Protesting Torture at St Thomas Law School, Minneapolis, MN

[15Dillweed]

Torture is a crime, not an opinion. Conspiracy to commit torture is a crime, not an opinion.

I would think that writing a memorandum of that importance would cover that taking away the Geneva Conventions would lead to torture, which is illegal.

Torture is one thing that can never be legal! We cannot play legal games and opinions when it comes to torture.

[bluez78]

@15Dillweed Just because the Geneva Conventions do not apply does not automatically lead to legalizing torture. Read Delahunty's memo in full -- it might be instructive.

[bluez78]

Ever heard of academic freedom? Many students and faculty in the law school, and indeed the Catholic Church, disagree with Prof. Delahunty's position. But I am proud of St. Thomas for hiring faculty who hold very diverse viewpoints (c.f. Michael Paulsen). Faculty members should be hired for their ability to teach, not for their conformity of views on a particular legal subject. As someone who has taken several classes from him, I can attest that Delahunty's teaching ability is exceptional.

[Youmightberight]

@bluez78: This has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. People can hold whatever position they want. But Professor Delahunty may have been part of a conspiracy to commit torture. It's his actions that people object to, not his ideas. His teaching ability is irrelevant to whether he may have committed a crime, and a very serious one at that.

[bluez78]

What crime did he commit? Writing a legal memorandum is certainly not a crime. Particularly as the memo contained a legally defensible position. I agree that it wasn't morally defensible, but his job was to write about what the law permitted, not what was the best moral course of action -- the latter decision is for our elected leaders to decide.

[Youmightberight]

@bluez78 His job was to advise what the law was. Never before had the government taken the position the Geneva Conventions did not apply.

He was asked to say how treaties and federal law applied to the conditions of dentention. He failed to mention the Convention against Torture and the Federal Torture Statute.

He knew or should have known he was being asked to legalize the use of torture. It surely wasn't about commissary privileges or how often clean socks had to be supplied.

[bluez78]

@Youmightberight Of course the government had never taken that position before because the US had never experienced terrorism of that magnitude before 9/11! Delahunty's memo doesn't discuss the CAT because interrogation methods were not an issue in that memo--those were the subject of the later Bybee memo, which Delahunty had nothing to do with.

[Youmightberight]

@bluez78 Pray tell, then, what Office of Legal Counsel memos were being relied on when the torture started well before Aug. 1, 2002, the date of the Bybee memo?

And the memo was titled "Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees." How does that not include what you call "interrogation methods" and the CAT? (Incidentally, the torture had nothing to do with interrogation methods.)

[bluez78]

@Youmightberight The substance of the memo did not address torture in the least--the "treaties and laws" referred to were the Geneva Conventions and the WCA that implemented them. I doubt the pre-2002 torturers relied upon Delahunty's memo; and if they did, they clearly misinterpreted it.

[Youmightberight]

@bluez78 Page 6 of the memo quotes Geneva Convention III's definition of a grave breach as "wilful killing, torture or inhumane treatment." Page 7 of the memo quotes Common Article 3, which, among its prohibited acts, includes "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture."

[bluez78]

@Youmightberight Delahunty's position regarding the inapplicability of the WCA and Geneva Conventions is an entirely defensible one. Even today, a respectable school of thought embraces that opinion. The torture issue is completely separate.

[Youmightberight]

@bluez78 Not to mention that you write that "it wasn't morally defensible," while the mission statement of the law school reads as follows: "The University of St. Thomas School of Law, as a Catholic law school, is dedicated to integrating faith and reason in the search for truth through a focus on morality and social justice."

[bluez78]

@Youmightberight It's my opinion that his position isn't morally defensible --but others disagree. Just as St. Thomas hires faculty members on both sides of the abortion debate, so too it hires faculty on both sides of this issue.

[Youmightberight]

Catholics have a Just War theory; they do not have a Just Torture theory.

[GodBlesstheGrass]

Who would think that in 2009 we'd have to hold a sign in front of a law school in Minneapolis to tell them that "Torture is wrong". Unbelievably sad.