NationStates Jolt Archive

And, happily, there were only minor redactions. There was some speculation over whether they would be heavily redacted, and apparently Obama decided that he didn't want their pages to be covered in Sharpie. Where's the change? You know where.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/16/720914/-Torture-Memos-Released,-with-only-Minor-Redactions

My judgment on the content of these memos is a matter of record. In one of my very first acts as President, I prohibited the use of these interrogation techniques by the United States because they undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer. Enlisting our values in the protection of our people makes us stronger and more secure. A democracy as resilient as ours must reject the false choice between our security and our ideals, and that is why these methods of interrogation are already a thing of the past.

But that is not what compelled the release of these legal documents today. While I believe strongly in transparency and accountability, I also believe that in a dangerous world, the United States must sometimes carry out intelligence operations and protect information that is classified for purposes of national security. I have already fought for that principle in court and will do so again in the future. However, after consulting with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and others, I believe that exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release....

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.


In connection with ongoing litigation, the Department of Justice today released four previously undisclosed Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") opinions – one that OLC issued to the Central Intelligence Agency in August 2002 and three that OLC issued to the CIA in May 2005.

"The President has halted the use of the interrogation techniques described in these opinions, and this administration has made clear from day one that it will not condone torture," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "We are disclosing these memos consistent with our commitment to the rule of law."

Holder also stressed that intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and relied in good faith on authoritative legal advice from the Justice Department that their conduct was lawful, and conformed their conduct to that advice, would not face federal prosecutions for that conduct.

The Attorney General has informed the Central Intelligence Agency that the government would provide legal representation to any employee, at no cost to the employee, in any state or federal judicial or administrative proceeding brought against the employee based on such conduct and would take measures to respond to any proceeding initiated against the employee in any international or foreign tribunal, including appointing counsel to act on the employee’s behalf and asserting any available immunities and other defenses in the proceeding itself.

To the extent permissible under federal law, the government will also indemnify any employee for any monetary judgment or penalty ultimately imposed against him for such conduct and will provide representation in congressional investigations.

"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Holder said.

After reviewing these opinions, OLC has decided to withdraw them: They no longer represent the views of the Office of Legal Counsel.

I am glad that the memos have been released.

But I disagree with Obama's decision not to pursue legal investigations and prosecutions as strongly as I can disagree with just about anything.

I see Obama taking the same road this country has taken throughout most of its history starting right from its very inception with the winning of the Revolution. That old American tradition of sweeping the unpleasant parts of the past under the rug. It is wrong. It has been wrong. It continues wrong.

It is morally and ethically wrong, in my opinion, and historically, it has proven plenty of times to be a bad move, as it leaves the same wrongdoers in place to come back and harm/bedevil us again. There was not a purging -- not even a symbolic one -- of rejected ideologies after the Revolution, after various public scandals, after the Civil War, after the Red Scare, and now again, there is no purging, no cleansing. And all those times, we had afterwards to fight the same fights again, and again, and again, against the same people or their descendants, against the same arguments and actions. How many times do we have to ride around this miserable and bloody merry-go-round before we figure out that "coming together" is not the healing process so many Americans think it is. All it is, is letting people beat the rap for their crimes.

I am glad that the memos have been released.

But I disagree with Obama's decision not to pursue legal investigations and prosecutions as strongly as I can disagree with just about anything.

I see Obama taking the same road this country has taken throughout most of its history starting right from its very inception with the winning of the Revolution. That old American tradition of sweeping the unpleasant parts of the past under the rug. It is wrong. It has been wrong. It continues wrong.

It is morally and ethically wrong, in my opinion, and historically, it has proven plenty of times to be a bad move, as it leaves the same wrongdoers in place to come back and harm/bedevil us again. There was not a purging -- not even a symbolic one -- of rejected ideologies after the Revolution, after various public scandals, after the Civil War, after the Red Scare, and now again, there is no purging, no cleansing. And all those times, we had afterwards to fight the same fights again, and again, and again, against the same people or their descendants, against the same arguments and actions. How many times do we have to ride around this miserable and bloody merry-go-round before we figure out that "coming together" is not the healing process so many Americans think it is. All it is, is letting people beat the rap for their crimes.
I just got home in time to see a 'special comment' on Countdown that said essentially the same thing.

Eric Holder says waterboarding is torture.

“If you look at the history of the use of that technique, ” Holder replied, “we prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam. … Waterboarding is torture.”

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/jan/16/nation/chi-holder_16jan16

Obama banned the use of torture techniques.

Even the people that penned the memoes, said they couldn't be sure that what they were talking about wasn't torture. "Without more information we are uncertain whether the course of conduct would constitute a predicate threat". This is after admitting: "the waterboard (which we acknowledge constitutes a threat of imminent death).

http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf

So - this is more than a little disappointing:

"Central Intelligence Agency interrogators who tortured detainees during the administration of George W. Bush will not be prosecuted, President Barack Obama said on Thursday as his administration released legal memos that Mr Bush used to justify harsh techniques such as waterboarding.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/53c7a6e2-2ad8-11de-8415-00144feabdc0.html

I, for one, am highly disappointed that Bush is not being tried for war crimes.

Kimchi, please. :rolleyes:

Department of Justice Releases Four Office of Legal Counsel Opinions (http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-16-2009/0005007505&EDATE=)

"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Holder said.

http://www.congressionalgoldmedal.com/images/FredRogers_RedSweater.jpg

"Can you say, Ex Post Facto?"

How dare Obama admit waterboarding is torture, which Bush not only condoned, but sanctioned and defended repeatedly, and then not punish the officers who followed the Justice Department's ruling!

THE OUTRAGE!

How dare Obama admit waterboarding is torture, which Bush not only condoned, but sanctioned and defended repeatedly, and then not punish the officers who followed the Justice Department's ruling!

THE OUTRAGE!

Where's the Change, Sauron!?

Just because Obama doesn't want to prosecute the interrogators following orders doesn't mean he won't want to prosecute the people that gave them. He seems to want to leave that nastiness behind; probably out of a desire not to alienate Republicans(any more than they have alienated themselves).

Keep in mind that President or not, he doesn't have the final say about whether crimes are prosecuted unless he is prepared to issue pardons(which I doubt he is prepared to do).

I would be disappointed if he had charged them . . . it wasn't their policy and they were doing their job. It would have been highly unfair had President Obama gone after them.

Also, how do you know that is Deep Kimchi?

Kimchi, please. :rolleyes:

Department of Justice Releases Four Office of Legal Counsel Opinions (http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-16-2009/0005007505&EDATE=)



http://www.congressionalgoldmedal.com/images/FredRogers_RedSweater.jpg

"Can you say, Ex Post Facto?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

Yeah, and of the current United States government and the Third Reich, which one is still around and functioning? Nice indirect Godwin there.

Really Kimchi, you're really stretching yourself trying to come up with something you imagine completely discredits Obama. At least you were more consistent and focused with your Ebil Mozlem rants... although not by much.

:rolleyes:

I would be disappointed if he had charged them . . . it wasn't their policy and they were doing their job.

Not a valid excuse.

If the Jutice Department sent out memoes saying it thought it was okay to rape prisoners, for example, I would still expect prison workers to NOT embrace such a policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

So you're comparing bush to Hitler?

I just got home in time to see a 'special comment' on Countdown that said essentially the same thing.
Yeah, I often suspect Olbermann of being one of the voices in my head. ;)

wait didn't the UN rule that "just following orders" wasn't a valid excuse?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

The Nuremburg Trials covered all Nazi soldiers, concentration camp guards, ect? Answer: they did not.

One thread is never enough for something that involves Obama...especially when someone can be disingenuous about their outrage...frankly, I'm tired of the grunts and the footmen taking the fall for this crap. Yes, they shouldn't have done it even if the Justice Department said they should. But you know what? I want the people who decided it was a good idea, who insisted it was--the ones who gave the bullshit justification to pay, not the lackeys. Fuck that. Punishing the lackeys is a token move.

Nice indirect Godwin there.


Way to avoid.

"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department" is only inches away from "just following orders".

wait didn't the UN rule that "just following orders" wasn't a valid excuse?

Aren't you one of the people who like to declare the UN impotent and useless?

So you're comparing bush to Hitler?

No, and nowhere did I suggest I was.

Try as you might to pretend that, if I had been actually saying that the torture was a parallel of Nazi treatment, it would be BUSH that would have been Hitler.

But I wasn't saying that.

Copying myself from the other thread on this because I'm lazy (and HA! NTS got scooped by VC, neener!):
I am glad that the memos have been released.

But I disagree with Obama's decision not to pursue legal investigations and prosecutions as strongly as I can disagree with just about anything.

I see Obama taking the same road this country has taken throughout most of its history starting right from its very inception with the winning of the Revolution. That old American tradition of sweeping the unpleasant parts of the past under the rug. It is wrong. It has been wrong. It continues wrong.

It is morally and ethically wrong, in my opinion, and historically, it has proven plenty of times to be a bad move, as it leaves the same wrongdoers in place to come back and harm/bedevil us again. There was not a purging -- not even a symbolic one -- of rejected ideologies after the Revolution, after various public scandals, after the Civil War, after the Red Scare, and now again, there is no purging, no cleansing. And all those times, we had afterwards to fight the same fights again, and again, and again, against the same people or their descendants, against the same arguments and actions. How many times do we have to ride around this miserable and bloody merry-go-round before we figure out that "coming together" is not the healing process so many Americans think it is. All it is, is letting people beat the rap for their crimes.

Not a valid excuse.

If the Jutice Department sent out memoes saying it thought it was okay to rape prisoners, for example, I would still expect prison workers to NOT embrace such a policy.
The difference was, and this is important, rape is and was illegal. Waterboarding was in a legal pergatory . . . many people claimed it was illegal while others didn't. It wasn't until the supreme court ruled it as illegal that the case was settled.

The Nuremburg Trials covered all Nazi soldiers, concentration camp guards, ect? Answer: they did not.

Missing the point.

Deliberately?

frankly, I'm tired of the grunts and the footmen taking the fall for this crap. Yes, they shouldn't have done it even if the Justice Department said they should. But you know what? I want the people who decided it was a good idea, who insisted it was--the ones who gave the bullshit justification to pay, not the lackeys. Fuck that. Punishing the lackeys is a token move.

I think those who gave the orders, AND those who followed them, should be held accountable.

Missing the point.

Deliberately?

Listing Strawmen deliberately?

Aren't you one of the people who like to declare the UN impotent and useless?

Way to avoid. Again.

Copying myself from the other thread on this because I'm lazy (and HA! NTS got scooped by VC, neener!):

Going after them would be flagrant violation of Ex Post Facto, since waterboarding was approved by the previous Presidential administration. And even if Obama was somehow motivated to press for their prosecution, it would basically be another useless "Brass Fly, Grunts Fry" pageant that only punishes the rank-and-file while the real masterminds (Gonzo and company) completely evade accountability, much less prosecution.

Copying myself from the other thread on this because I'm lazy (and HA! NTS got scooped by VC, neener!):

I didn't exactly get scooped - I checked the other thread (which was apparently appearing while mine was appearing) and saw that it was about the memoes, while I was talking about the other issue - which you had already picked up on 'over there'.

One thread is never enough for something that involves Obama...especially when someone can be disingenuous about their outrage...frankly, I'm tired of the grunts and the footmen taking the fall for this crap. Yes, they shouldn't have done it even if the Justice Department said they should. But you know what? I want the people who decided it was a good idea, who insisted it was--the ones who gave the bullshit justification to pay, not the lackeys. Fuck that. Punishing the lackeys is a token move.
This is a valid point. However, I have two issues with it:

1) Carrying out an illegal order is just as illegal as giving one, so while it is wrong to fob justice off with a few sacrificial grunts and underlings, it is still also wrong to let those grunts and underlings off the hook entirely.

2) I have yet to see any move at all towards prosecuting the higher-ups who issued the orders.

Now, considering all the extremely urgent shit we are going through now, and considering that I want such prosecutions to be done [b]right[/i] and, thus, not rushed just to make me feel better, I am willing to give Obama even a whole four years to take serious action to serve justice on this.

But that does not make me any the less disapproving of today's remarks from Obama.

One thread is never enough for something that involves Obama...especially when someone can be disingenuous about their outrage...frankly, I'm tired of the grunts and the footmen taking the fall for this crap. Yes, they shouldn't have done it even if the Justice Department said they should. But you know what? I want the people who decided it was a good idea, who insisted it was--the ones who gave the bullshit justification to pay, not the lackeys. Fuck that. Punishing the lackeys is a token move.

I kept a list of everyone who voted that waterboarding is not torture in NSG polls from nearly a year ago and the attack weasels will be with them shortly. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

Why are you expecting Obama to follow the rationales of those trials anyway? It was hardly looked well upon by many American law makers at that time.

Not a valid excuse.

If the Jutice Department sent out memoes saying it thought it was okay to rape prisoners, for example, I would still expect prison workers to NOT embrace such a policy.
The difference was, and this is important, rape is and was illegal. Waterboarding was in a legal pergatory . . . many people claimed it was illegal while others didn't. It wasn't until the supreme court ruled it as illegal that the case was settled.

The difference was, and this is important, rape is and was illegal. Waterboarding was in a legal pergatory . . . many people claimed it was illegal while others didn't. It wasn't until the supreme court ruled it as illegal that the case was settled.
False. Waterboarding was specified on lists of prohibited (because they are torture) interrogation techniques used by the US military and by the UN in treaties to which the US is a signatory and thus legally bound. Waterboarding has always been considered torture and it has been illegal for as long as torture has been illegal.

Aren't you one of the people who like to declare the UN impotent and useless?

no?

The difference was, and this is important, rape is and was illegal. Waterboarding was in a legal pergatory . . . many people claimed it was illegal while others didn't. It wasn't until the supreme court ruled it as illegal that the case was settled.

No, it was always illegal.

It was always torture - the ONLY confusion was whether or not it could be 'excused' from meeting ALL the requirements.

It was illegal before Bush came to power, it was never actually legal DURING Bush's office, and it was found to be illegal during that same office. It has since been confirmed by the next administration.

The best you could say (rather than being in purgatory) is that you could argue there were loopholes.

no?

Okay. Was asking because there's a tendency in some posters to completely deride the United Nations as impotent and useless and then bring up its statements or actions as a justification for their viewpoint in the same breath.

Listing Strawmen deliberately?

There was no strawman. I'm saying that the excuse Holder offers is the SAME excuse we've heard for more than half a century.

That's not a strawman - that's the whole point. If you don't know what the terms mean - just don't use them.

Not a valid excuse.

If the Jutice Department sent out memoes saying it thought it was okay to rape prisoners, for example, I would still expect prison workers to NOT embrace such a policy.

Whether they should have done it or not is not the question, the question is whether they can legally be tried.

Going after them would be flagrant violation of Ex Post Facto, since waterboarding was approved by the previous Presidential administration. And even if Obama was somehow motivated to press for their prosecution, it would basically be another useless "Brass Fly, Grunts Fry" pageant that only punishes the rank-and-file while the real masterminds (Gonzo and company) completely evade accountability, much less prosecution.
I disagree about the ex post facto objection. The orders given by Bush were illegal under US law when he gave them. There is no law permitting the president to break the law. Therefore I cannot see any valid argument that there was ever a time when what those people did was no illegal, no matter who approved it.

And it would only be a case of "Brass Fly, Grunts Fry" if no brass were also prosecuted.

I think those who gave the orders, AND those who followed them, should be held accountable.

I doubt you do. Honestly, even in your short posting history if I don't attribute former posters to you, even then I just, honestly, do not believe you. Call it a fault, "my problem," whatever. I do not believe you. Nothing you have posted leaves me to believe that. Rather you have consistently been an opportunistic poster, choosing whatever outrage, feigned or otherwise, to take over even the most middling decision. In just over 100 posts you've squandered enough credibility that there is no need to draw a line between you and similar posters in the past. There is no point in arguing 'your view' because nothing about your posting leads me to believe it is in any way genuine.

There was no strawman. I'm saying that the excuse Holder offers is the SAME excuse we've heard for more than half a century.


And? So what?

I didn't exactly get scooped - I checked the other thread (which was apparently appearing while mine was appearing) and saw that it was about the memoes, while I was talking about the other issue - which you had already picked up on 'over there'.
Oh, right, sure. And obviously, we need a separate thread for every single nuance of a topic. :p

False. Waterboarding was specified on lists of prohibited (because they are torture) interrogation techniques used by the US military and by the UN in treaties to which the US is a signatory and thus legally bound. Waterboarding has always been considered torture and it has been illegal for as long as torture has been illegal.
Are you sure? I've always thought the point was that the administration was taking a stance that it would be illegal were it torture, but it "wasn't torture" ? ? ?

No, it was always illegal.

It was always torture - the ONLY confusion was whether or not it could be 'excused' from meeting ALL the requirements.

It was illegal before Bush came to power, it was never actually legal DURING Bush's office, and it was found to be illegal during that same office. It has since been confirmed by the next administration.

The best you could say (rather than being in purgatory) is that you could argue there were loopholes.
Fine, call it loopholes then. The point is that the they were under the impression that it was allowed by the government and thus they were not doing anything illegal.

Okay. Was asking because there's a tendency in some posters to completely deride the United Nations as impotent and useless and then bring up its statements or actions as a justification for their viewpoint in the same breath.

lol that Does sound like something I'd do but . . . .
in this case not so much. That being said despite the efficiency of the US of A that ruling was fairly well taken in the international community and for the US to go back on that seems a little . . .iffy. On the other hand I do approve of most of what Barracks done and I'm not sure what a decision by him to prosecute those involved would have done to the American Millitary and their support of his administration so . . ..

