What the hell is wrong with Biden?

[rockybelt]

Joe Biden wants to introduce legislation that makes water boarding illegal. :wtf:

Hey Joe, water boarding is already illegal! It has prosecuted successfully for over 100 years.

By submitting and passing a law to make water boarding illegal, you are in effect telling Mr. 18%% torturer that he and his henchmen have not committed any crimes regarding water boarding up to this point because it obviously has not been illegal since you had to pass a law to make it illegal.
What a load of crap!:hurts:

Are you looking for ways to let these bastards get away with torture, Mr. Biden?

I just have one simple question for you: What the fuck is wrong with you?:cry:

[paulk]

1. thanks for your concern

:eyes:

[acmavm]

2. Biden's biggest problem is that he thinks he has a shot at the

presidency.

[Richardo]

3. Sure would put Mukasey in tough spot though, wouldn't it?

[annabanana]

5. Yeah.. but it would get BushCo off the hook...

[sandnsea]

9. No it wouldn't

We add paramiters to law all the time, it doesn't make past lawbreaking legal.

[iverglas]

29. an example on that point

The genital mutilation of girls is illegal in the US (and in every comparable country) as an assault causing bodily harm or wounding.

Many countries, including the US, have enacted specific legislation to prohibit it anyway, to send a clear message to the public and judges that this specific act is illegal and subject to punishment.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000116----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000116----000-notes.html

Section 645(a) of div. C of Pub. L. 104–208 provided that: “The Congress finds that—

... (3) such mutilation infringes upon the guarantees of rights secured by Federal and State law, both statutory and constitutional;

“(4) the unique circumstances surrounding the practice of female genital mutilation place it beyond the ability of any single State or local jurisdiction to control; ...

The Criminal Code of Canada similarly clarifies the law:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/whole.html

268. (1) Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.

... (3) For greater certainty, in this section, “wounds” or “maims” includes to excise, infibulate or mutilate, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person, except where ...

"For greater certainty" laws maybe shouldn't be necessary, but they are sometimes thought wise.

[chefgirl]

4. Just a guess

Im just guessing here, but it could be because in Mukasey's confirmation hearing, when he wouldn't say waterboarding is illegal, he did say that if Congress were to revisit the issue and pass legislation after the fact, he would enforce it.

Pretty pathetic, I know, but maybe Biden is trying to call his bluff. :shrug:

-chef-

[sandnsea]

6. do people lay awake at night

thinking up distortions to disrupt the Democratic Party.

Defining something in law doesn't change past law. If we add the motivation of hate to the murder laws, that doesn't mean we just made all past murders legal.

Jiminy could people think for themselves once in a while.

[cali]

7. Are you really this dim?

do a little reading up on WHY Biden is doing this. And you're wrong about it letting bushco off the hook. Sheesh.

[youthere]

10. We wouldn't want some solid information and facts to get in the way..

of perfectly good rant.
<sarcasm>

[rockybelt]

43. dim

Dim? No. What keeps bush from signing the law and then privately issuing a signing statement so he in effect shoves that law up your ass?
Like he has over 750 times so far.
We all know torture is illegal and that the US is torturing people. The people who are saying well, gee make it illegal also know that it is illegal and that the US torturing people.
People have been successfully prosecuted for waterboarding for over one hundred years.
Besides, if you make a new law making waterboarding illegal, it would have to be such a narrow description of that particular torture, it would be easy to get around it.
I believe that Biden is just trying to appease with his ideas.

[feminazi]

8. Maybe he's trying to force the issue.

Part of the public explanation from Feinstein and Schumer on their votes to move Mukasey's nomination out of committee was that Mukasey said if a bill was passed to make water boarding illegal, he would uphold it and the pResident would have no recourse but to abide by it.

Now, we all know that's a crock. Bush could veto it or issue a signing statement or otherwise disregard it as he does anything he doesn't agree with. But I imagine any legislation Biden has in mind would only require a simple majority to pass. Then the ball would be in Bush's court to veto or sign it. Anything he does OTHER than sign it makes him look even worse than he does currently.

