Skip to main content

View Diary: Torture Victims Tormented Again (12 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, the jurisdictional issue is different (0+ / 0-)

    The courts have no jurisdiction over what happened in Iraq.  They do have jurisdiction over the fact of the lawsuit, which was brought in the US.

    The lawsuit having been dismissed, CACI is now rightly seeking compensation for the costs they incurred defending the lawsuit.

    Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

    by absdoggy on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 08:05:05 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  thank you! See? that's what gets me about (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      plan9pub, Garrett, Dumbo

      legality and holding to that as one's moral standard of action.  They are RIGHTLY seeking compensation (where rightly is defined as within the law).  I am sick of people using a legal standard to define an action that is entirely wrong and immoral.

      (not you, I mean these other folks and their actions).

      Similarly, I am sick of hearing people use a court of law, and worse, a criminal court of law, to determine their entire mindset and opinion.


      (something I wrote a while ago)

      "...Some people need proof of everything; proof they know they can’t possibly ever obtain; so they never have to change their minds, or even allow a new fact in.  But what constitutes proof?  One thing I get sick of is people applying the court of criminal law standard to everything.  People won’t believe their congressman did some horrible act, or even that their favorite pro athlete did steroids - when the evidence is overwhelming - because it wasn’t proven by their standards:  nobody was found guilty, nobody was officially judged in some formal criminal courtroom.  Innocent until proven guilty, they cry every time.  Meanwhile, most things in life - day-to-day shit - are not subject to such official verdicts, and actually require us to make sound judgment calls.  Who cares about a jury of our peers, and laws of evidence in a criminal case?  How about the lower civil court burden of proof?  That’s not good enough for you?  Well, then, you must think O.J. is innocent!  Do you really want to hinge your entire personal belief system on whether a few random citizens think gloves appear to fit?..."

      Ayn sucks. Please know I am not rude. I cannot rec anything from this browser. When I rec or post diaries I am a guest at some exotic locale's computer.

      by Floyd Blue on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 08:09:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My take (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dumbo, Chacounne

        Legal standards should be fine for discussing torture. Except that the United States is now an outlaw nation. Courts consistently invent reasons to put torture beyond the reach of the law.

        Kiobel being the important invented reason in this case. It guts the long established understanding of the Alien Tort Statute, bluntly and admittedly because of the danger of judicial interference in torture foreign policy.

    •  I assume you are using the word "rightly" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dumbo, absdoggy

      in the context that what hey are doing is legal, even if it is morally an abomination.

    •  If U.S. courts have no jurisdiction in Iraq, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bluedust, Dumbo

      then why did U.S. Courts have jurisdiction of Manuel
      Noriega from Panama?

    •  RIGHTLY??? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      •  Should have said "it is their right" (0+ / 0-)

        Wrong and immoral yes, but it is their right.

        Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

        by absdoggy on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:58:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site