There was no strawman. I'm saying that the excuse Holder offers is the SAME excuse we've heard for more than half a century.

That's not a strawman - that's the whole point. If you don't know what the terms mean - just don't use them.

Oh please. You cite the nuremburg trials to say that this case is the same as that when its not. The top guys were tried while many who killed people, whether through gas chambers or killing, weren't tried at all. Please stop cherry picking to support your arguments. Try to use basic logic and evidence or don't say anything.

I doubt you do. Honestly, even in your short posting history if I don't attribute former posters to you,


That's mighty big of you, to not base opinions of my posts on other people.

Gosh, I'm blessed.


even then I just, honestly, do not believe you. Call it a fault, "my problem,"


It's a fault. It's your problem.

Neither of which I mind - what I mind is you seem to think that an answer to the topic.


whatever. I do not believe you. Nothing you have posted leaves me to believe that. Rather you have consistently been an opportunistic poster, choosing whatever outrage, feigned or otherwise, to take over even the most middling decision.


A thread about robotic accessories, a thread about the potential for Gay Marriage in New York, a thread about states secrets privilege, a thread about Catholic priests, a thread about supplemental spending... and now one about torture.

Hardly "consistently... an opportunistic poster, choosing whatever outrage, feigned or otherwise, to take over even the most middling decision."


In just over 100 posts you've squandered enough credibility that there is no need to draw a line between you and similar posters in the past.


Again, I feel blessed that you're not going to poison the well.


There is no point in arguing 'your view' because nothing about your posting leads me to believe it is in any way genuine.

Fortunately, that matters slightly less than what you had for breakfast, in the scope of the debate.

Oh, right, sure. And obviously, we need a separate thread for every single nuance of a topic. :p

I considered asking for them to be merged - but figured this one would be about whether or not anyone should be prosecuted, while the other one was about the actual memoes themselves.

That's mighty big of you, to not base opinions of my posts on other people.


Are you saying you're not DK? Because I'm almost certain you are.

Fine, call it loopholes then. The point is that the they were under the impression that it was allowed by the government and thus they were not doing anything illegal.

Ignorance is not a valid defense.

I am glad that the memos have been released.

But I disagree with Obama's decision not to pursue legal investigations and prosecutions as strongly as I can disagree with just about anything.

I see Obama taking the same road this country has taken throughout most of its history starting right from its very inception with the winning of the Revolution. That old American tradition of sweeping the unpleasant parts of the past under the rug. It is wrong. It has been wrong. It continues wrong.

It is morally and ethically wrong, in my opinion, and historically, it has proven plenty of times to be a bad move, as it leaves the same wrongdoers in place to come back and harm/bedevil us again. There was not a purging -- not even a symbolic one -- of rejected ideologies after the Revolution, after various public scandals, after the Civil War, after the Red Scare, and now again, there is no purging, no cleansing. And all those times, we had afterwards to fight the same fights again, and again, and again, against the same people or their descendants, against the same arguments and actions. How many times do we have to ride around this miserable and bloody merry-go-round before we figure out that "coming together" is not the healing process so many Americans think it is. All it is, is letting people beat the rap for their crimes.

I respect your position here, M, and I also am repulsed and horrified by the things that were done in my (as an American Citizen's) name. However, I also see an ethical minefield here; these techniques were reviewed and approved by the Department of Justice. This is a technique used all the time by many of our bureaucrats in order to negotiate the often thorny legal brush they need to deal with every day. To then turn around and have that same DOJ prosecute them seems to me on the same moral level as Double Jeopardy, and would also taint the DOJ's advisory capacity fatally, making the bureaucracy timid and being ultimately severely damaging to good government.

Are you saying you're not DK? Because I'm almost certain you are.

It's not like Kimchi never lied about who he is, even when called on it.

Oh please. You cite the nuremburg trials to say that this case is the same as that when its not.

That's not why I cited it, as I hinted at in the threat TITLE, and as I have actually explained at least once IN the thread.

Really. Not hard.

Neither of which I mind - what I mind is you seem to think that an answer to the topic.


I don't. I answered the topic. I am not going to answer you. If for any reason I thought you were in any way genuine about your position, sure. I just don't. I answered the topic. You told me what you 'think.' I do not believe you. That is unrelated to the topic, which had previously been answered. Do not confuse the two, I had not.

Are you saying you're not DK? Because I'm almost certain you are.

This is my 'I care' face.

I honestly don't care who you think I am, since your preconceptions about a poster should have no effect on the data that person presents, if you're being intellectually honest.

So - go ahead and look at what I present, and if you think I'm full of shit because of that, we're golden. But if you think I'm full of shit because it's a preconception YOU brought to the debate... you're wasting time for both of us.

Are you sure? I've always thought the point was that the administration was taking a stance that it would be illegal were it torture, but it "wasn't torture" ? ? ?


Fine, call it loopholes then. The point is that the they were under the impression that it was allowed by the government and thus they were not doing anything illegal.
Yes, I'm sure. Here is what just one expert in civil and military law has to say about it, for example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.

More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."

In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."

The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be.
emphasis added.

The author of the above article:
Evan Wallach, a judge at the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, teaches the law of war as an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School.

The author's comments echo comments I heard from intelligence experts speaking publicly throughout the Bush admin.

If for any reason I thought you were in any way genuine about your position, sure. I just don't.

You're welcome to that position.

You're wrong, and it is your problem... but you're welcome to it.

Good move by Obama.

It's not like Kimchi never lied about who he is, even when called on it.
I've pretty much just decided that he is DK, but I don't care. I've already noted the pattern of bad habits he brings with him from the past, but I'm happy to judge him on today's arguments, not last month's. So far, he's as patchy as he was at this point in his last cyber-lifetime.

Yes, I'm sure. Here is what just one expert in civil and military law has to say about it, for example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html






emphasis added.

The author of the above article:


The author's comments echo comments I heard from intelligence experts speaking publicly throughout the Bush admin.
Thank you. Excellent sources. ;)

This is my 'I care' face.


Interesting that you chose not to answer.


I honestly don't care who you think I am, since your preconceptions about a poster should have no effect on the data that person presents, if you're being intellectually honest.


On the 'data', no. But it's obviously important to know if a poster might be lying about what they believe or not.


So - go ahead and look at what I present, and if you think I'm full of shit because of that, we're golden. But if you think I'm full of shit because it's a preconception YOU brought to the debate... you're wasting time for both of us.

I have addressed some of the stuff you've said. You haven't addressed any of it.

You're welcome to that position.
When people say this I always wonder why they think they need to grant permission.

You're wrong, and it is your problem... but you're welcome to it.

Of course I expect you to say that, it does not change my mind.

Interesting that you chose not to answer.


Just after you posted, someone posted that, if I was 'DK' I'd say I wasn't anyway.

Which means - aside form an amusing "Life of Brian" parallel, there's nothing to be gained from entertaining the hijack.

When people say this I always wonder why they think they need to grant permission.

Of course I expect you to say that, it does not change my mind.

I'm not trying to change your mind. That's why I said you're welcome to your opinion. It's possible that I could care less how you prejudge, but I'm not sure how.

What it means is - you've turned a partial agreement, into a hijack, because you're bringing excess baggage to the table.

Just after you posted, someone posted that, if I was 'DK' I'd say I wasn't anyway.

Which means - aside form an amusing "Life of Brian" parallel, there's nothing to be gained from entertaining the hijack.

So... care to address my other posts?

So... care to address my other posts?

Give me a post number (or numbers) and I'll either answer, or explain why it was ignored.

Give me a post number (or numbers) and I'll either answer, or explain why it was ignored.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14708049&postcount=32

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14708068&postcount=39

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14708071&postcount=42

Yes, Obammunists and terrorists worldwide are celebrating the disclosure of a treasure trove of information on how to withstand interrogation and get away with plotting further atrocities.

Congratulations, oh Dark Lord, your minions are well-pleased. :rolleyes:

Better Jack* than Barack.

*Bauer, that is.

Yes, Obammunists and terrorists worldwide are celebrating the disclosure of a treasure trove of information on how to withstand interrogation and get away with plotting further atrocities.

Congratulations, oh Dark Lord, your minions are well-pleased. :rolleyes:

Better Jack* than Barack.

*Bauer, that is.

If you want it changed, change the law. You may like it that a President pretends to be above the law, but the rest of us realize the the EXECUTive is supposed to EXECUTE the law, not ignore it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14708049&postcount=32

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14708068&postcount=39

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14708071&postcount=42

The first was ignored because itw a a strawman. I didn't say anything about following the rationales of those trials.

The second was more missed than ignored. I don't see why they can't be legally tried.

The third was ignored because it seems nonsensical. 'So what'? Surely, the 'so what' is the whole thread?

Yes, Obammunists and terrorists worldwide are celebrating the disclosure of a treasure trove of information on how to withstand interrogation and get away with plotting further atrocities.


How to withstand interrogation... that isn't being used, and has been officially banned from use?

Yes - I can see how that's going to send terrorists just a-running, when the actual overturning of those policies didn't.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14708049&postcount=32

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14708068&postcount=39

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14708071&postcount=42

The second and third have been addressed throughout the thread. Are you saying no one in the thread has addressed whether or not waterboarding is illegal and thus people can be legally tried for using the technique? Or is that nts has to regurgitate responses made by other people in order for you to consider a point addressed?

Just after you posted, someone posted that, if I was 'DK' I'd say I wasn't anyway.

Which means - aside form an amusing "Life of Brian" parallel, there's nothing to be gained from entertaining the hijack.

True, this. Kindly drop it, folks. There's a big wide world out there full of real topics.

The first was ignored because itw a a strawman. I didn't say anything about following the rationales of those trials.


Then I really cannot see any relevance of the Nuremberg trials at all, since the only other semi-valid use that Tech-Gnosis suggested, was also wrong apparently.


The second was more missed than ignored. I don't see why they can't be legally tried.


I'll leave this one for now.


The third was ignored because it seems nonsensical. 'So what'? Surely, the 'so what' is the whole thread?

Yes, and your OP was pointless. Normally, your OP's are 'aha! you liberals thought Obama was great, but look how bad he really is!'. But I fail to see how he is doing anything counter to the expectations of most people, I fail to see how him perusing what you call the 'just following orders' defence is something we're supposed to disapprove of or be shocked about. I would like you to explain why we should.

The second and third have been addressed throughout the thread. Are you saying no one in the thread has addressed whether or not waterboarding is illegal and thus people can be legally tried for using the technique? Or is that nts has to regurgitate responses made by other people in order for you to consider a point addressed?

The second one has kind of been addressed, kind of hasn't. I was pointing out that his moral argument was irrelevant, just because morally it may not be a 'valid excuse' like he was suggesting, doesn't mean they can be legally tried, but that doesn't matter. There is no need for it to be pursued anymore.

The whole point of the third post was SPECIFICALLY to find why no true Scotsman posted this thread and why he thinks we should care, I still haven't seen a post by himself (I'm not interested in why other posters may think it's bad) actually explaining this, without falling back on rhetoric about the Nuremberg trials, or about how it's 'dangerously close to 'just following orders', it IS a 'just following orders' excuse in my mind, so that's a redundant complaint to me.

The second one has kind of been addressed, kind of hasn't. I was pointing out that his moral argument was irrelevant, just because morally it may not be a 'valid excuse' like he was suggesting, doesn't mean they can be legally tried, but that doesn't matter. There is no need for it to be pursued anymore.

The whole point of the third post was SPECIFICALLY to find why no true Scotsman posted this thread and why he thinks we should care, I still haven't seen a post by himself (I'm not interested in why other posters may think it's bad) actually explaining this, without falling back on rhetoric about the Nuremberg trials, or about how it's 'dangerously close to 'just following orders', it IS a 'just following orders' excuse in my mind, so that's a redundant complaint to me.

He's answered that. He also pointed out that he agrees with M on that.

He pointed out that "just following orders" is not an excuse as have others. Moreso, it's been shown it's illegal and always has been.

But it's more than that, you can't read this thread and pretend like the point isn't obvious. Some people are outraged that once again those within the government get a free pass for ignoring the law. Not changing it. Not showing it's invalid. For straight out, just ignoring the actual law, the obvious law that waterboarding is illegal.

Then I really cannot see any relevance of the Nuremberg trials at all, since the only other semi-valid use that Tech-Gnosis suggested, was also wrong apparently.



I'll leave this one for now.



Yes, and your OP was pointless. Normally, your OP's are 'aha! you liberals thought Obama was great, but look how bad he really is!'. But I fail to see how he is doing anything counter to the expectations of most people, I fail to see how him perusing what you call the 'just following orders' defence is something we're supposed to disapprove of or be shocked about. I would like you to explain why we should.

Normally? Interesting. It's kind of amusing how threatening everyone finds nts. You guys can't let a single chance for personal attacks slip. (I know I can be guilty, too.) It might help the argument to focus.

Then I really cannot see any relevance of the Nuremberg trials at all, since the only other semi-valid use that Tech-Gnosis suggested, was also wrong apparently.


Then you haven't been paying attention, because I've explained it once, already.

Indeed, the fact that you reference the 'just following orders defense' part later i this post, suggests you know that, too.


Yes, and your OP was pointless. Normally, your OP's are 'aha! you liberals thought Obama was great, but look how bad he really is!'.


You've clearly missed the point of all of my OP's so far.


But I fail to see how he is doing anything counter to the expectations of most people, I fail to see how him perusing what you call the 'just following orders' defence is something we're supposed to disapprove of or be shocked about. I would like you to explain why we should.

I didn't 'expect' him to offer blanket immunity to people that tortured. Indeed, if anything, I epected the exact opposite - minions getting left with the bag for the actions of the poeple giving the orders.

Perhaps you don't disapprove of Obama taking this course. That's fair enough - hence there's a thread about it, because opinions differ. I disapprove because I don't think "someone else said it was okay" is a valid excuse.

The whole point of the third post was SPECIFICALLY to find why no true Scotsman posted this thread and why he thinks we should care, I still haven't seen a post by himself

...it IS a 'just following orders' excuse in my mind, so that's a redundant complaint to me.

That seems to be self-contradictory.

You say I haven't presented a reason why I think it's bad, then talk about why I said it was bad.

I respect your position here, M, and I also am repulsed and horrified by the things that were done in my (as an American Citizen's) name. However, I also see an ethical minefield here; these techniques were reviewed and approved by the Department of Justice. This is a technique used all the time by many of our bureaucrats in order to negotiate the often thorny legal brush they need to deal with every day. To then turn around and have that same DOJ prosecute them seems to me on the same moral level as Double Jeopardy, and would also taint the DOJ's advisory capacity fatally, making the bureaucracy timid and being ultimately severely damaging to good government.
The techniques were illegal before they were approved. The justifications by which they were approved rely on equivocations so extreme they wouldn't last two minutes in NSG before they were ripped to shreds. I reject the argument that the techniques had been approved by the DoJ on the grounds that the DoJ did or reasonably should have known that it was doing wrong.

I further reject arguments that others have floated suggesting the underlings who carried out the orders cannot be blamed for relyin on the judgment of the DoJ. An illegal order is illegal, whether the person carrying it out knows it or not. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Let them get their day in court and be judged by their peers as to whether they are guilty of anything.

The techniques were illegal before they were approved. The justifications by which they were approved rely on equivocations so extreme they wouldn't last two minutes in NSG before they were ripped to shreds. I reject the argument that the techniques had been approved by the DoJ on the grounds that the DoJ did or reasonably should have known that it was doing wrong.

I further reject arguments that others have floated suggesting the underlings who carried out the orders cannot be blamed for relyin on the judgment of the DoJ. An illegal order is illegal, whether the person carrying it out knows it or not. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Let them get their day in court and be judged by their peers as to whether they are guilty of anything.

From a purely ethical standpoint, you're probably right. From a practical one, it just doesn't work.

Given this is politics, the art of the compromise, I suspect that no one is going to go before a court. No one will push that hard for an embarrassment no one wants or needs.

From a purely ethical standpoint, you're probably right. From a practical one, it just doesn't work.

Given this is politics, the art of the compromise, I suspect that no one is going to go before a court. No one will push that hard for an embarrassment no one wants or needs.

Like I said before, the practical result of pursuing prosecution here would be a Brass Fly Grunts Fry pageant in the vein of My Lai or Abu Ghraib, where the higher echelons responsible for ordering such questionable conduct will ultimately escape justice. While the rank-and-file whose only real crime is to carry out the orders under belief they were serving their country instead of questioning them (and thus likely damage their own careers) are punished as convenient sacrificial goats.

From a purely ethical standpoint, you're probably right. From a practical one, it just doesn't work.

Given this is politics, the art of the compromise, I suspect that no one is going to go before a court. No one will push that hard for an embarrassment no one wants or needs.
I never expected anything other than this, but still it sucks shit to be in the reality of it. So I'm going to choose not to adopt the zen attitude about it.

Also, I would argue that we do need the embarrassment, actually. Otherwise, the same enemies (supporters of torture, underminers of the law) will be back to haunt us in the next turn of the political wheel. We gain nothing by this but lose much.

The techniques were illegal before they were approved. The justifications by which they were approved rely on equivocations so extreme they wouldn't last two minutes in NSG before they were ripped to shreds. I reject the argument that the techniques had been approved by the DoJ on the grounds that the DoJ did or reasonably should have known that it was doing wrong.

