the CIA and Cheney, also allegedly signed off on by Mr. Yoo.  I wonder just how long Obama can sit on the videos of the child rapes in the Iraqi prisons by U.S. servicemen?

Post 57

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 8:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Defenders of the good.  Meeting interesting new people and killing them.   Seen in the OC Register a few days ago:

Soldiers cite discipline breakdown in Iraq

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. Soldiers from an Army unit that had 10 infantrymen accused of murder, attempted murder or manslaughter after returning to civilian life described a breakdown in discipline during their Iraq deployment in which troops killed civilians, a newspaper reported Sunday....

“Toward the end, we were so mad and tired and frustrated,” said Daniel Freeman. “You came too close, we lit you up. You didn't stop, we ran your car over with the Bradley,” an armored fighting vehicle.

Taxi drivers got shot for no reason, and other people were dropped off bridges after interrogations, said Marcus Mifflin, who was eventually discharged with post traumatic stress disorder.
“You didn't get blamed unless someone could be absolutely sure you did something wrong,” he said
...Since 2005, some brigade soldiers also have been involved in brawls, beatings, rapes, DUIs, drug deals, domestic violence, shootings, stabbings, kidnapping and suicides.
The unit was deployed for a year to Iraq's Sunni triangle in September 2004. Sixty-four unit soldiers were killed and more than 400 wounded – about double the average for Army brigades in Iraq, according to Fort Carson.
...Anthony Marquez, a friend of Freeman, was the first in his brigade to kill someone after an Iraq tour. In 2006, he used a stun gun to shock a drug dealer in Widefield, Colo., in a dispute over a marijuana sale, then shot and killed him.
Marquez's mother, Teresa Hernandez, warned Marquez's sergeant at Fort Carson that her son was showing signs of violent behavior, abusing alcohol and pain pills and carrying a gun.
“I told them he was a walking time bomb,” she said.
Hernandez said the sergeant later taunted Marquez about her phone call.
“If I was just a guy off the street, I might have hesitated to shoot,” Marquez told The Gazette in the Bent County Correctional Facility, where he is serving a 30-year prison term. “But after Iraq, it was just natural.”
The Army trains soldiers to be that way, said Kenneth Eastridge, an infantry specialist serving 10 years for accessory to murder.
“The Army pounds it into your head until it is instinct: Kill everybody, kill everybody,” he said. “And you do. Then they just think you can just come home and turn it off.”
...Another sergeant shot a man in the head while questioning him, lashed the man's body to his Humvee and drove around the neighborhood.
The Army's criminal investigation division interviewed unit soldiers and said it couldn't substantiate the allegations.
The Army has declared soldiers' mental health a top priority.
...


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 58

Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 1:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So, I have to ask Phil. What exactly is point of posts like this? I'm not seeing how you're trying to back up any kind of point, unless your point is you got your sense of life in the 70s and in your world its acceptable to demonize your own defenders for the c

(Edited by Ryan Keith Roper on 7/30, 1:12am)


Post 59

Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 8:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was hoping that someone would make the logical connection between the moral sanction to evil behavior that John Yoo provided in his legal briefs for the Bush administration, and the consequences as the principles spelled out on high work their way down the ranks and are reflected in soldiers behavior in war and when they return, having lost any moral fiber that they might have had in the process of dehumanization on the battlefield.  I note that U.S. troops have not generally had a very good rep in this regard for quite some time.  We like to think that they are the good guys, but when joint British and American troops both witnessed massacres of unarmed South Korean civilians by their own army in ethnic/political purges during the Korean War, the U.S. commanders turned a blind eye, while the British objected and forcefully intervened. 

However, it's starting to appear that the Iraq war sets a new low, even for U.S. troops.  Those videos that Obama wouldn't release for fear of the backlash allegedly include gang rapes of young girls incarcerated in the Iraq prisons, rapes committed by U.S. military personnel.  Once the Commander in Chief from behind his safe desk indicates that only results matter, that ends justify means, and that human rights are an exclusive grant by the U.S. government to U.S. citizens, then it is a little much to expect that the people whose lives are actually at risk will hold back or toe to a moral line on their own. 

The fallout from such positions does not end in Iraq, either.  Whether it's PTSD leading to murders, as the article indicates, or the cavalier attitude of the local cops and DA that they are free to do anything they please, so long as it leads to a successful conviction (even if the parties are actually innocent), the setting of a depraved moral standard has manifold consequences. 

We're witnessing this here in the OC with the blanket gang injunctions that are being issued without even basic fact checking.  Imagine that a cop sees you talking to someone who is already on the list.  So, he pulls you aside and demands to know everything that the two of you said.  If you object - or if you don't object - you get added to the list and one fine morning at 5AM there is a pounding at your door and SWAT team hands you a 700 page injunction that, among other things (MANY other things) gives you a curfew of 10PM.  Note that you have not committed any crime and have not been charged with any crime, but if you are not at home by 10PM - for the REST OF YOUR LIFE - you WILL be arrested and charged with violation of the "civil" injunction.  Then, the next time the cops see you talking to someone on the street, they get hit with the same injunction.  This is really happening, and to over one-hundred people in just one neighborhood in the City of Orange.

If rights are a privilege that the state gives you, then what they give, they can take away.  That's the position of the former Bush administration, and I don't see any difference in principle with Obama.

Here the first of seven (looks like one might be missing) ten-minute videos I just uploaded to YouTube, in which Yvonne Elizondo details what is happening here in the U.S. in a speech at the Patrick Henry Democratic Club on Tuesday.  She just lost her car when undercover Orange PD tailed her from a BarBQ and committed a score or so of basic legal rights violations against her and her kids who were with her. 

Now, because her son, who was driving, had left his license at home, all her kids have suddenly miraculously become gang members, according to the cops, and her car has been impounded for 30 days at $75 per day, which she is not going to be able to pay, even though she was there with her license.  Ironically, Yvonne is a long-term professional ANTI-gang counsellor who runs a business aimed at getting kids at risk into college.  She was targetted because she got the ACLU involved in defending the over one hundred non-gang members who got hit with this injunction - many of them honors students on track to college.  This is the kind of crap that is spilling over from the moral depravity of the Bush Administration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z4GxTOb0xM


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.