[geek tragedy]

11. Maybe he wants to prevent future waterboarding? n/t

[Amonester]

12. king herr george pissypants will veto it

and if herr's veto gets overridden, darth will present him another signing statement

the end

[Think82]

13. What the hell ius wrong with YOU? (re: the title for this post)

I guess you are trying ot bash biden for something he's doing that agrees with your own position? It makes utterly 0 sense. Please show a little more tact.

[Hawkowl]

14. Biden should filibuster Mukasey for AG

I posted this same recommendation for Hillary but it certainly would work for Biden.


I believe Biden would surge to the "top tier" candidates by demonstrating such leadership. He would have a real shot at wrapping up the nomination. The sad thing is, it is such an easy, morally compelling action to take.

"BIDEN WILL NOT STAND FOR TORTURE!" Could be the headline. By demonstrating he can lead now and stop the bush administration in its tracks NOW, he would give a clear indication to the party and the nation where he is going to go in the future.

Bush has suffered two reversals this week alone. First the first veto over ride. Second, Kucinich's articles of impeachment has made it to the judiciary committee. By seizing the initiative now, Biden could actually capitalize on this nascent momentum and draw a clear distinction between our lackluster, so nothing leaders Pelosi & Reid.

Unfortunately, I think his strategy demonstrates more of a follower, or perhaps more of a conventional go along to get along kind of method. Meaning, he introduces a largely symbolic measure into the Senate that if it passes (unlikely) won't do much of anything.

Any of the candidates willing to lay their reputations and careers on the line by opposing this most unpopular president ever would earn my support (see Kucinich for working the impeachment levers).
(I should add I think this strategy would work for Obama as well.)

[murbley40]

17. ????

Biden is not a follower, he is a leader and that is exactly what he is doing L_E_A_D_I_N_G.

[Steely_Dan]

18. Excellent Post

[Think82]

20. you are conflating Mukasey with Bush...

Mukasey was regarded as a good selection, actually, until he refused ot say whether waterboarding was torture. This one issue is standing in the way (and it is a big issue). So, Biden is seeking to make waterboarding illegal into law, which would allow the committee to approve Mukasey without fearing he would condone waterboarding. This is how one PRACTIALLY solves the problem. A filibuster would hold up the process for a long time and would further inflame the republicans.

My opinion.

[Hawkowl]

24. I agree but different issue

Yes, a law outlawing waterboarding torture is a good strategy to address the issue of torture and illegality. But I question if it is indeed PRACTICAL. Practical if he gets it past the obstructionist that is Harry Reid. Practical only if he gets a veto proof majority, cause you bet your ass shrub will veto it.

What I'm saying is that he can make POLITICAL capital by holding up this nominee. Inflaming rethuglicans? You bet your sweet ass. Tar them with the brush of "Republicans. We Support Torture! Hell, we enjoy it!"

I'm saying if he wants to win the DEMOCRATIC nomination he's going to have to kick a little republican ass. So what if a filibuster inflames republicans? They are not going to vote for him anyway. At puts the country on notice that Biden is against torture. His willingness to take a bold stand will allow people to perceive him as a leader who opposes the trashing of our constitution. Yes. yes. I know he opposes it. Duh. But most people need a demonstration, not more rhetoric, and wonkish parsing of rhetoric and a diligent research of his Senate record. As a political strategy, he needs a bold strategy to stand apart from the other white guys.

[Think82]

27. perhaps...

but we still have over a year of George Bush. Biden is actually concerned about getting things done now, and inflaming the repubs in the Senate will only make it harder for Congress to garner votes to stand up to bush for the next year.

rather than score political points with the base, I think Biden is concerned with the business at hand. He's trying to score points with the base by attacking Guliani, which has succeeded, but Biden has too much integrity to let that interfere with business in Congress, I think.

[murbley40]

35. and a good one at that.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. You could not be more wrong

When the executive or judiciary interprets legislation in a way with which Congress disagrees, Congress has the power to pass clarifying legislation.

It's the responsible thing to do.