I further reject arguments that others have floated suggesting the underlings who carried out the orders cannot be blamed for relyin on the judgment of the DoJ. An illegal order is illegal, whether the person carrying it out knows it or not. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Let them get their day in court and be judged by their peers as to whether they are guilty of anything.

1. The personnel not only didn't know that they weren't illegal, they had been assured by the Attorney-General of the United States (the highest-ranking legal authority in the Executive Branch) that these actions were legal. I would submit that these personnel excercised due diligence in determining that they were not committing crimes. Which is the key point. After all, your typical intel officer does not have a Law degree, nor has spent years arguing the law before a bench of Justices. Like any other layman, he/she will rely on the informed judgement of his/her betters in the field.

Unless you want the discipline of the armed forces to break down as every soldier questions the legality of their orders, compromises have to be made. And one of those compromises is that when the Executive seeks legal advice, that advice is the benchmark against which to measure the legality of soldiers' conduct - until successfully challenged. The SCOTUS can overturn it. The President can replace the AG and ask for new advice from the new one. But until the advice of the legal experts is overruled, it must be the benchmark - unless obviously illegal, but the complexities of the law are hardly obvious to laymen (If htey were, then lawyers wouldn't be in such high demand). Even an injuction against use of those techniques pending the outcome of the case would be enough (to my mind) for a serving military person to refuse to carry out such orders. But given that the SCOTUS declined to issue such an injunction (to the best of my knowledge), charging the people on the ground seems a little wrong.

2. Having said that, the actions were indeed illegal (and morally horrific, although the level of weight that carries under law is nil). If anyone should be charged, it would be the A-Gs who authorised it. They knew that it was illegal under international covenants that the US signed, that had the weight of law in the US, and deliberately gave advice that suited their political aims, not the letter (or spirit) of the law.

I'm not saying "Don't charge anyone". I'm saying "Charge the ones who had reason to know better, not the ones who simply trusted the legal advice they were given by competant authorities."

snip

'What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean', is that what you're getting at?

*Sigh* I have no idea.

/undetected sarcasm

Edited target post.

There was not a purging -- not even a symbolic one -- of rejected ideologies after the Revolution, after various public scandals, after the Civil War, after the Red Scare, and now again, there is no purging, no cleansing.

How would the purging take place though, short of a dictator ruling by fiat who fears no repercussions?

1. The personnel not only didn't know that they weren't illegal, they had been assured by the Attorney-General of the United States (the highest-ranking legal authority in the Executive Branch) that these actions were legal. I would submit that these personnel excercised due diligence in determining that they were not committing crimes. Which is the key point. After all, your typical intel officer does not have a Law degree, nor has spent years arguing the law before a bench of Justices. Like any other layman, he/she will rely on the informed judgement of his/her betters in the field.

Unless you want the discipline of the armed forces to break down as every soldier questions the legality of their orders, compromises have to be made. And one of those compromises is that when the Executive seeks legal advice, that advice is the benchmark against which to measure the legality of soldiers' conduct - until successfully challenged. The SCOTUS can overturn it. The President can replace the AG and ask for new advice from the new one. But until the advice of the legal experts is overruled, it must be the benchmark - unless obviously illegal, but the complexities of the law are hardly obvious to laymen (If htey were, then lawyers wouldn't be in such high demand). Even an injuction against use of those techniques pending the outcome of the case would be enough (to my mind) for a serving military person to refuse to carry out such orders. But given that the SCOTUS declined to issue such an injunction (to the best of my knowledge), charging the people on the ground seems a little wrong.

2. Having said that, the actions were indeed illegal (and morally horrific, although the level of weight that carries under law is nil). If anyone should be charged, it would be the A-Gs who authorised it. They knew that it was illegal under international covenants that the US signed, that had the weight of law in the US, and deliberately gave advice that suited their political aims, not the letter (or spirit) of the law.

I'm not saying "Don't charge anyone". I'm saying "Charge the ones who had reason to know better, not the ones who simply trusted the legal advice they were given by competant authorities."

Actually, under military law, you are REQUIRED to question the legality of your orders. REQUIRED. That's why it's not okay as an excuse.

Actually, under military law, you are REQUIRED to question the legality of your orders. REQUIRED. That's why it's not okay as an excuse.

Just for the point of stimulating argument, and to try to avoid enmeshing myself in actual debate, I think NC's point was that the soldiers didn't know to question their orders. They were told that it was legal, and to be frank, if I were a soldier (which, at the rate things are now, I'm joining the naval reserves to help pay for college next year), I would personally have not questioned being told by the attorney general that, yeah, 'interrogation methods' that we were using were A-OK. It's one thing to say that they are required to question legality, but (despite claims otherwise) they weren't killing people, and were assured that the tortures they performed were non-threatening to the lasting health of the subjects (again, my personal opinion notwithstanding).

EDIT: NC just elaborated on military law in the next post, which I'll admit I don't understand 100% (since, after all, I'm not yet a military man).

Actually, under military law, you are REQUIRED to question the legality of your orders. REQUIRED. That's why it's not okay as an excuse.

Question, yes. But remember that under US military law you have NO right to disobey them. If you question an order and state your belief that it is illegal, and your superior officer then confirms that order, you are required by law to obey it. However, also, by military law, your superior officer has then accepted responsibility for the order and the consequences therof.

Actually, under military law, you are REQUIRED to question the legality of your orders. REQUIRED. That's why it's not okay as an excuse.

And if, upon questioning, you are assured by your CO that the Attorney-General has signed off on it, then the questioning of the legality of the orders stops there.

Note: I only said the legality, not the morality. As far as I'm concerned, any person who carried out such orders - regardless of who assured them that it was legal - needs to take a good, long hard look at themselves, and to ask what kind of person they are to have done such things.

The current US military does give classes in the Laws of War to all recruits(part of basic training). It also mentions it being the duty of every solider to disobey unlawful orders. the most often cited Example being the helicopter Pilot during the My Lai massacre who put his helicopter between civilians and the US military.
However, What is torture is vaguely defined in the classes, also the Bush Administration presented an argument the detainees were not prisoners of war. Enough that individual soldiers could arguable be exempt, especially when the attorney general had signed off on it as being legal.

The current US military does give classes in the Laws of War to all recruits(part of basic training). It also mentions it being the duty of every solider to disobey unlawful orders. the most often cited Example being the helicopter Pilot during the My Lai massacre who put his helicopter between civilians and the US military.
However, What is torture is vaguely defined in the classes, also the Bush Administration presented an argument the detainees were not prisoners of war. Enough that individual soldiers could arguable be exempt, especially when the attorney general had signed off on it as being legal.

Key point in the mitigation of prosecution against the grunts, IMHO.

How would the purging take place though, short of a dictator ruling by fiat who fears no repercussions?
It's called a "court of law." And it could use other things called "investigations" by "special prosecutors" to bring "indictments" and bring the "accused" to "trial." And if during their trials a "jury" finds them "guilty", then they could be "sentenced" to "prison" for their "crimes."

Wow, look at all that jargon. Why, it's almost as if there is a system already in place for just this kind of a thing.

Just for the point of stimulating argument, and to try to avoid enmeshing myself in actual debate, I think NC's point was that the soldiers didn't know to question their orders. They were told that it was legal, and to be frank, if I were a soldier (which, at the rate things are now, I'm joining the naval reserves to help pay for college next year), I would personally have not questioned being told by the attorney general that, yeah, 'interrogation methods' that we were using were A-OK. It's one thing to say that they are required to question legality, but (despite claims otherwise) they weren't killing people, and were assured that the tortures they performed were non-threatening to the lasting health of the subjects (again, my personal opinion notwithstanding).

EDIT: NC just elaborated on military law in the next post, which I'll admit I don't understand 100% (since, after all, I'm not yet a military man).
I got that as his point, too, but I reject it on the grounds that I think it was pretty fucking obvious that what they were doing was not okay, even if only from a human standpoint, if they had no clue at all about the law. There was plenty of incentive to question, and plenty of access to the information to clue them that there was something hinky and potentially illegal going on.

I got that as his point, too, but I reject it on the grounds that I think it was pretty fucking obvious that what they were doing was not okay, even if only from a human standpoint, if they had no clue at all about the law. There was plenty of incentive to question, and plenty of access to the information to clue them that there was something hinky and potentially illegal going on.

which part specifically ? The water boarding to my knowledge was only carried out 3 times, and I think these were CIA types.
The argument for Water boarding prior to the 2003 SCOTUS ruling goes off Historic precedent.

Truman has it used in the Korean war.
Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and Nixon all either had it used or were complacent when the South Vietnamese used it.

I find the sending prisoners to places like Egypt to be tortured to be a more clear cut violation of law.

I got that as his point, too, but I reject it on the grounds that I think it was pretty fucking obvious that what they were doing was not okay, even if only from a human standpoint, if they had no clue at all about the law. There was plenty of incentive to question, and plenty of access to the information to clue them that there was something hinky and potentially illegal going on.

As said previously (in my initial post), while you may personally think that any DECENT person would have thought torture should be questioned, the soldiers were being told (incorrectly, it turns out) that the techniques they were employing wouldn't cause any lasting physical harm. Hell, I don't even understand water-boarding completely (I'm slow, yes -- you pour water into a person's nose with them inverted, I gather? I don't get the 'simulated' part of 'simulated drowning'...) and I'm about to graduate senior year with something like 12 college credits, 6 of them in zoological sciences. How the hell is a soldier, who is already fighting to preserve the American way and still in a fervor over being attacked by terrorists (remember, 09/2001 wasn't too long ago and Bush hadn't gotten his second term yet), and quite honestly, likely not quite a Harvard graduate, going to question the 'studies' and shit that the legal attaches gave as proof that their actions would have no lasting effect? If I were in the position, and was convinced I was doing it for my country, and I had been told that they wouldn't be harmed, hell yes, I would 'employ these techniques' against people who want to kill my nation. Obviously, in retrospect, I would be and am horrified at the employment of torture as 'harmless interrogation techniques', but the soldiers were convinced that they WERE harmless.

When water is in your nasal cavity and lungs your body thinks it is drowning. Even if your getting air in still. If done absolutely correctly there is no lasting harm. But mistakes do happen.

When water is in your nasal cavity and lungs your body thinks it is drowning. Even if your getting air in still. If done absolutely correctly there is no lasting harm. But mistakes do happen.

Thank you. Both answers my question, and highlights my point: the legal liasons' vaunted evidence was based on completely ideal situations, which aren't provided by a military prison and the aforementioned... excited soldiers.

[morbid curiosity] So, it's the fact that water is traveling through a respiratory pathway, telling the brain that it is drowning, even though the inversion prevents the water from actually reaching the lungs... correct? [/morbid curiosity]

Thank you. Both answers my question, and highlights my point: the legal liasons' vaunted evidence was based on completely ideal situations, which aren't provided by a military prison and the aforementioned... excited soldiers.

I am farily certain the 3 times we used water boarding was done by the CIA.

I am farily certain the 3 times we used water boarding was done by the CIA.

Then fuggit, why are we trying soldiers for torture?

Or...

Wait, they aren't being tried for waterboarding, are they?

Oh, well, the strawman that I apparently threw up without realizing deserved to be destroyed. You answered a question that's been pestering me for a while, though, and Wikipedia said it in a way that just sort of went over my head.

Then fuggit, why are we trying soldiers for torture?

Or...

Wait, they aren't being tried for waterboarding, are they?

Oh, well, the strawman that I apparently threw up without realizing deserved to be destroyed. You answered a question that's been pestering me for a while, though, and Wikipedia said it in a way that just sort of went over my head.

there are other enhanced interrogation techniques. Things like making you stand for an extended period of time and the like. Most of those screaming for trial of the Bush administration.

I got that as his point, too, but I reject it on the grounds that I think it was pretty fucking obvious that what they were doing was not okay, even if only from a human standpoint, if they had no clue at all about the law. There was plenty of incentive to question, and plenty of access to the information to clue them that there was something hinky and potentially illegal going on.

And like I said, Muravyets, if they didn't at least question the orders, there was something wrong with them as human beings.

However, the law has no particular relation to morals, so I'd say (as a marginally-informed layman, so don't attach too much weight to this) the prospects of conviction would be iffy, at best. And it would open a huge political can of worms for whoever decided to charge them.

My solution (as mentioned earlier): Charge the evil mofos who gave that bad advice, knowing that it was illegal.

i think the actual torturers need to be prosecuted too.

im not sure that its reasonable to convict them on doing things that they were told had been fully vetted and parsed by the legal team but i am sure that it needs to be fully evaluated by the courts. that cant be done unless they are tried for it.

It's called a "court of law." And it could use other things called "investigations" by "special prosecutors" to bring "indictments" and bring the "accused" to "trial." And if during their trials a "jury" finds them "guilty", then they could be "sentenced" to "prison" for their "crimes."

Wow, look at all that jargon. Why, it's almost as if there is a system already in place for just this kind of a thing.

And of course, that jargon was used so often in the past to rein in the abuses of the executive and legislative branch when they worked hand in hand. Oh wait.

Let's be honest. Court of law, investigations and the polite trappings of government are useless when it's the heads of government that are committing the abuses and you're trying to purge the ideologies that harmed the state but line their pockets. Worse than utterly useless, since they end up being subverted to support the abuse while offering the naive public the illusion that it works with the occasional sacrificial scapegoat.

You've had what, two centuries of this sort of thing going on without anything approaching a speed bump? You'll never get the big fish the way things are.

And of course, that jargon was used so often in the past to rein in the abuses of the executive and legislative branch when they worked hand in hand. Oh wait.

Let's be honest. Court of law, investigations and the polite trappings of government are useless when it's the heads of government that are committing the abuses and you're trying to purge the ideologies that harmed the state but line their pockets. Worse than utterly useless, since they end up being subverted to support the abuse while offering the naive public the illusion that it works with the occasional sacrificial scapegoat.

You've had what, two centuries of this sort of thing going on without anything approaching a speed bump? You'll never get the big fish the way things are.
As usual, you give me the Cynicism Song and Dance about how nothing can be done, nothing will be done, and to quote my late grandfather, "It's all a bunch of crap anyway." You also read things into my posts that are not there about what I am trying to purge from society or some such shit, when all I was really talking about carrying out the law and making a clear statement about the nation's commitment to its legal and ethical obligations -- not some unrealistic BS about purging ideologies. But despite the attitude and the additions, you add nothing to the conversation.

i think the actual torturers need to be prosecuted too.

im not sure that its reasonable to convict them on doing things that they were told had been fully vetted and parsed by the legal team but i am sure that it needs to be fully evaluated by the courts. that cant be done unless they are tried for it.

The major hold up with putting anyone on trial likely sits with classified information. Supposedly the water boarding produced results that were valuable. If someone who performed those techniques were put on the trial the chance he would call on those results in his defense would be high. If those results endanger soldiers or the general public would justice be worth it?

My guess that's why Obama took the lets just move on approach.

A fair point. I'm just saying don't start a witch-hunt.

If those results endanger soldiers or the general public would justice be worth it?

IMO, yes.

The major hold up with putting anyone on trial likely sits with classified information. Supposedly the water boarding produced results that were valuable. If someone who performed those techniques were put on the trial the chance he would call on those results in his defense would be high. If those results endanger soldiers or the general public would justice be worth it?

My guess that's why Obama took the lets just move on approach.
i dont see why information gained is relevant to any prosecution. --and if it is then the prosecution will just have to deal with it.

i hate the idea of the whole process going unexamined. that would mean that the next time it comes up, the people ordered to torture have fewer guidelines to use to know when to refuse. if you are told that it has been cleared by the lawyers, then its OK do do, eh?

As usual, you give me the Cynicism

It's called having a hard look at humanity. Does wonders to optimism. Besides, you yourself listed many examples of the American tradition of pretending the bad stuff never happened, only to let it happen all over again. Then you asked quite specifically

"How many times do we have to ride around this miserable and bloody merry-go-round before we figure out that "coming together" is not the healing process so many Americans think it is."

The answer to that particular question should be quite self evident I think. As should be the reason why I highlighted the need for a dictator.

The ideologies never go away because the ones who advance them never go away. The ones who advance them never go away because nobody (of clout) wants to punish them. Nobody (of clout) wants to punish them because their ideologies have made them influential. It's a rather vicious circle.

Or to summarize: The average populace is stupid and overly proud of that stupidity. They do stupid things and then blame others for the stupidity. Breaking that stalemate requires the use of a large wake up hammer to the face, of which nobody is willing or able to do.

Even if someone managed to capture the attention and support of the populace and told them, right to their faces, that the previous actions were wrong, and that they're going to reject it by getting the people responsible, that support would instantly vanish, because it would mean that most of them would have to admit that they were wrong.

It's why I don't believe anything will change barring deus ex machina.

Question, yes. But remember that under US military law you have NO right to disobey them. If you question an order and state your belief that it is illegal, and your superior officer then confirms that order, you are required by law to obey it. However, also, by military law, your superior officer has then accepted responsibility for the order and the consequences therof.

Wrong. Stop learning about the military from movies. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DISOBEY UNLAWFUL ORDERS. That is part of UCMJ.

You are required by law to disobey unlawful order no matter how sure the person giving them is.

You're completely making that shit up. Show the military law that says that you should follow unlawful orders provided they've been questioned once?