[youthere]

16. If I'm not mistaken..hasn't this debate been going on a couple of years now?

Perhaps Sen. Biden is trying to stop the debate once and for all, but I guess you're right...it's better just to leave it alone and let Bushco continue with the practice for the next 13 months.Talk is always better than action.:eyes:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

32. there si indeed something to be said for stopping a year of torture

[ginchinchili]

19. The problem is, he's smarter than you.

You state that waterboarding is already illegal which, I might point out, is easy for you to say. Typical American approach. Tell that to those being waterboarded.

Here's the deal. Bush isn't the only one using wiggle room on the waterboarding issue in order to use it. Surprise! It's worked for Bush. He's getting away with it. However, in typical Biden fashion, he sees the writing on the wall. The soon to be AG wouldn't commit to saying waterboarding is illegal, but he did commit to enforcing such a law if Congress specifically made it illegal. In walks Joe Biden, as well as Sen. Kennedy. The rest you should be able to figure out. Why just stand there and stomp your foot when it is continuing to be used on human beings? Would they be more impressed with your foot stomping, or Sen's Biden and Kennedy's actions to put an end to waterboarding? True, it might not help the person today, but it could tomorrow.

Too often we complain about what should be instead of doing something about what is. That's why I've decided to support Joe Biden for president. He deals with what is.

[Think82]

21. EXCELLENT post.

[youthere]

22. I notice that the OP has not responded to anyone..

gee..I wonder why that is.:freak:

[rockybelt]

37. Why didn't I reply

I've been working and didn't have time.
At least I stirred people up. What I'm getting at is the fact that(Maybe I'm wrong) if a law is passed making waterboarding illegal, does that not mean that all waterboarding done up until now is legal?
If that's true, herr bush gets away.

[youthere]

38. Not necessarily...

if you'll read all the posts here, many have mentioned "for greater certainty" legislation being commonplace.

But even if it WERE to let Bushco off the hook...what's more important? "Getting Bush" or making sure the practice is stopped AND punishable going forward? While I'd like to do both, given the choice I want to make damn sure the process is stopped. And Mukasey won't have a choice but to stop the practice if Biden''s proposal passes.

[rockybelt]

42. yes

I see the light. Bushco still has plenty of things to be prosecuted over. Like treason, etc.
All I could see in my blind rage was that these bastards were going to go away unscathed. That must not happen.

[mrigirl]

28. Way to go Ginchinchili!

[murbley40]

36. Bravo!

[bread_and_roses]

23. Do we have to pass a law against each and every possible torture technique?

The perils of that approach would seem pretty obvious. I am no lawyer or scholar, and others here seem quite convinced that this proposed law is a good idea. From my ordinary citizen perspective, it seems to set a terrible precedent that an act must be in violation of a specific law passed specifically against that act before it is torture? I mean, do we not already outlaw torture? There is NO dispute among sane people that water boarding is torture. So, for my peace of mind, explain how such a law does not set a terrible precedent as well as giving the criminal in the WH and his handlers cover?

edit for a missing "not"

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. Yes. When the executive misinterprets existing law, you can clarify the law.

It's sad to have to do that, but it's a reasonable use of legislation.

[bread_and_roses]

30. I appreciate your response, but

(honest) I did read your same comment upthread before I posted and I don't think it addresses my central concern. If the Junta in power is permitted to essentially evade responsibility under the guise of "misinterpreting" the current law, then to what standard do we hold future administrations re: torture? I mean, how can water-boarding be "misinterpreted" as "something other" than torture when expert after expert has testified that indeed it is? What if water-boarding is "outlawed" specifically, and then the torturers start using some other technique to simulate suffocation? Do we then have to outlaw that technique?

What is wrong with holding the pretend president and his possessed handlers to the international law which already exists and to which we are signatories?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

31. I don't think it affects the criminal aspect

Most laws have some clarifying language like "you must have fire exits in public places including but not limited to theaters, restaurants, shopping malls..." The specific mention of one example does not void the unmentioned examples. It is merely an interpretive guideline to fire marshals or prosecutors.