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm

Seriously, this stuff is available online. Use Google. Read. Then you can write posts that have come from your anus.

It's called having a hard look at humanity. Does wonders to optimism. Besides, you yourself listed many examples of the American tradition of pretending the bad stuff never happened, only to let it happen all over again. Then you asked quite specifically

"How many times do we have to ride around this miserable and bloody merry-go-round before we figure out that "coming together" is not the healing process so many Americans think it is."

The answer to that particular question should be quite self evident I think. As should be the reason why I highlighted the need for a dictator.

Because the ones who have advanced the damaging ideologies never really go away, but retire to other branches of the government, they wield sufficient capital to make any such rejection from the head of state a political impossibility simply because allowing it to happen would open them to punishment.

The general populace does not learn because they are easily swayed, have brief attention spans and even briefer memories. The political circles do learn, but only in how to advance their ideologies and power struggles.

The ideologies never go away because the ones who advance them never go away. The ones who advance them never go away because nobody (of clout) wants to punish them. Nobody (of clout) wants to punish them because their ideologies have made them influential. It's a rather vicious circle.

Or to summarize: The average populace is stupid and overly proud of that stupidity. They do stupid things and then blame others for the stupidity. Breaking that stalemate requires the use of a large wake up hammer to the face, of which nobody is willing or able to do. It's why I don't believe anything will change barring dues ex machina.

I always love how people feign wise by claiming everyone is stupid but them. You're being cynical, not realistic.

Before blacks had the right to vote, no blacks could vote. Before Obama was President, there'd never been a black President. People who operate on evidence, facts, and a realistic evaluation of them realize that it's possible to break ground not broken before no matter how long something has been going on. If not for realistic people who flipped their hands at the "wise" cynics, we'd be living in caves scratching ourselves. Thank goodness real wisdom prevailed.

Wrong. Stop learning about the military from movies. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DISOBEY UNLAWFUL ORDERS. That is part of UCMJ.

Bit of a question. If the order is unlawful by international standards (e.g. gas the city), but made lawful by the government of the military, is the soldier still required to obey what may be otherwise an unlawful order?

The major hold up with putting anyone on trial likely sits with classified information. Supposedly the water boarding produced results that were valuable. If someone who performed those techniques were put on the trial the chance he would call on those results in his defense would be high. If those results endanger soldiers or the general public would justice be worth it?

My guess that's why Obama took the lets just move on approach.

They would be prevented from presenting it in open court. It's not relevant and would not hinder their ability to have a fair trial.

We don't allow crimes to go unpunished just because prosecution has to avoid some pitfalls. These people committed crimes. They were supposed to be trained and trained well. I promise you that during my time working with Intelligence (a very short time, I'll admit, just some coursework), I didn't encounter anyone who wasn't aware that such things were illegal. Actually the effectiveness of torture versus just learning well how to detect dishonesty was generally what we focused on.

It's called having a hard look at humanity.
No, it's called the same old same old from you, in which you show off how much more wise and world-weary you are than me (and, I'm sure others, too), totally ignoring the contents of my arguments which are not the childish and pie-eyed idealism you like to paint them as so you can show off against them. If you just want to post the view from the Voice of Experience, kindly do so without propping your statements up on me. I know what your views are. Sometimes you're wrong, often you're right, but either way, I'm not interested in your posts when they contain no substantive content. Thank you very much.

Bit of a question. If the order is unlawful by international standards (e.g. gas the city), but made lawful by the government of the military, is the soldier still required to obey what may be otherwise an unlawful order?

The military member follows the law for his country, in the case of the UCMJ, for the US.

Now, in the case of the US, if we've signed a treaty that makes it unlawful, then it is, according to the US Constitution. In the end, though, it comes down to whether or not the court finds it illegal and that you should reasonably have known it was illegal. In the case of rather obvious torture, there really is no defense.

I always love how people feign wise by claiming everyone is stupid but them.


If I wasn't stupid, I wouldn't be on NSG. I'd either be fixing the mess or given up and left Earth a long time ago.


You're being cynical, not realistic.

Before blacks had the right to vote, no blacks could vote. Before Obama was President, there'd never been a black President. People who operate on evidence, facts, and a realistic evaluation of them realize that it's possible to break ground not broken before no matter how long something has been going on. If not for realistic people who flipped their hands at the "wise" cynics, we'd be living in caves scratching ourselves. Thank goodness real wisdom prevailed.

Oh, I won't deny things change. And some things are definitely worth trying to change. Your examples however, were about loosening restrictions. Those do happen. But Muravyets talks about breaking the cycle of "let's pretend that didn't happen - oh how did that happen?"

Can you show me where instead of pretending the past events did not happen or a weak facade of reconciliation with the politicians responsible, there was instead a rejection and punishment of those who were responsible?

The military member follows the law for his country, in the case of the UCMJ, for the US.

Now, in the case of the US, if we've signed a treaty that makes it unlawful, then it is, according to the US Constitution. In the end, though, it comes down to whether or not the court finds it illegal and that you should reasonably have known it was illegal. In the case of rather obvious torture, there really is no defense.

Playing the devils advocate here, but since the previous administration seemed to play fast and loose with the legal term of torture and what it constituted, isn't that a defense in itself?

Bit of a question. If the order is unlawful by international standards (e.g. gas the city), but made lawful by the government of the military, is the soldier still required to obey what may be otherwise an unlawful order?
An international treaty/convention/agreement will trump any national law in such an example as torture or 'gas the city'. It would always be illegal, on a higher strata of law.

Playing the devils advocate here, but since the previous administration seemed to play fast and loose with the legal term of torture and what it constituted, isn't that a defense in itself?
Just because the administration tried to move the goalposts domestically doesn't mean it will wash internationally.

Yes, Obammunists and terrorists worldwide are celebrating the disclosure of a treasure trove of information on how to withstand interrogation and get away with plotting further atrocities.

Congratulations, oh Dark Lord, your minions are well-pleased. :rolleyes:

Better Jack* than Barack.

*Bauer, that is.

You're wrong.

And you don't know Jack.

As for "minion" and "Obammunist", it just shows how well you know how to argue that this is what you resort to. But, you know what they say: "You say minions, we say majority which ousted your idiotic party from power and will watch your ideology die an unglorious death..."

I'm not interested in your posts when they contain no substantive content. Thank you very much.

Fair enough, then what of this? Assuming you were in charge, but had to choose between breaking the cycle by going after your predecessors who were responsible for the abuses while in power or retaining sufficient political capital to push through the reforms you intend, what would you pick? If the former, you no longer have enough political capital to push any through in the foreseeable future. If the latter, the ones responsible get away scot free. Which would be the better choice in your opinion?

If I wasn't stupid, I wouldn't be on NSG. I'd either be fixing the mess or given up and left Earth a long time ago.



Oh, I won't deny things change. And some things are definitely worth trying to change. Your examples however, were about loosening restrictions. Those do happen. But Muravyets talks about breaking the cycle of "let's pretend that didn't happen - oh how did that happen?"

Can you show me where instead of pretending the past events did not happen or a weak facade of reconciliation with the politicians responsible, there was instead a rejection and punishment of those who were responsible?

Actually, when looking at Black history in the US, it's often a tightening of restrictions. At one time, you could basically do anything to black people you liked if you were white and "owned" them. We're now restricted from doing that.

I love how you acknowledge that things change even with no precedent and then you pretend like I need an example of this specific thing changing before in order for us to believe it could. It seems you kind of missed the point.

You're wrong.

And you don't know Jack.

As for "minion" and "Obammunist", it just shows how well you know how to argue that this is what you resort to. But, you know what they say: "You say minions, we say majority which ousted your idiotic party from power and will watch your ideology die an unglorious death..."

Dude, seriously, you should probably knock of this kind of stuff as long as your signature includes what it does.

Playing the devils advocate here, but since the previous administration seemed to play fast and loose with the legal term of torture and what it constituted, isn't that a defense in itself?

It would probably help if you read the link I gave. It shows that the President actually signed an order and people were found guilty of violating the law by FOLLOWING it. The administration isn't the law. Congress writes law. The administration is expected to follow it, as is everyone else.

I am glad that the memos have been released.

But I disagree with Obama's decision not to pursue legal investigations and prosecutions as strongly as I can disagree with just about anything.

I see Obama taking the same road this country has taken throughout most of its history starting right from its very inception with the winning of the Revolution. That old American tradition of sweeping the unpleasant parts of the past under the rug. It is wrong. It has been wrong. It continues wrong.

It is morally and ethically wrong, in my opinion, and historically, it has proven plenty of times to be a bad move, as it leaves the same wrongdoers in place to come back and harm/bedevil us again. There was not a purging -- not even a symbolic one -- of rejected ideologies after the Revolution, after various public scandals, after the Civil War, after the Red Scare, and now again, there is no purging, no cleansing. And all those times, we had afterwards to fight the same fights again, and again, and again, against the same people or their descendants, against the same arguments and actions. How many times do we have to ride around this miserable and bloody merry-go-round before we figure out that "coming together" is not the healing process so many Americans think it is. All it is, is letting people beat the rap for their crimes.
So a little thing like ex post facto prosecution doesn't bother you? I mean, the practitioners of this so-called torture were acting under a legal opinion from a competent authority that what they were doing was legal. This is one of the benefits of being protected by a Constitutional government... The hoards can't just take up shovels and pitchforks to terrorize law-abiding citizens and neither can the government.

Then again, if you don't care much for the Constitution, I guess vigilante justice is just fine.

i dont see why information gained is relevant to any prosecution. --and if it is then the prosecution will just have to deal with it.

i hate the idea of the whole process going unexamined. that would mean that the next time it comes up, the people ordered to torture have fewer guidelines to use to know when to refuse. if you are told that it has been cleared by the lawyers, then its OK do do, eh?

The problem is the Defense. They are entitled to use all evidence in their defense along with a speedy and public trial. We can BS around that on foreigners in military courts in Cuba. We can not do that to American citizens tried over here and verdict would be over turned if we did.

And no one has been given pardons, so why not wait until our soldiers are out of Iraq and Afghanistan and Bin Laden is caught (hopefully)? A rushed trial may result in justice denied as evidence has to be left out due to security concerns, that may protect our soldiers or even American civilians.
If that happens they may get acquitted on charges and hence gain double jeopardy protection.

Justice delayed is not justice denied, but a hasty rush to judgment often is justice denied.

So a little thing like ex post facto prosecution doesn't bother you? I mean, the practitioners of this so-called torture were acting under a legal opinion from a competent authority that what they were doing was legal. This is one of the benefits of being protected by a Constitutional government... The hoards can't just take up shovels and pitchforks to terrorize law-abiding citizens and neither can the government.

Then again, if you don't care much for the Constitution, I guess vigilante justice is just fine.

It's not ex post facto when the government was acting illegally at the time. It's never been legal. It didn't change. It was always illegal.

It wasn't the courts that deemed it legal. It was the administration and that same administration ousted anyone that didn't give the opinion they wanted. The law isn't going to pretend like the legal opinions of some lawyers, who do not sit on the SCOTUS, means we have to ignore centuries of caselaw.

The problem is the Defense. They are entitled to use all evidence in their defense along with a speedy and public trial. We can BS around that on foreigners in military courts in Cuba. We can not do that to American citizens tried over here and verdict would be over turned if we did.

And no one has been given pardons, so why not wait until our soldiers are out of Iraq and Afghanistan and Bin Laden is caught (hopefully)? A rushed trial may result in justice denied as evidence has to be left out due to security concerns, that may protect our soldiers or even American civilians.
If that happens they may get acquitted on charges and hence gain double jeopardy protection.

Justice delayed is not justice denied, but a hasty rush to judgment often is justice denied.

They are entitled to use all evidence that is relevant. You've not shown it relevant. See the law doesn't say that you can torture provided you get useful information. If that were the case, it might be relevant.

Seriously, you're just entirely making this crap up.

The problem is the Defense. They are entitled to use all evidence in their defense along with a speedy and public trial. We can BS around that on foreigners in military courts in Cuba. We can not do that to American citizens tried over here and verdict would be over turned if we did.

And no one has been given pardons, so why not wait until our soldiers are out of Iraq and Afghanistan and Bin Laden is caught (hopefully)? A rushed trial may result in justice denied as evidence has to be left out due to security concerns, that may protect our soldiers or even American civilians.
If that happens they may get acquitted on charges and hence gain double jeopardy protection.

Justice delayed is not justice denied, but a hasty rush to judgment often is justice denied.
im not in a rush to get it over with (although i do want the process to start) but mr obama has said that he has no intention to prosecute the actual torturers and if they DO get prosecuted he will do whatever he can to defend them. (i didnt dream that, right?).

im not in favor of a policy that excuses torture at any level. it needs to be prosecuted even if in the end it is decided that they were "only following orders"

It's not ex post facto when the government was acting illegally at the time. It's never been legal. It didn't change. It was always illegal.

It wasn't the courts that deemed it legal. It was the administration and that same administration ousted anyone that didn't give the opinion they wanted. The law isn't going to pretend like the legal opinions of some lawyers, who do not sit on the SCOTUS, means we have to ignore centuries of caselaw.
First, I have no doubt torture produces bad results. Interrogation, on the other hand doesn't have to just be questions and answers.

I don't have the ability to search through cases to determine whether this statement is true or not, but the crux of the whole legality issues seems to be summed up in the last paragraph of the Bybee memo (http://www.ft.com/cms/1f2f5a50-2ac5-11de-8415-00144feabdc0.pdf)...

"Based on the foregoing, and based on the facts that you have provided, we concluded that the interrogation procedures that you propose would not violate Section 2340A... you should be aware that there are no cases construing this statue; just as there have been no prosecutions brought under it."

If there are no cases and no prosecutions, then the legality or illegality of specific actions seem indeterminate -- especially as those specific actions are not enumerated in the statue.

So I'm not at all sure these interrogations did break a law. Apparently, there's no way to tell without a prosecution.

That's what I really want to establish here: if I understand correctly, the defense that the "let's move on" people are suggesting is that this wasn't torture for the deliberate purpose of causing harm, but interrogation with methods more harsh than the good cop/bad cop, light in the face bullshit.

Torture is wrong, but depending on if the interrogators can be shown to have garnered key information, interrogation is legal.

They are entitled to use all evidence that is relevant. You've not shown it relevant. See the law doesn't say that you can torture provided you get useful information. If that were the case, it might be relevant.

Seriously, you're just entirely making this crap up.

My point was is if the information if released would endanger American lives, why not wait?
Seriously is it worth convicting Bush right now, one person if the information when released results in the deaths of 5,000 US service members?
Bush is allowed to use any information in his defense, the prosecution is not necessarily allowed to.
Besides he will be tried by a Jury. For someone as rich as Bush do you know what that means ??? It means his attorneys will make sure his jury is composed of southern White males wearing Cowboy hats.
If to that jury he can even hint at having prevented another 9/11 or saving a few soldiers lives and the prosecution can't refute because their evidence is classified ? He will be acquitted by that jury.

Obama likely knows this, and that is likely why he is waiting, have a little faith in the president, this one seems competent.

i think the actual torturers need to be prosecuted too.

im not sure that its reasonable to convict them on doing things that they were told had been fully vetted and parsed by the legal team but i am sure that it needs to be fully evaluated by the courts. that cant be done unless they are tried for it.

This is actually my position, too.

I want people to answer for what they did, yes - I want it examined under the microscope.

If that means that all the grunt level ops who did the actual wetwork are somehow mitigated or absolved out of punishment, THROUGH due process, then that's okay.

I wouldn't be so happy with mitigation or asolution being attempted on the parts of those actually giving the orders, of course.

If there's no trial, of any kind, then we're basically saying it's okay. If the lower-down operatives aren't held accountable for their actions AT ALL, then we are accepting 'following orders' as a valid defense.

snip

Besides he will be tried by a Jury. For someone as rich as Bush do you know what that means ??? It means his attorneys will make sure his jury is composed of southern White males wearing Cowboy hats.

more snip

Ummm... excuse me, but...

LOLWUT

I'm not quite sure you understand the legal system. Neither counsel, on either prosecution or defense, chooses the juries, in any way, shape, or form...

So a little thing like ex post facto prosecution doesn't bother you? I mean, the practitioners of this so-called torture were acting under a legal opinion from a competent authority that what they were doing was legal. This is one of the benefits of being protected by a Constitutional government... The hoards can't just take up shovels and pitchforks to terrorize law-abiding citizens and neither can the government.

Then again, if you don't care much for the Constitution, I guess vigilante justice is just fine.

Legal opinion, no matter how expert the expert it comes from, can be wrong, no?

Playing the devils advocate here, but since the previous administration seemed to play fast and loose with the legal term of torture and what it constituted, isn't that a defense in itself?

No.

The Constitution provides a framework that is alpha and omega - as it was designed to do. It exists before each President comes to office, and it exists after each President leaves, and it is deliberately designed in such a way as to make changing any detail a big deal that requires a lot of political muscle.

None of this is accidental - it is to provide a solid framework against which Presidents, and even administrations, act. That's why it's such a big deal when a President and administration are complicit in suspending Constitutional rights.

On top of the Constitution, there are other laws that are guaranteed BY the Constitution - like international Treaties that we decide to become signatory to - in this case, specifically - I'm referring to the fact that we are bound by international treaty NOT to torture.

And, since this is bound BY the Constitution, it transcends a President or his (or her) administration.

Torture is not legal, in the US - regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office, which administration is in power, or how many deskjockeys send memoes saying they think it'll all be okay, just this once.

Ummm... excuse me, but...

LOLWUT

I'm not quite sure you understand the legal system. The counsels don't choose the juries, in any way, shape, or form...

Watch OJ Simpson case(the one he was acquitted on).
He won that in the jury selection. Your attorneys get to dismiss jurors if they have a valid reason to say they are biased. With a good attorney biased can be argued anywhere.
please read up on Voir dire in the US

In the United States, it now generally refers to the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a jury. It also refers to the process by which expert witnesses are questioned about their backgrounds and qualifications, in order to potentially give an expert opinion in court testimony. As defined by Gordon P. Cleary: "Voir Dire is the process by which attorneys select, or perhaps more appropriately reject, certain jurors to hear a case."

So a little thing like ex post facto prosecution doesn't bother you? I mean, the practitioners of this so-called torture were acting under a legal opinion from a competent authority that what they were doing was legal. This is one of the benefits of being protected by a Constitutional government... The hoards can't just take up shovels and pitchforks to terrorize law-abiding citizens and neither can the government.

Then again, if you don't care much for the Constitution, I guess vigilante justice is just fine.

How can you invoke the Constitution here?

The point is - these weren't 'law-abiding citizens'. They carried out illegal acts, that - at best - you could say they might have THOUGHT were legal, based on accepting bad advice.

Just because your dad says it's okay to kill n*ggers, doesn't mean that defense is going to wash in a court of law. Because the 'crime' is illegal, no matter the advice.

Legal opinion, no matter how expert the expert it comes from, can be wrong, no?

The point that were being made is, why fry the grunts whose job it was to obey orders that they were assured by the leadership were absolutely legal, no matter the actual status of said orders- especially when the leadership that made those orders are going to completely avoid prosecution? Again it's basically punishing people for following orders that the top leadership of the nation assured them was okay to do. At best it will further prove the cynicism that the highest authorities can evade justice for the exact same crimes an underling would be nailed on, and at worst it would seriously undermine the nation's military and security in varying degrees as the prosecutions suddenly put the rank-and-file into varying degrees of Cover My Ass mode.

And before we go back to the same old "They should have legally disobeyed torture," keep in mind that the interrogation techniques were not flagrant torture involving physical pain and damage, and the definition of torture was scrambled around by Gonzo's Justice Department to where even waterboarding seemed acceptable since it didn't involve actual physical damage.

Watch OJ Simpson case(the one he was acquitted on).
He won that in the jury selection. Your attorneys get to dismiss jurors if they have a valid reason to say they are biased. With a good attorney biased can be argued anywhere.
please read up on Voir dire in the US

Yes, reject. And the power lies in the hands of both attorneys. And the policy was made so that non-diverse juries (IE all-white cowboy hat-wearing southerners) can be rejected when it is against the interest of prosecution or defense. Notice that last line:

Voir Dire is the process by which attorneys select, or perhaps more appropriately reject, certain jurors to hear a case.

'Reject' being the key operator. Good luck convincing the court to throw out the black people on the jury. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone 'objective' in that they DON'T necessarily want Bush charged with war crimes.

Legal opinion, no matter how expert the expert it comes from, can be wrong, no?

How can you invoke the Constitution here?

The point is - these weren't 'law-abiding citizens'. They carried out illegal acts, that - at best - you could say they might have THOUGHT were legal, based on accepting bad advice.

Just because your dad says it's okay to kill n*ggers, doesn't mean that defense is going to wash in a court of law. Because the 'crime' is illegal, no matter the advice.
I believe I followed that post up with another. Have anything else constructive to add?

Now, as was posted recently, if there is any fault, it lies with the competent authority that authorized the action. If we're going to prosecute someone, start there. [rant]I'm damned tired of seeing soldiers arrested, prosecuted, and acquitted for just doing their jobs. People forget that war isn't nice.[\r]

Dude, seriously, you should probably knock of this kind of stuff as long as your signature includes what it does.

Uhm, to what do you refer?

I believe I followed that post up with another. Have anything else constructive to add?


I believe I already posted, way back in the thread, the part of that SAME Bybee memo where it stated that it was - at best - a grey area, since it clearly violated requirement for being torture, but wasn't AS clear whether it violated EVERY requirement, because they apparently believe there was no way to show permenant distress.

To quote from the summary, part of the memo that almost totally contradicts what was said IN the memo, is lazy. The fact that the memo summarises in that fashion, after admitting internally the almost opposite, is criminal.

Have anything constructive to add?


Now, as was posted recently, if there is any fault, it lies with the competent authority that authorized the action. If we're going to prosecute someone, start there.


I agree. Every level should be held accountable.


[rant]I'm damned tired of seeing soldiers arrested, prosecuted, and acquitted for just doing their jobs. People forget that war isn't nice.[\r]

Nice rant, but I don't care. War isn't nice - but there are rules for war - and we've been breaking them. Rules that we voluntary agreed to. Rules that bind us as tightly as our Constitution. So, if I were going to rant, I'd rant about people like you trying to excuse weaselling out of our Constitutional responsibilities.

But, I'm way too level-headed for that. So I won't rant.

Yes, reject. And the power lies in the hands of both attorneys. And the policy was made so that non-diverse juries (IE all-white cowboy hat-wearing southerners) can be rejected when it is against the interest of prosecution or defense. Notice that last line:



'Reject' being the key operator. Good luck convincing the court to throw out the black people on the jury. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone 'objective' in that they DON'T necessarily want Bush charged with war crimes.

Here is the deal they are not going to reject someone on race or refusal to wear a Cow Boy hat officially. A good Attorney can find reasons to have jurors bumped, that just happens to fit in demographically with what they want. Seriously look at the OJ Simpson murder trial's jury selection process.Went from a mostly white Jury to a mostly black Jury. The Defense simply kept finding reasons to dismiss jurors until they had the demographics they wanted.

Here is the deal they are not going to reject someone on race or refusal to wear a Cow Boy hat officially. A good Attorney can find reasons to have jurors bumped, that just happens to fit in demographically with what they want. Seriously look at the OJ Simpson murder trial's jury selection process.Went from a mostly white Jury to a mostly black Jury. The Defense simply kept finding reasons to dismiss jurors until they had the demographics they wanted.

You think I didn't realize the cowboy hat thing was a joke? And now:

So tell me, how does the jury selection go for a former president's trial, if it somehow comes to it? Because, if it isn't from a national pool, I'll be really surprised. It wouldn't represent the people at all if all of the people were from southern states, and at this magnitude, with mass murder being laid on his hands, there's no way in hell you could honestly expect the defense attorneys to be able to cycle through until a nationally-selected jury just happens to be all southern-state republicans. I call bullshit -- the prosecution would make damned sure that every citizen was from a different state.

Actually, scratch that whole paragraph; if everyone's fantasies come true, and Bush is put on trial, it'll be an international war crimes tribunal, rendering your claim of 'highly-paid lawyers' null.

You think I didn't realize the cowboy hat thing was a joke? And now:

So tell me, how does the jury selection go for a former president's trial, if it somehow comes to it? Because, if it isn't from a national pool, I'll be really surprised. It wouldn't represent the people at all if all of the people were from southern states, and at this magnitude, with mass murder being laid on his hands, there's no way in hell you could honestly expect the defense attorneys to be able to cycle through until a nationally-selected jury just happens to be all southern-state republicans. I call bullshit -- the prosecution would make damned sure that every citizen was from a different state.

There are more then 12 states in the South. And way more then 12 Red states. they would likely only need 9 to secure acquittal anyways.
Also putting a regional restriction of jurors would easily be grounds for a Mistrial. These things tend to favor the defense because if they challenge a Juror and he isn't tossed it gives them room to argue the trial was unfair. Where as the prosecution will just get told well you should have argued better.

Actually, scratch that whole paragraph; if everyone's fantasies come true, and Bush is put on trial, it'll be an international war crimes tribunal, rendering your claim of 'highly-paid lawyers' null.

Incorrect those are only in cases where the country in question is unable or unwilling to try him. Not to mention that would require us to have signed ratified the ICC which we did not.

There are more then 12 states in the South. And way more then 12 Red states. they would likely only need 9 to secure acquittal anyways.
Also putting a regional restriction of jurors would easily be grounds for a Mistrial. These things tend to favor the defense because if they challenge a Juror and he isn't tossed it gives them room to argue the trial was unfair. Where as the prosecution will just get told well you should have argued better.

Okay, fine, there's one 'hurdle' you've passed, if you consider my points as such. Next up: are you claiming that every person in the Republican states support Bush? And are you claiming that, with the background information and questions that will be posed, a completely non-partisan jury will be chosen?

Incorrect those are only in cases where the country in question is unable or unwilling to try him. Not to mention that would require us to have signed ratified the ICC which we did not.

Well then, guess he isn't as much of a war criminal as he's supposed to be, if the world isn't clamoring for a change in policy to prosecute him.

Wrong. Stop learning about the military from movies. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DISOBEY UNLAWFUL ORDERS. That is part of UCMJ.

You are required by law to disobey unlawful order no matter how sure the person giving them is.

You're completely making that shit up. Show the military law that says that you should follow unlawful orders provided they've been questioned once?

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm

Seriously, this stuff is available online. Use Google. Read. Then you can write posts that have come from your anus.

Jocabia, I accept what I wrote may have been incorrect. However, I would suggest you consider this: what I wrote was what I was taught as an enlisted Marine.

I never had any real reason to question it until now.

If they're still teaching what I was taught twenty years ago, then there's likely a bunch of Marines out there that hold the same opinion I did.

Where are the NSG lawyers when you need them?

Okay, fine, there's one 'hurdle' you've passed, if you consider my points as such. Next up: are you claiming that every person in the Republican states support Bush? And are you claiming that, with the background information and questions that will be posed, a completely non-partisan jury will be chosen?

The Attorneys get to question the jurors. with enough money you hire people that specialize in figure out a person's beliefs. Prosecuting attorneys simply wont have the resources to match that. Watch the movie on the OJ Simpson trial, the defense gets away with all sorts of stuff.

Well then, guess he isn't as much of a war criminal as he's supposed to be, if the world isn't clamoring for a change in policy to prosecute him.

Bush might not want to go to Europe, but I suspect they would have a hard time getting enough evidence outside the US to refute what Bush could pull out his ass because it would be classified and the US wouldn't share it.

Jocabia, I accept what I wrote may have been incorrect. However, I would suggest you consider this: what I wrote was what I was taught as an enlisted Marine.

I never had any real reason to question it until now.

If they're still teaching what I was taught twenty years ago, then there's likely a bunch of Marines out there that hold the same opinion I did.
The question is what is a lawful order. When I was taking the TBS law class, we spent a little time on that subject. Of course, I've forgotten all the details, but it's no small matter to disobey and order.

Understanding the legal basis for lawfulness is crucial. The Manual for Courts-Martial defines a "lawful order" as one that is given by an appropriate authority, does not violate constitutional rights, and relates to military duty. Military duty includes all activities related to mission, morale, discipline, usefulness, and good order. Unless it has a legitimate military purpose, an order can't "interfere with private rights or personal affairs."

Regardless of ethical concerns, a lawful order always trumps individual beliefs. "The dictates of a person's conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order," says the MCM.

The guidance that I do remember is that unlawful orders are so obvious that there is no question... Not really the case here, when the AG writes an opinion that the order is, indeed, a lawful one. The prudent soldier would certainly obey an order that's anchored in those facts.

The question is what is a lawful order. When I was taking the TBS law class, we spent a little time on that subject. Of course, I've forgotten all the details, but it's no small matter to disobey and order.

Understanding the legal basis for lawfulness is crucial. The Manual for Courts-Martial defines a "lawful order" as one that is given by an appropriate authority, does not violate constitutional rights, and relates to military duty. Military duty includes all activities related to mission, morale, discipline, usefulness, and good order. Unless it has a legitimate military purpose, an order can't "interfere with private rights or personal affairs."

Regardless of ethical concerns, a lawful order always trumps individual beliefs. "The dictates of a person's conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order," says the MCM.

The guidance that I do remember is that unlawful orders are so obvious that there is no question... Not really the case here, when the AG writes an opinion that the order is, indeed, a lawful one. The prudent soldier would certainly obey an order that's anchored in those facts.

A reasonable soldier would know that torture is wrong, and not just as an ethical concern, but as a specific provision of treaties we're bound to, and under US law.

Your 'prudent' soldier is not a 'reasonable' one - and that's why such a person should be held accountable - the 'prudent' choice isn't necessarily the right one - and in these cases, it was a very wrong choice.

A reasonable soldier would know that torture is wrong, and not just as an ethical concern, but as a specific provision of treaties we're bound to, and under US law.

Your 'prudent' soldier is not a 'reasonable' one - and that's why such a person should be held accountable - the 'prudent' choice isn't necessarily the right one - and in these cases, it was a very wrong choice.

And again, the acts of making subjects stand for long periods or depriving sleep, etc.,* wasn't torture insofar as physical harm intended to cause harm, suffering, or otherwise punish the subjects. It was claimed by the legals to be "interrogation", shown by various paid-off studies to be non-permanently damaging.

* edited for clarity, in light of Myrm's newest reply.

A reasonable soldier would know that torture is wrong, and not just as an ethical concern, but as a specific provision of treaties we're bound to, and under US law.

Your 'prudent' soldier is not a 'reasonable' one - and that's why such a person should be held accountable - the 'prudent' choice isn't necessarily the right one - and in these cases, it was a very wrong choice.
None of these acts were unarguably torture. If they were, we wouldn't be thrashing around so much. Breaking bones, burning, electrical shocks, sure, it's clear that orders to do that stuff should be disobeyed.

Put a guy in a 50 cube embark box? Is that really and definitively torture? If I was ordered to do that, I would, without hesitation. Put a harmless bug in the box, sure. Keep a guy awake? None of this causes any harm like the stuff I mentioned earlier. It's not clearly torture and orders to carry out these interrogations are probably not illegal.

And again, it wasn't torture insofar as physical harm intended to cause harm, suffering, or otherwise punish the subjects. It was claimed by the legals to be "interrogation", shown by various paid-off studies to be non-permanently damaging.

If you read the Bybee memo in it's entirety (rather than just skipping to the 'summary', as some have seemed to do), it makes it quite clear that the 'evidence' being used to justify 'lack of permanent distress' comes from 'voluntary' training of intelligence or military personnel, in 'resisting torture'.

It further details how there were a few people that had prolonged reactions, but that (basically - I'm paraphrasing hugely) most people 'seemed okay' afterwards.

That's it. No long term research, nothing medical. No study to see if those operatives were having nightmares two years down the line. Nothing.

The 'grey area' in the case of waterboarding, is largely a fabrication of quite deliberately NOT looking for evidence.


Why this should surprise anyone in the wake of the 'cause for war' debacle is a question beyond my meager capacity to answer.

If you read the Bybee memo in it's entirety (rather than just skipping to the 'summary', as some have seemed to do), it makes it quite clear that the 'evidence' being used to justify 'lack of permanent distress' comes from 'voluntary' training of intelligence or military personnel, in 'resisting torture'.

It further details how there were a few people that had prolonged reactions, but that (basically - I'm paraphrasing hugely) most people 'seemed okay' afterwards.

That's it. No long term research, nothing medical. No study to see if those operatives were having nightmares two years down the line. Nothing.

The 'grey area' in the case of waterboarding, is largely a fabrication of quite deliberately NOT looking for evidence.


Why this should surprise anyone in the wake of the 'cause for war' debacle is a question beyond my meager capacity to answer.

That's a shitload of 'air quotes' you just used there. Those are exactly the reason why torture trials would fail. Too many 'grey areas'.

This is actually my position, too.

I want people to answer for what they did, yes - I want it examined under the microscope.

If that means that all the grunt level ops who did the actual wetwork are somehow mitigated or absolved out of punishment, THROUGH due process, then that's okay.

I wouldn't be so happy with mitigation or asolution being attempted on the parts of those actually giving the orders, of course.

If there's no trial, of any kind, then we're basically saying it's okay. If the lower-down operatives aren't held accountable for their actions AT ALL, then we are accepting 'following orders' as a valid defense.
yeah

and it also leaves everyone who can be identified as having participated in some way under a cloud of suspicion (or disgust) when they may well be completely innocent of torture. not every prisoner was waterboarded (for example) and not every interrogator waterboarded someone. it may well be true that the majority of interrogators did not cross the line into torture and they should be able to show that to the world (and their families and friends)

That's a shitload of 'air quotes' you just used there. Those are exactly the reason why torture trials would fail. Too many 'grey areas'.
if they fail, they fail. they would still serve an important function even if every interrogator and guard is vindicated.

None of these acts were unarguably torture. If they were, we wouldn't be thrashing around so much. Breaking bones, burning, electrical shocks, sure, it's clear that orders to do that stuff should be disobeyed.

Put a guy in a 50 cube embark box? Is that really and definitively torture? If I was ordered to do that, I would, without hesitation. Put a harmless bug in the box, sure. Keep a guy awake? None of this causes any harm like the stuff I mentioned earlier. It's not clearly torture and orders to carry out these interrogations are probably not illegal.

The box is small enough to limit movement, which is the specific point. If the person IN the box is to be kept there indefinitely, then there is a real risk of harm. If the person is taken out, and then put back in, then there is a THREAT of a real risk of harm - which makes it torture on a psychological grounds.

The Bybee memo get's round this with evasions... by only implying indefinite stay, rather than outright saying it, it's being argued you can claim there's no threat.