If the law was amended to list sports arenas it would not mean they were not covered in the original law.

From a criminal perspective, since we cannot have ex post facto laws, the language of the law as it existed on the day an act is committed would be the standard, and if waterboarding is illegal under current law then no future change in the law need affect the legality of waterboarding in, say, 2003. (The fact the law had been changed since would probably not even be admissible... it would be irrelevant to the charge. (Like that 17 year old kid who rotted in jail for sex with the 15 year old girl, even though the law he had been convicted under had been since eliminated.)

In my view, the fact that language was added would not be a definitive criminal defense, or even a useful defense. It would be just an argument that one failed to understand the law. Since ignorance of the law (or personal misinterpretation of the law) is not a valid criminal defense the only question in play would be whether the old law was unconstitutional due to vagueness, and that wouldn't go anywhere, since it's been in force for ages without such a challenge.

So clarifying the law might create a weak line of argument in a criminal defense, but would not invalidate waterboarding as included in the previous version.

As far as policy, Mukasey said that in his view an explicit waterboarding law would no doubt end the practice going forward, there's something to be said, morally, for acting to prevent torture in the next 16 months.

[bread_and_roses]

33. I won't repeat myself but I do not find your reasoning compelling

Perhaps you are a lawyer, and using a legalistic frame of reference that throws me. My reasoning goes along the lines of: in NY, at one time, it was not illegal to drive and talk on a cell phone. If you got in an accident due to negligence, then whatever penalties attached to that negligence would apply, whether you were on a cell phone or not. Then, NY passed a law prohibiting using hand-held cell phones while driving. Now, you get a ticket simply for THAT act, because now THAT act is illegal, whether or not it causes you to commit a negigent act. However, since it was NOT illegal before, you will not now be given a ticket for incidents PRIOR to the law's enactment - even if, say, you caused a bad accident while using a hand-held cell.

As for Mukaski's statement, it seems to me to be nothing but a trap - I read it as an affirmation that the executive can ignore the commonly accepted definitions of torture and the norms of international law as long as our Congress does not explicitly outlaw a specific torture technique. I think it opens the door wider than ever. For instance, it seems to me to give the Executive branch the cover to perform any acts that do not result in "organ failure or death" (this Admins defination of torture, if I remember aright) as long as those specific acts are not specifically outlawed. So next this horror show in Washington will demand that pulling fingernails be specifically outlawed by Congress if they are caught doing that? After all, it wouldn't cause organ failure or death in a healthy adult.

I've made no secret here that I have no regard for Biden, but on this I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as to intention. But at this point I have to think it is a bad mistake. Although I have no regard for Biden, I will be glad to think otherwise if analysts I respect agree with you. But since as far as I know, your interpretation carries no more weight than mine, I'll wait to be either persuaded or confirmed by other voices, though I do appreciate your taking the time to elaborate on your views.

on edit - obviously I got carried away and DID repeat myself - my bad.

[gateley]

26. You know, I usually respect peoples' opinions when they differ from mine, and

sincerely try to understand their reasoning. This post, however, doesn't warrant that effort. You are clueless, and worse, appear to be satisfied with your ignorance.

[benEzra]

34. I think it would be a good idea to pass a law to clarify that it IS illegal...

to make it clear to those who are currently arguing their way around the current law. I see your point, though.

[Tactical Progressive]

39. Maybe it's to force Republicans to vote on it in public

and not to make illegal what is already illegal, notwithstanding right-wing lies about its existing illegality.

[jillan]

40. Your post makes absolutely NO sense - and I have to ask

What the * is wrong with you?

Have you not heard that this administration has been using waterboarding?
Do you not think it is time to revisit this again - Or do you want to let this administration continue???

A couple of Senators are trying to stop this senseless torture, and you question them on it?:banghead:

[rockybelt]

41. answer

No I do not want them to stop on it. What concerns me is that bushco will be able to wiggle out of what surely is coming by saying that waterboarding wasn't torture until just now.
I want them to be punished for what they are doing.