Keeping a guy awake can cause death. In the memo, I believe the figure they state is 'not longer than 11 days'. That might not cause death, but again - it creates the THREAT of it. And wording it in such a way as to 'cover your ass' shouldn't be considered absolution.

waterboarding certainly IS torture. There shouldn't even be a debate about it.

In fact, ALL of these arguments come down to quibbling over the 'long term effects', since the memo admits that waterboarding, for example, DOES carry a very real threat, and other instances of 'harm' are supposedly offset by the mere presence of medical personnel. That's horse-puckey. If someone intends to hurt you, the presence of medical personnel actually enhances the threat - torture has a long history of caregivers acting to ENHANCE torture, by reviving the victim, ensuring that not TOO much damage was done, etc.

The fact that you, personally, would utilise torture - doesn't impact whether or not it is torture. Although you might want to think about what it says about you.

The box is small enough to limit movement, which is the specific point. If the person IN the box is to be kept there indefinitely, then there is a real risk of harm. If the person is taken out, and then put back in, then there is a THREAT of a real risk of harm - which makes it torture on a psychological grounds.

The Bybee memo get's round this with evasions... by only implying indefinite stay, rather than outright saying it, it's being argued you can claim there's no threat.

Keeping a guy awake can cause death. In the memo, I believe the figure they state is 'not longer than 11 days'. That might not cause death, but again - it creates the THREAT of it. And wording it in such a way as to 'cover your ass' shouldn't be considered absolution.

waterboarding certainly IS torture. There shouldn't even be a debate about it.

In fact, ALL of these arguments come down to quibbling over the 'long term effects', since the memo admits that waterboarding, for example, DOES carry a very real threat, and other instances of 'harm' are supposedly offset by the mere presence of medical personnel. That's horse-puckey. If someone intends to hurt you, the presence of medical personnel actually enhances the threat - torture has a long history of caregivers acting to ENHANCE torture, by reviving the victim, ensuring that not TOO much damage was done, etc.

The fact that you, personally, would utilise torture - doesn't impact whether or not it is torture. Although you might want to think about what it says about you.

And you seem to be laboring under the delusion that every interrogator was omniscient and/or knew that what they were doing was torture. Perfectly fine and well that you claim that now, with your 20/20 hindsight, but people used to think lobotomies were harmless and, well, helpful, too. Studies 'proved' it. Sounds kinda familiar.

That's a shitload of 'air quotes' you just used there. Those are exactly the reason why torture trials would fail. Too many 'grey areas'.

Look at the 'quotes' I used.

'voluntary' - if it is required for your training that you let someone torture you, is it really voluntary? Sure - you could back out, and a couple of people did (according to the memo)... but most people are going to go ahead with it because it's part of the career they chose. So - I'm emphasising the word 'voluntary' in such a way as to suggest that these people weren't LITERALLY 'volunteering to be tortured'.

I explained the reason FOR the grey areas. It's a failure to look for evidence of harm. Which SHOUDL be actionable, considering that such harm would be definitive of the textbook torture description they were holding to.

I notice you completely avoided responding to that part.

And you seem to be laboring under the delusion that every interrogator was omniscient and/or knew that what they were doing was torture. Perfectly fine and well that you claim that now, with your 20/20 hindsight, but people used to think lobotomies were harmless and, well, helpful, too. Studies 'proved' it. Sounds kinda familiar.

Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.

Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.

It wasn't ignorance. They were being told what they believed to be factual. Your claim of ignorance would only suffice if they had done so without ever getting proof, even if said 'proof' was waterboarding a watermelon and saying that humans would be fine. I hate repeating myself, but this still isn't Nazi Germany, and the questioners aren't the SS -- interrogators weren't shooting their subjects, gassing them, or otherwise explicitly causing harm.

And you seem to be laboring under the delusion that every interrogator was omniscient and/or knew that what they were doing was torture.

Not at all. Who asked for omniscience? That's quiet a strawman you're constructing.

If you're seriously trying to argue that people who are trained (and indeed, paid) to interrogate - DON'T know the legal framework under which torture is defined - then you're arguing for something I'd consider unlikely, at best.

Can you show any evidence to suggest that CIA agents, paid to interrogate, are unlikely to know what constitutes torture? Any reason why a reasonable person would conclude that as likely?

It wasn't ignorance. They were being told what they believed to be factual. Your claim of ignorance would only suffice if they had done so without ever getting proof, even if said 'proof' was waterboarding a watermelon and saying that humans would be fine. I hate repeating myself, but this still isn't Nazi Germany, and the questioners aren't the SS -- interrogators weren't shooting their subjects, gassing them, or otherwise explicitly causing harm.

Asphyxiation qualifies as 'explicitly causing harm'. The memo even admits that. which is why they appeal to the 'can't prove long-term distress' loophole. They knew it physically qualified.

Not at all. Who asked for omniscience? That's quiet a strawman you're constructing.

If you're seriously trying to argue that people who are trained (and indeed, paid) to interrogate - DON'T know the legal framework under which torture is defined - then you're arguing for something I'd consider unlikely, at best.

Can you show any evidence to suggest that CIA agents, paid to interrogate, are unlikely to know what constitutes torture? Any reason why a reasonable person would conclude that as likely?

Not a strawman, I'm tearing down the "Oh, they should have known it was torture" bullshit you're claiming.

And fine, legal framework. What does that say? Torture is the infliction of lasting, physical or mental, harm against people? And yet they had nice data (BSed, but presented as truth) that said that waterboarding, the most extreme of the examples, wasn't torture, as the water couldn't enter their lungs.

It's not my job to defend them, it's your job to prove that they are aware of all the 'torture guidelines'. Innocent until proven guilty, burden lies on you.


EDIT: I should add, for clarification, that I personally know that waterboarding has a harmful effect.

Not a strawman, I'm tearing down the "Oh, they should have known it was torture" bullshit you're claiming.

And fine, legal framework. What does that say? Torture is the infliction of lasting, physical or mental, harm against people? And yet they had nice data (BSed, but presented as truth) that said that waterboarding, the most extreme of the examples, wasn't torture, as the water couldn't enter their lungs.

It's not my job to defend them, it's your job to prove that they are aware of all the 'torture guidelines'. Innocent until proven guilty, burden lies on you.


EDIT: I should add, for clarification, that I personally know now that waterboarding has a harmful effect.

No - the point is that you're claiming CIA interrogation agents wouldn't know it was torture. We're not talking about the man on the street. We're not even talking about 'reasonable people SHOULD know', although that's also valid.

What we're talking about is people who are trained in intelligence gathering, even paid for it... people for whom riding the line between legal and illegal is practically the job-description - and you're arguing that they erred over that line on bad advice.

I'm arguing that they know better, by specific virtue of how it impacts their job. I'm arguing that they knew that the CIA was letting the whitehouse 'ease' the pressure to act ethically.

That's why trials are needed. If they can show that DESPITE how it impacts their daily work, they were taken by surprise by totally new information, then they get to walk away effectively blameless.

If, on the other hand, they can be shown to be complicit in finding excuses to ignore the framework specifically constructed to stop such abuses - then they should be met with whatever the extent of the law delivers.

Copying myself from the other thread on this because I'm lazy (and HA! NTS got scooped by VC, neener!):

Yeah neener!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/17/721381/-Now-that-we-officially-know,-what-do-we-do
The Kos has a pretty good editorial on the memos and what the next step is.

I say give anyone who committed a crime the due process which they deserve. The same due process which they denied their captors.

Jocabia, I accept what I wrote may have been incorrect. However, I would suggest you consider this: what I wrote was what I was taught as an enlisted Marine.

I never had any real reason to question it until now.

If they're still teaching what I was taught twenty years ago, then there's likely a bunch of Marines out there that hold the same opinion I did.

Bullshit. I'm calling bullshit. I entered bootcamp in 92, which is damn near the same time you're talking about. And I was taught the opposite. Same service, around the same time. Why was I taught differently than you were? The answer is, I wasn't. You're wrong.

They aren't teaching the opposite of the UCMJ. So, you tell me, which should I believe. Your bullshit internet claim or the UCMJ? I know which I'm gonna do, but go ahead and tell me which you think is more credible.

Not a strawman, I'm tearing down the "Oh, they should have known it was torture" bullshit you're claiming.

And fine, legal framework. What does that say? Torture is the infliction of lasting, physical or mental, harm against people? And yet they had nice data (BSed, but presented as truth) that said that waterboarding, the most extreme of the examples, wasn't torture, as the water couldn't enter their lungs.

It's not my job to defend them, it's your job to prove that they are aware of all the 'torture guidelines'. Innocent until proven guilty, burden lies on you.


EDIT: I should add, for clarification, that I personally know that waterboarding has a harmful effect.

What? They are required to know what is legal and what isn't. It's there responsibility when they enter into the job. Just like I know the legal requirements for my job. I can't say I didn't know if I violate the security requirements for the data I have. The prosecution doesn't have to prove that I knew the law. They simply have to prove I violated it.

Innocent till proven guilty has nothing to do with ignorance of the law. You don't have to prove someone reasonably knew they were breaking the law. You have to prove they reasonably knew they were committing an act that was illegal. In the case of a lawful order, it's a bit more strict, but it's not to the level you think it is.

What? They are required to know what is legal and what isn't. It's there responsibility when they enter into the job. Just like I know the legal requirements for my job. I can't say I didn't know if I violate the security requirements for the data I have. The prosecution doesn't have to prove that I knew the law. They simply have to prove I violated it.

Innocent till proven guilty has nothing to do with ignorance of the law. You don't have to prove someone reasonably knew they were breaking the law. You have to prove they reasonably knew they were committing an act that was illegal. In the case of a lawful order, it's a bit more strict, but it's not to the level you think it is.

"I didn't know that squishy blob was important. Yes, I'm a surgeon. Yes, I'm a brain surgeon. But, someone... um... they said it was a cupholder, I think. I didn't knooooowwwww!!!!"

Not a strawman, I'm tearing down the "Oh, they should have known it was torture" bullshit you're claiming.

And fine, legal framework. What does that say? Torture is the infliction of lasting, physical or mental, harm against people? And yet they had nice data (BSed, but presented as truth) that said that waterboarding, the most extreme of the examples, wasn't torture, as the water couldn't enter their lungs.


So your argument is because some jackboot managed to reason that waterboarding didn't do significant enough mental damage to some one to constitute torture, no CIA agent thought otherwise? Hell, even accepting the argument presented should've raised red flags in logical people. Apparently the CIA has been hiring idiots.

So I take it that quite a few of you would be happy to fry a few sacrificial goats while Gonzo and the other true masterminds behind the harsh interrogation techniques go scot free?

So I take it that quite a few of you would be happy to fry a few sacrificial goats while Gonzo and the other true masterminds behind the harsh interrogation techniques go scot free?

I'll admit to not reading the whole thread.

But I'm surprised to see you raise your head again, after calling No True Scotsman a dirty name in post #6. Then watch NTS make a far stronger and more detailed defence of a position than I have ever seen from you.

I have read your ten posts to the thread, and their contexts. Nothing there that looks like the apology you owe No True Scotsman.

And now, after 176 posts, you can't find a post to reply to and explicitly debate? Just this? Sticking your head out of the trench and yelling in the general direction of the "other side"?

I'll admit to not reading the whole thread.

But I'm surprised to see you raise your head again, after calling No True Scotsman a dirty name in post #6. Then watch NTS make a far stronger and more detailed defence of a position than I have ever seen from you.

I have read your ten posts to the thread, and their contexts. Nothing there that looks like the apology you owe No True Scotsman.

And now, after 176 posts, you can't find a post to reply to and explicitly debate? Just this? Sticking your head out of the trench and yelling in the general direction of the "other side"?

:rolleyes:

It's ridiculous that the rank-and-file who were explicitly told by their superiors that the techniques were approved and legal should still be punished for carrying out what was basically packaged and crammed down their throats as being perfectly acceptable. I mean if you want to punish people for not being omniscient and objecting to something that was ordered by the leadership while said leadership is not held just as culpable then by all means, go for it.

"They should all be held accountable and prosecuted whether or not they went through due diligence to make sure it was approved by their superiors" is considered to be a masterful argument? Honestly, it's boiling down to frying all the William Calleys in the Bush Administration while all the Ernest Medinas walk scot free. Or suppose that Nuremberg had been about putting all the soldiers on trial instead of the Reich leadership. Same results. You punish people who were forced into a Catch-22 and let the truly responsible go free.

If you want to prosecute them for carrying out what they sincerely believed to be legal orders, you better be sure Alberto Gonzalez along with his cohorts in the Bush Administration are put on trial as well. Anything less is just Brass Fly, Grunts Fry exceptionalism at its worst.

And of course the point being missed is that Eric Holder specifically states charges were not being pursued because the orders were sanctioned at the highest levels of the previous administration, which were the legal executive branch of the United States at the time. To charge them for following orders from the highest level of the government is simply put an Ex Post Facto prosecution.

:rolleyes:

and then you said some stuff.

and then you said some stuff.

Physician, heal thyself. Or make some actual arguments of your own.

:rolleyes:

Physician, heal thyself. Or make some actual arguments of your own.

I commented on your disgraceful accusation that NTS is a puppet of DK. Which you have not retracted.

I take no side in this argument. I admit, openly, that what I pursue here is off topic. While I agree in principle that the followers of orders are less culpable than those who gave the orders, I don't have sufficient grasp of the facts to debate with you, or indeed with No True Scotsman.

This should have been a Moderation matter. I should have reported you for flaming, instead of trying to shame you into an apology to the poster you have wronged.

If the Moderators were to find that your accusation that No True Scotsman is a puppet of Deep Kimchi was based in fact, I would apologize to you and take whatever penalty is appropriate for an unfounded accusation.

I consider that accusing another poster of being (behind their keyboard, in person) the same person as a notorious troll, is nothing less than flaming IF IT IS NOT TRUE.

Good day to you, Deep Kimchi.

:rolleyes:

It's ridiculous that the rank-and-file who were explicitly told by their superiors that the techniques were approved and legal should still be punished for carrying out what was basically packaged and crammed down their throats as being perfectly acceptable. I mean if you want to punish people for not being omniscient and objecting to something that was ordered by the leadership while said leadership is not held just as culpable then by all means, go for it.

"They should all be held accountable and prosecuted whether or not they went through due diligence to make sure it was approved by their superiors" is considered to be a masterful argument? Honestly, it's boiling down to frying all the William Calleys in the Bush Administration while all the Ernest Medinas walk scot free. Or suppose that Nuremberg had been about putting all the soldiers on trial instead of the Reich leadership. Same results. You punish people who were forced into a Catch-22 and let the truly responsible go free.

If you want to prosecute them for carrying out what they sincerely believed to be legal orders, you better be sure Alberto Gonzalez along with his cohorts in the Bush Administration are put on trial as well. Anything less is just Brass Fly, Grunts Fry exceptionalism at its worst.

And of course the point being missed is that Eric Holder specifically states charges were not being pursued because the orders were sanctioned at the highest levels of the previous administration, which were the legal executive branch of the United States at the time. To charge them for following orders from the highest level of the government is simply put an Ex Post Facto prosecution.

Where does this "omniscient" thing keep coming from? I take it I'm omniscient, right? Because I know.

I was following orders is not a defense. You keep presenting it as one. That you were told it was a valid order is not a defense. It isn't. Stop pretending it is.

If I tell you to rape a woman and that it's okay because she's not a citizen but an "enemy combatant" and you do it, you're guilty. It doesn't matter who said it was okay or how they explained it. You know rape is illegal and if it's ever prosecuted, if you tell them you raped her, you're going to prison.

I was the 'rank and file'. And I have denied orders that were dangerous and not lawful. I was assured it would be fine at the time. My superior asked me to set up an entire platoon in front of a soon to be transmitting microwave radio. Had I done so, I would have been guilty of a crime no matter how many times he assured me I was wrong. Why? Because I'm expected to know my job. And my training makes it pretty clear that what he was asking would have be murdering the entire lot. Am I omniscient? Or is that I knew my job just like intelligence and CIA interrogators should have?

So I take it that quite a few of you would be happy to fry a few sacrificial goats while Gonzo and the other true masterminds behind the harsh interrogation techniques go scot free?

You like strawmen, huh? Can you quote someone saying they'd be happy if that happened? Anyone? Just one.

I, for one, am highly disappointed that Bush is not being tried for war crimes.

vvhat ever happened to the Spanish looking into it?

Were the memos released along with a montage of all the times G.W stood at the podium and said the United States does not torture?

For me it is an issue of pragmatism. I've personally sat in on interviews with interogators who said that even without the human rights issues the methods used where not a good way to get information and they wouldn't do them no matter who justified it, and I get it. But ultimately we're going after people for duplicating the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment instead of the evil geniuses that conduct it.

IF we had a history of going after both, that would be one thing. IF we went after the Lindsey Englunds and the people that orchestrated the conditions that she was 'created' under, that would be one thing.

But we don't. We tend to find the lowest hanging fruit, place the blame and then wipe our hands at a job well done. Again, I say fuck that. To me punishing both the grunts and the brass is a thought experiment at best. No, I don't want people with the authority to arrest and detain to be able to be convinced that my human rights are negotiable. That is a frightening prospect. But more frightening is that we can have the people in charge of enforcing that kind of thing tell them it's okay and then let those grunts take the blame instead of share it.

If we had a history of going after both--if Scooter Libbey and his boss took the hit, we could talk about whether or not following orders is a crappy defense (and it is). But we don't. So crying for the blood of the interrogators, in this world, is tacitly letting the people who really perpetrated this travesty walk. Get the head first, and if we have some justice left over we can get the body. I'm tired of only getting the low hanging fruit and letting the poison tree thrive. In a perfect world we'd get both. But if it was a perfect world no one would do this.

It's ridiculous that the rank-and-file who were explicitly told by their superiors that the techniques were approved and legal should still be punished for carrying out what was basically packaged and crammed down their throats as being perfectly acceptable.
I take it you oppose this (http://www.thelocal.de/society/20090407-18493.html)

Then. Nuremberg decided that "but they told me so!" is not a legitimate reason. Are you proposing that CIA grunts are idiots? Those who carried out the orders either knew what they were doing and should be sent to jail with the higher ups or they are incompetent and should be fired.

I am farily certain the 3 times we used water boarding was done by the CIA.
I would be interested to know how you know it has only been done 3 times.

Playing the devils advocate here, but since the previous administration seemed to play fast and loose with the legal term of torture and what it constituted, isn't that a defense in itself?
One can't excuse one crime by pleading another crime. It was not lawful for the administration to do what it did, so therefore it generates no grounds for a defense of what other people did in cooperation with it.

Fair enough, then what of this? Assuming you were in charge, but had to choose between breaking the cycle by going after your predecessors who were responsible for the abuses while in power or retaining sufficient political capital to push through the reforms you intend, what would you pick? If the former, you no longer have enough political capital to push any through in the foreseeable future. If the latter, the ones responsible get away scot free. Which would be the better choice in your opinion?
If I understand your question correctly, then it is completely unrelated to my remarks about torture. I don't have a problem with that, in and of itself, but if you're going to try later on to claim that the use of any kind of power is somehow an excuse or justification for the use of the power to torture, or in any way equate the punishment of a crime with the commission of a crime, I will call bullshit. Just letting you know.

As to your question, I reject the premise as being a false dichotomy.

The way you phrased the question, it implies that "going after your predecessors who were responsible for the abuses while in power" would require one to use methods that would be contrary to the "reforms" you would otherwise be trying to implement. I.e. that you could not pursue justice without committing abuses of the law similar to what the criminals did. That's crap. The law IS the means by which to pursue justice, and therefore it is not necessary to abuse the law in order to pursue justice.

Therefore, the dichotomy is false because there is another option: Pursue justice using means that are in keeping with the reforms one wishes to implement.

You see, although the question above was much better than the post I objected to, it is still a matter of you doing the Cynicism Dance. You assume that your own narrow worldview applies, and then you ask me to comply with your view by fitting myself into it and justifying my choices according to your views. But your game is rigged, because the way you set it up, I cannot justify my choices. I must either abandon my principles or fail. And therefore, ipso facto or whatever phrase, you would win by "proving" that your view is the correct one.

However, the rigged game is obvious, because the other options available are readily apparent. YOUR rules are not THE rules, and I don't have to play by YOUR rules. You don't get to dictate what my options are.


bark, bark, bark, bark, bark
I'm sorry, was someone trying to ask me something? I couldn't hear it over the yapping of that troll barking at that burning strawman.

It's not ex post facto when the government was acting illegally at the time. It's never been legal. It didn't change. It was always illegal.

I said this exact same thing earlier in the thread, and it didn't stop him from making that BS argument, so I doubt we've heard the last of that.


im not in favor of a policy that excuses torture at any level. it needs to be prosecuted even if in the end it is decided that they were "only following orders"
This. ^^ A thousand times, this.^^

And again, the acts of making subjects stand for long periods or depriving sleep, etc.,* wasn't torture insofar as physical harm intended to cause harm, suffering, or otherwise punish the subjects. It was claimed by the legals to be "interrogation", shown by various paid-off studies to be non-permanently damaging.

* edited for clarity, in light of Myrm's newest reply.
Justice Scalia, is that you?

"It's not torture because we've decided to stop calling it torture," eh?

I am inclined to reject as an explanation the exact same claims that are made by the accused to excuse (not deny) the crimes they are accused of.

It wasn't ignorance. They were being told what they believed to be factual. Your claim of ignorance would only suffice if they had done so without ever getting proof, even if said 'proof' was waterboarding a watermelon and saying that humans would be fine. I hate repeating myself, but this still isn't Nazi Germany, and the questioners aren't the SS -- interrogators weren't shooting their subjects, gassing them, or otherwise explicitly causing harm.
It is ignorance because the actual laws are preserved in things called books, and can be readily looked up. There is nothing at all from stopping an interrogator who has doubts or suspicions about what he is being told from researching it on his own time and/or seeking the advice of legal experts independent of his chain of command. A person whose job and training are involved in interrogation can reasonably be expected to have some awareness of the rules and procedures for interrogation, and to be smart enough to be able to look stuff up if they have doubts about it.

And considering the heinousness of the actions involved, one would expect that a reasonable person who (a) respected the law and (b) was dedicated to their real duty as US military personnel, would not be satisfied with being fobbed off with a quick, "Yeah, yeah, the higher-ups say it's okay. Now do it."

One can't excuse one crime by pleading another crime. It was not lawful for the administration to do what it did, so therefore it generates no grounds for a defense of what other people did in cooperation with it.

Fair point.


I don't have a problem with that, in and of itself, but if you're going to try later on to claim that the use of any kind of power is somehow an excuse or justification for the use of the power to torture, or in any way equate the punishment of a crime with the commission of a crime, I will call bullshit.

Duly noted.


The way you phrased the question, it implies that "going after your predecessors who were responsible for the abuses while in power" would require one to use methods that would be contrary to the "reforms" you would otherwise be trying to implement. I.e. that you could not pursue justice without committing abuses of the law similar to what the criminals did.

No, no, no, no. You've gotten it all wrong. I didn't intend for there to be any inference that you'd have to break the law to pursue them.

What I mean is that if you do use legal methods of going after the perpetrators, any political support you would have had to push through reforms you see as necessary for the country but not related to the investigation and trial itself would evaporate. If you don't go after them via legal channels, then Congress would be more amenable to any reforms you intend to pass through. If you do go after them using the existing legal frameworks, then congress would dig it's heels in to the point where nothing goes through. That's the scenario I outlined.

So I take it that quite a few of you would be happy to fry a few sacrificial goats while Gonzo and the other true masterminds behind the harsh interrogation techniques go scot free?
You may want to re-read the thread, because you are wrong about this.

No, no, no, no. You've gotten it all wrong. I didn't intend for there to be any inference that you'd have to break the law to pursue them.

What I mean is that if you do use legal methods of going after the perpetrators, any political support you would have had to push through reforms you see as necessary for the country but not related to the investigation and trial itself would evaporate. If you don't go after them via legal channels, then Congress would be more amenable to any reforms you intend to pass through. If you do go after them using the existing legal frameworks, then congress would dig it's heels in to the point where nothing goes through. That's the scenario I outlined.
Okay, fine, then. Thank you for the clarification.

However, it is still a false choice, because what grounds have you for asserting that all political capital would be wasted by pursuing justice by lawful means? It seems clear to me that you are again applying your own narrow worldview to predict both (a) how a sitting president would go about doing that, and (b) how the Congress and others would react.

So you are still dictating limited options and asking me to play according to them.

For me it is an issue of pragmatism. I've personally sat in on interviews with interogators who said that even without the human rights issues the methods used where not a good way to get information and they wouldn't do them no matter who justified it, and I get it. But ultimately we're going after people for duplicating the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment instead of the evil geniuses that conduct it.

IF we had a history of going after both, that would be one thing. IF we went after the Lindsey Englunds and the people that orchestrated the conditions that she was 'created' under, that would be one thing.

But we don't. We tend to find the lowest hanging fruit, place the blame and then wipe our hands at a job well done. Again, I say fuck that. To me punishing both the grunts and the brass is a thought experiment at best. No, I don't want people with the authority to arrest and detain to be able to be convinced that my human rights are negotiable. That is a frightening prospect. But more frightening is that we can have the people in charge of enforcing that kind of thing tell them it's okay and then let those grunts take the blame instead of share it.

If we had a history of going after both--if Scooter Libbey and his boss took the hit, we could talk about whether or not following orders is a crappy defense (and it is). But we don't. So crying for the blood of the interrogators, in this world, is tacitly letting the people who really perpetrated this travesty walk. Get the head first, and if we have some justice left over we can get the body. I'm tired of only getting the low hanging fruit and letting the poison tree thrive. In a perfect world we'd get both. But if it was a perfect world no one would do this.

And this, is exactly my point. But people just seem to overlook that. QFTMFT.

Where does this "omniscient" thing keep coming from? I take it I'm omniscient, right? Because I know.

I was following orders is not a defense. You keep presenting it as one. That you were told it was a valid order is not a defense. It isn't. Stop pretending it is.

If I tell you to rape a woman and that it's okay because she's not a citizen but an "enemy combatant" and you do it, you're guilty. It doesn't matter who said it was okay or how they explained it. You know rape is illegal and if it's ever prosecuted, if you tell them you raped her, you're going to prison.

I was the 'rank and file'. And I have denied orders that were dangerous and not lawful. I was assured it would be fine at the time. My superior asked me to set up an entire platoon in front of a soon to be transmitting microwave radio. Had I done so, I would have been guilty of a crime no matter how many times he assured me I was wrong. Why? Because I'm expected to know my job. And my training makes it pretty clear that what he was asking would have be murdering the entire lot. Am I omniscient? Or is that I knew my job just like intelligence and CIA interrogators should have?

I have now read through the whole thread, the only person I have seen who has presented anything resembling an argument that 'just following orders' is not a defence, is mur. Unfortunately, I am on her ignore list, so I cannot address what she says. I argue that, it actually is a valid defence. Experiments have shown that it is very difficult for a large portion of ordinary people to resist an authoritative order, after reassurance. (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)


Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.

This shows that, 'just following orders' is not just an irrelevant detail, but substantially changes the situation and can lead people who would never do such a thing willingly under no authoritative obligation, to do very heinous things. Also, though it may not be ex post facto technically, I still think retroactively saying 'nah it was illegal all along', and prosecuting them even though they were assured at the time from the highest sectors of government is still a violation of the spirit of the concept, so I understand the Obama admins choice.

Also, though it may not be ex post facto technically, I still think retroactively saying 'nah it was illegal all along', and prosecuting them even though they were assured at the time from the highest sectors of government is still a violation of the spirit of the concept, so I understand the Obama admins choice.

I agree with this. These guys have no legal training (most likely). If some people who are supposed to be the highest lawyers in the country tell you something is legal, or in a legal grey area, I think most people in the world would be inclined to believe it.

At the time, most people didnt know about the cronyism going on the Bush Admin.


Im taking CToaN's stance on this. Lets go after the guys who gave the orders first. After that, we can start thinking about getting the grunts. But for once, lets not go after some patsy/scapegoat just to make ourselves feel better, while ignoring whose fault it really is.

The point here isnt to punish those that follow Justice Department guidelines, the punishment should be the people in the Justice Department that put their names to those memos declaring it legal and right in the first place. Next time a Justice Department official thinks about being a political pawn for the administration instead of doing his higher Constitutional duty, this would give them pause.

I have now read through the whole thread, the only person I have seen who has presented anything resembling an argument that 'just following orders' is not a defence, is mur. Unfortunately, I am on her ignore list, so I cannot address what she says. I argue that, it actually is a valid defence. Experiments have shown that it is very difficult for a large portion of ordinary people to resist an authoritative order, after reassurance. (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)



This shows that, 'just following orders' is not just an irrelevant detail, but substantially changes the situation and can lead people who would never do such a thing willingly under no authoritative obligation, to do very heinous things.

That it is difficult for soldiers to disobey an unlawful order doesn't change the fact that they are required to do exactly that. I'm sure ordinary people would have difficulty going into a warzone too.

I agree with this. These guys have no legal training (most likely). If some people who are supposed to be the highest lawyers in the country tell you something is legal, or in a legal grey area, I think most people in the world would be inclined to believe it.

At the time, most people didnt know about the cronyism going on the Bush Admin.


Im taking CToaN's stance on this. Lets go after the guys who gave the orders first. After that, we can start thinking about getting the grunts. But for once, lets not go after some patsy/scapegoat just to make ourselves feel better, while ignoring whose fault it really is.
I have to disagree for two reasons:

1) It is usually easier to build a case against the higher-ups by dealing with the lower-downs first. When working through a complex structure of interdependent crimes, I believe it is usual to work up from the bottom, not down from the top, because the guys at the top have their shit more covered. It is by chipping away at the people at the bottom or around the fringes of the group that you find your way past the defenses of the big leaguers.

2) I just cannot bring mysef to buy this "they didn't know" argument. How can you not know that there is a problem with being ordered to pretend-drown a restrained, unarmed prisoner over and over? How can you not have questions about the legality of an order to bash an unarmed prisoner's head against a wall repeatedly, with precise instructions as to how to do it? This is ridiculous. What kind of world did these people come from before the military where they didn't know that US authorities are not allowed to do shit like that? I'm sorry but I don't buy it.

And if they didn't know, then what super-subtle clues were they missing that those who quit rather than do these things and those who blew the whistle on it in the media didn't miss?

I'm sorry, but the Milgrim Experiment (if that's the right name) notwithstanding, I do not believe anybody becomes a torturer by accident, without realizing what they are doing. I believe that those who carried out those orders knew what they were doing and bear blame for it.

I have now read through the whole thread, the only person I have seen who has presented anything resembling an argument that 'just following orders' is not a defence, is mur. Unfortunately, I am on her ignore list, so I cannot address what she says. I argue that, it actually is a valid defence. Experiments have shown that it is very difficult for a large portion of ordinary people to resist an authoritative order, after reassurance. (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)



This shows that, 'just following orders' is not just an irrelevant detail, but substantially changes the situation and can lead people who would never do such a thing willingly under no authoritative obligation, to do very heinous things. Also, though it may not be ex post facto technically, I still think retroactively saying 'nah it was illegal all along', and prosecuting them even though they were assured at the time from the highest sectors of government is still a violation of the spirit of the concept, so I understand the Obama admins choice.

Irrelevant. It's not a valid legal defense. Similarly, you are not excused just because the rest of the mob wanted to hand the n*gg*r, even though the average person is very susceptible to that as well. You'd deserved to be punished and if I had the choice, you would be.

And I wish people would stop saying we're "retroactively" doing anything. It was always illegal. We've prosecuted people for waterboarding in this country many times and no laws have changed.

1) It is usually easier to build a case against the higher-ups by dealing with the lower-downs first. When working through a complex structure of interdependent crimes, I believe it is usual to work up from the bottom, not down from the top, because the guys at the top have their shit more covered. It is by chipping away at the people at the bottom or around the fringes of the group that you find your way past the defenses of the big leaguers.

I really don't know why people think that prosecuting the actual torturers means the brass who gave the orders in the first place will get off scot free. Start at the logical place, the execution of the illegal order, and track it back, prosecuting everyone who passed the order from whatever mucky muck gave it in the first place down to the grunt who did the dirty work. If you feel that badly that the poor interrogators will be doing time then console yourself with the fact that they'd probably get leniency for selling out the brass.

For me it is an issue of pragmatism. I've personally sat in on interviews with interogators who said that even without the human rights issues the methods used where not a good way to get information and they wouldn't do them no matter who justified it, and I get it. But ultimately we're going after people for duplicating the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment instead of the evil geniuses that conduct it.

IF we had a history of going after both, that would be one thing. IF we went after the Lindsey Englunds and the people that orchestrated the conditions that she was 'created' under, that would be one thing.

But we don't. We tend to find the lowest hanging fruit, place the blame and then wipe our hands at a job well done. Again, I say fuck that. To me punishing both the grunts and the brass is a thought experiment at best. No, I don't want people with the authority to arrest and detain to be able to be convinced that my human rights are negotiable. That is a frightening prospect. But more frightening is that we can have the people in charge of enforcing that kind of thing tell them it's okay and then let those grunts take the blame instead of share it.

If we had a history of going after both--if Scooter Libbey and his boss took the hit, we could talk about whether or not following orders is a crappy defense (and it is). But we don't. So crying for the blood of the interrogators, in this world, is tacitly letting the people who really perpetrated this travesty walk. Get the head first, and if we have some justice left over we can get the body. I'm tired of only getting the low hanging fruit and letting the poison tree thrive. In a perfect world we'd get both. But if it was a perfect world no one would do this.

Frankly, I don't care. I really don't. I don't feel bad prosecuting a poor person who actually committed murder just because OJ got away with it by being rich and having a very expensive lawyer. I feel bad that OJ got away with it, but that doesn't change whether or not I want other people tried.

That we don't get everybody or that one class of people gets away with crime is not an excuse for ignoring it altogether. The rich and powerful don't get away with DUIs, theft, fraud, even murder at times. This is an attack on justice and we should all be outraged. This isn't an excuse to ignore the crimes of those who aren't rich and powerful.

These people committed crimes. They did horrible things they should be ashamed of, things our country should be ashamed of. We won't fix that by letting it go.

The reason the going after peons thing didn't work with Scooter Libby is because we allowed the person he was protecting to pardon him. Scooter basically made a deal with the President so he wouldn't have to make a deal for leniency with the DOJ.

I really don't know why people think that prosecuting the actual torturers means the brass who gave the orders in the first place will get off scot free. Start at the logical place, the execution of the illegal order, and track it back, prosecuting everyone who passed the order from whatever mucky muck gave it in the first place down to the grunt who did the dirty work. If you feel that badly that the poor interrogators will be doing time then console yourself with the fact that they'd probably get leniency for selling out the brass.

Which is usually how it's done. We do this with cartels all the time. Come down hard on the peons and work our way up as they make deals for the bigger fish.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/obama_explains_memo_release_decision.php

For what its worth, here is Obama's take.

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.
My judgment on the content of these memos is a matter of record. In one of my very first acts as President, I prohibited the use of these interrogation techniques by the United States because they undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer. Enlisting our values in the protection of our people makes us stronger and more secure. A democracy as resilient as ours must reject the false choice between our security and our ideals, and that is why these methods of interrogation are already a thing of the past.



But that is not what compelled the release of these legal documents today. While I believe strongly in transparency and accountability, I also believe that in a dangerous world, the United States must sometimes carry out intelligence operations and protect information that is classified for purposes of national security. I have already fought for that principle in court and will do so again in the future. However, after consulting with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and others, I believe that exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release.
In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/obama_explains_memo_release_decision.php

For what its worth, here is Obama's take.
Thanks for posting those for reference. For myself, I heard him say that back when he said it. As I have been arguing throughout this discussion, I disagree with his approach and am not happy with it.

Bullshit. I'm calling bullshit. I entered bootcamp in 92, which is damn near the same time you're talking about. And I was taught the opposite. Same service, around the same time. Why was I taught differently than you were? The answer is, I wasn't. You're wrong.

They aren't teaching the opposite of the UCMJ. So, you tell me, which should I believe. Your bullshit internet claim or the UCMJ? I know which I'm gonna do, but go ahead and tell me which you think is more credible.

Some what earlier. 1982.

Some what earlier. 1982.

They UCMJ didn't change in 10 years, I assure you. And they're approach to training us barely changed in 200 years.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/obama_explains_memo_release_decision.php

For what its worth, here is Obama's take.

My beef with that is that it's not retribution. It's justice. We should have punished those senators who violated freedom of speech and religion throughout the dark ages called McCarthyism. We should have punished those that imprisoned Japanese Americans for no reason whatsoever. It's required for their to truly be justice. It's more than that, though. We have to hold those who violate the law accountable or the law means nothing. There isn't the slightest deterrent to the next President attempting the same thing.

I have now read through the whole thread, the only person I have seen who has presented anything resembling an argument that 'just following orders' is not a defence, is mur. Unfortunately, I am on her ignore list, so I cannot address what she says. I argue that, it actually is a valid defence. Experiments have shown that it is very difficult for a large portion of ordinary people to resist an authoritative order, after reassurance. (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)



This shows that, 'just following orders' is not just an irrelevant detail, but substantially changes the situation and can lead people who would never do such a thing willingly under no authoritative obligation, to do very heinous things. Also, though it may not be ex post facto technically, I still think retroactively saying 'nah it was illegal all along', and prosecuting them even though they were assured at the time from the highest sectors of government is still a violation of the spirit of the concept, so I understand the Obama admins choice.

Actually, what it shows is that a lot of people will commit crimes under the right circumstances. Fortunately, we don't allow that as an excuse.

If you'd ACTUALLY read the whole thread, you'd have seen a link I gave where people were held accountable for following executive order when it was illegal. Just following orders is not a legally viable defense.

My beef with that is that it's not retribution. It's justice. We should have punished those senators who violated freedom of speech and religion throughout the dark ages called McCarthyism. We should have punished those that imprisoned Japanese Americans for no reason whatsoever. It's required for their to truly be justice. It's more than that, though. We have to hold those who violate the law accountable or the law means nothing. There isn't the slightest deterrent to the next President attempting the same thing.
I complained of this very thing earlier. There is a long tradition in American history of sweeping the unpleasant past under the rug as soon as fucking possible. Win the fight, sweep all the shit out of sight, and forget all about it, carry on. We've been doing that since the Revolution, and look where it's gotten us -- nowhere. If we examine the great fights in American social and political development, it is always the same shit about the same issues, often from the same damned people. "Let bygones be bygones" only guarantees that no conflict will ever be "by and gone." They keep coming back. Obama has virtually ensured that some other president will do this same shit, and that we will have the exact same fights about it, in the future.

Do you think its a politically viable fight, Muravyets/Jocabia/anyone else with 2 cents to rub together?

Do you think its a politically viable fight, Muravyets/Jocabia/anyone else with 2 cents to rub together?
Do we think what's a politically viable fight? Be more specific, because the fight I was talking about is the one that never ends because of how we handle these issues. That would make it non-viable, in my opinion.

Do we think what's a politically viable fight? Be more specific, because the fight I was talking about is the one that never ends because of how we handle these issues. That would make it non-viable, in my opinion.

For Obama to go after the people who "just followed orders". Sorry that was unclear.

In other words (yours), for him to not just sweep this under the rug.

Do you think its a politically viable fight, Muravyets/Jocabia/anyone else with 2 cents to rub together?
you cant tell until you give it a try.

letting your congressmen know how you feel about it is a good idea.

For Obama to go after the people who "just followed orders". Sorry that was unclear.

In other words (yours), for him to not just sweep this under the rug.
Oh. Well, then: Like Ashmoria said, we never know till we try.

There is nothing complex or nuanced about the wrongness and illegality of torture.

But I don't think the same can be said about the best way for the government to respond to the end of domestic conflicts. I can imagine very good results coming from my approach, but at the same time I can imagine bad results coming from it as well. As for Obama's approach, we have US history to show for the results it produces. Are they good or bad? Compared to what?

I can't get past the never-ending story of this conflict about rights and the law. Having to go through it over and over, having to be under the threat of losing liberty over and over again, having to be at odds with my neighbors, feeling like others are not on the same page as me and cannot be trusted not to betray my interests -- to me, this is an overwhelming bad. To me, it keeps the US stuck in a morass of cultural instability -- forever at the crossroads, trying to pick a way to go, never going anywhere. In my opinion, it is better to decide and take the risks of unforeseen consequences than to remain in a perpetual limbo of not-deciding.

But am I right? I have no idea.

Now a president like Obama has one overriding responsibility to his job and that is not to destroy the country while he is in charge of it. Historically, the government has taken the approach that Obama is taking, and the US has managed to keep on some kind of course through all its upheavals. But does that mean this approach is the optimal one, the one with the most benefits and least negatives? Does it mean that this is the best possible course available? Or does it just mean that we are only plastering over the rot and mold that are eating away the structure of our nation and will eventually bring it down?

Again, I do not know.

For myself, I would rather risk all to do the right thing. But I can understand why Obama would not. That doesn't mean I will ever agree with him on this, though.

EDIT: I realize that this went a bit afield of your original question, but to me, the reason this is so important is because it is not just this one instance of wrongdoing. This is just the latest in a historical series, and I do believe the future of the US is at stake in the resolution of this problem.

So, is it politically viable for Obama, as an individual politician, to go for prosecutions? Who knows? That may depend entirely on how he handles it, or it could be predestined to destroy his career. But is a career worth preserving if it is dependent on violating its own fundamental oath -- to uphold the law? In my opinion, it would be up to Obama to do the right thing in such a way that it did not end his career. If he could manage that, he would be admirable indeed. If not, then not.

But is it politically viable for the US if Obama does NOT go for prosecutions? I would say, no, it is not. The harm may not become apparent immediately, or even for decades, but it would be there, if history is anything to judge by.

As for whether it is better to go after the underlings or their bosses, that has already been addressed extensively -- both should be prosecuted, and you tend to get to the bosses by going through the underlings.

AP) President Barack Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA operatives who used questionable interrogation practices violates international law, the U.N.'s top torture investigator said Saturday.

...

In a brief telephone interview with The Associated Press, Manfred Nowak, an Austrian who serves as a U.N. special rapporteur in Geneva, said the United States had committed itself under the U.N. Convention against Torture to make torture a crime and to prosecute those suspected of engaging in it.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/18/politics/100days/main4953883.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4953883

how is it up to mr obama and mr holder whether or not to follow the law?

Frankly, I don't care. I really don't. I don't feel bad prosecuting a poor person who actually committed murder just because OJ got away with it by being rich and having a very expensive lawyer. I feel bad that OJ got away with it, but that doesn't change whether or not I want other people tried.

That we don't get everybody or that one class of people gets away with crime is not an excuse for ignoring it altogether. The rich and powerful don't get away with DUIs, theft, fraud, even murder at times. This is an attack on justice and we should all be outraged. This isn't an excuse to ignore the crimes of those who aren't rich and powerful.

These people committed crimes. They did horrible things they should be ashamed of, things our country should be ashamed of. We won't fix that by letting it go.

The reason the going after peons thing didn't work with Scooter Libby is because we allowed the person he was protecting to pardon him. Scooter basically made a deal with the President so he wouldn't have to make a deal for leniency with the DOJ.
We punished the Lindsey Englunds and the people who created her continued to write memos justifying what she did and worse. We punished the people who actually broke into Watergate and the people who perpetrated that continued in government knowing that they don't have to take the blame, we can be sated with the low hanging fruit, and they went on to do far worse. It's not about 'feeling bad' for the low people on the totem pole who take the heat for the crap that the people above them justify. You mistake me when you read that as "poor Lindsey Englund." It's not about pity, it's about wanting something done about the abuses, about the people who use their positions to abuse knowing that they can always find a patsy, always find a fall guy, and when ever the heat comes on they can throw that person to the wolves and know that some knee jerk satisfaction in us will be sated, that 'someone' paid, and then they can go on and continue to abuse power. Well I'm sick of it. Fuck that. Fuck them. Attacking the symptoms does nothing about the disease, I want something done about the disease and I'm not going to feel like an ounce of justice is done until that happens. Feed me a bunch of fucktard interrogators that were convinced to do something that their peers knew to be wrong and ineffective, and it's just the bastards getting away with it once again.

Like I said, if we had a history of doing both, getting both the people who did it and the people who orchestrated it, that'd be one thing. But we don't. And so this kind of thing keeps happening. And we're to blame, because we're too satisfied to take the sacrificial lamb and let the wolves run free and pretend it's justice, when it is not.

We punished the Lindsey Englunds and the people who created her continued to write memos justifying what she did and worse. We punished the people who actually broke into Watergate and the people who perpetrated that continued in government knowing that they don't have to take the blame, we can be sated with the low hanging fruit, and they went on to do far worse. It's not about 'feeling bad' for the low people on the totem pole who take the heat for the crap that the people above them justify. You mistake me when you read that as "poor Lindsey Englund." It's not about pity, it's about wanting something done about the abuses, about the people who use their positions to abuse knowing that they can always find a patsy, always find a fall guy, and when ever the heat comes on they can throw that person to the wolves and know that some knee jerk satisfaction in us will be sated, that 'someone' paid, and then they can go on and continue to abuse power. Well I'm sick of it. Fuck that. Fuck them. Attacking the symptoms does nothing about the disease, I want something done about the disease and I'm not going to feel like an ounce of justice is done until that happens. Feed me a bunch of fucktard interrogators that were convinced to do something that their peers knew to be wrong and ineffective, and it's just the bastards getting away with it once again.

Like I said, if we had a history of doing both, getting both the people who did it and the people who orchestrated it, that'd be one thing. But we don't. And so this kind of thing keeps happening. And we're to blame, because we're too satisfied to take the sacrificial lamb and let the wolves run free and pretend it's justice, when it is not.
i do agree with you that its better to go after the big boys than the little boys.

but it shouldnt be a choice between the 2.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/18/politics/100days/main4953883.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4953883

how is it up to mr obama and mr holder whether or not to follow the law?
It isn't, but once again, there's that old American tradition of just pretending like something didn't happen. We'll pretend like nobody committed war crimes during the Bush admin, and we'll pretend like Obama and Holder are not violating the law by not investigating them.

It isn't, but once again, there's that old American tradition of just pretending like something didn't happen. We'll pretend like nobody committed war crimes during the Bush admin, and we'll pretend like Obama and Holder are not violating the law by not investigating them.
and we'll just ignore the international pressure too?

and we'll just ignore the international pressure too?
Apparently, that's their plan. Looks like I'm going to have to keep practicing my Canadian accent if I ever want to take another vacation abroad.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/18/politics/100days/main4953883.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4953883

how is it up to mr obama and mr holder whether or not to follow the law?

He is the enforcer of the law s enacted by congress so he can order the FBI and other agencies not to investigate and not to arrest.
The word Pardon was not used so I assume a pardons were not given.
My guess the information that would come out in a speed and public trial would be a security issue. Possibly risk more soldiers lives.

and we'll just ignore the international pressure too?

Diplomacy the American way.

He is the enforcer of the law s enacted by congress so he can order the FBI and other agencies not to investigate and not to arrest.
The word Pardon was not used so I assume a pardons were not given.
My guess the information that would come out in a speed and public trial would be a security issue. Possibly risk more soldiers lives.
Yeah, uh, no.

Enforcer of the law =/= he gets to choose not to enforce them. Don't be ridiculous.

i do agree with you that its better to go after the big boys than the little boys.

but it shouldnt be a choice between the 2.

No, it shouldn't. This shouldn't have happened in the first place. There are a lot of shouldn'ts.

I am just so disgusted by this whole thing that, even though I support Obama on almost everything else, on this alone, I would be perfectly willing to see the UN issue indictments against him and Holder as well as Bush, Cheney, et al. I would be perfectly willing to see the US get slapped with international sanctions, and even to personally suffer any potential effects to my life because of them. People have to learn to take some fucking damned responsibility. The US, my own country, is acting as a rogue state, and it should be treated as one. We are pariahs. We should be treated as that, too.

Yeah, uh, no.

Enforcer of the law =/= he gets to choose not to enforce them. Don't be ridiculous.

Well, it appears that's what he is doing. National security normally gives a lot of leeway toward the president in these sorts of matters. Might just be a realistic approach, if too much of the information is classified it may be impossible to get a conviction, or to prevent a over turn of the conviction on appeal.

Apparently, that's their plan. Looks like I'm going to have to keep practicing my Canadian accent if I ever want to take another vacation abroad.

Not with me, you won't have to.

Hire an interpreter, ladies and gentlemen! Belo Horizonte is great this time of the year! :D

I accept cash or credit, dollars preferably.

Well, it appears that's what he is doing. National security normally gives a lot of leeway toward the president in these sorts of matters. Might just be a realistic approach, if too much of the information is classified it may be impossible to get a conviction, or to prevent a over turn of the conviction on appeal.
Is doing =/= is allowed to do as part of his job.

Unless you think that if a bank manager embezzles money from his bank, then that means that bank managers can decide whether to leave the deposits in place or take them for themselves.

Is doing =/= is allowed to do as part of his job.

Unless you think that if a bank manager embezzles money from his bank, then that means that bank managers can decide whether to leave the deposits in place or take them for themselves.

It might be something more practical.
Such as the information if released would cost many soldiers their lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. So your example would be more akin to a bank manager deciding to let thieves take the money from the vault, so they don't kill bank patrons.
The purpose of justice is to protect life. If seeking justice causes more harm then good perhaps it is better to wait to seek justice.

Is it worth convicting a few dozen men if the information that comes out during the process puts several thousand US soldiers lives at stake ?

i do agree with you that its better to go after the big boys than the little boys.

but it shouldnt be a choice between the 2.

Moreso, it shouldn't be all or nothing. No one is satisfied with the little boys. No one that gave a shit about outing CIA agents felt it was okay to offer up Scooter Libby and certainly not to pardon him. We want justice. We just don't get it.

But you seem to be saying that as long as we don't get justice from the big boys we should stop trying to get it from those we can. And that's crap. I'll take as many convictions as we can get. Maybe it won't stop the next Bush, but perhaps, just perhaps, it will make the next soldier/agent/peon think twice about following illegal orders.

It might be something more practical.
Such as the information if released would cost many soldiers their lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. So your example would be more akin to a bank manager deciding to let thieves take the money from the vault, so they don't kill bank patrons.
The purpose of justice is to protect life. If seeking justice causes more harm then good perhaps it is better to wait to seek justice.

Is it worth convicting a few dozen men if the information that comes out during the process puts several thousand US soldiers lives at stake ?

Oh, bullshit. Again, what information came out during torture is irrelevant. Here are the only relevant questions... did you perform waterboarding? and was it illegal? If the answer to both is yes, nothing else need be said. If it's not yes, then... nothing else need be said.

Oh, bullshit. Again, what information came out during torture is irrelevant. Here are the only relevant questions... did you perform waterboarding? and was it illegal? If the answer to both is yes, nothing else need be said. If it's not yes, then... nothing else need be said.

I believe a defendant's response would be something along the lines of 5th amendment, and the information that exonerates me is classified.

I believe a defendant's response would be something along the lines of 5th amendment, and the information that exonerates me is classified.

You do know it doesn't work that way, right? The judge would say, uh, why do you think this exonerates you? The answer better be, because it makes it legal or they'll just toss it. If they had a good reason why it exonerates them, then the judge would look at it.

You do know it doesn't work that way, right? The judge would say, uh, why do you think this exonerates you? The answer better be, because it makes it legal or they'll just toss it. If they had a good reason why it exonerates them, then the judge would look at it.

The judge doesn't normally do the questioning of a witness in a trial.

But my guess is the defense attorney would say because the evidence proves someone else conducted the torture. But its classified and we can't look at it.

The judge doesn't normally do the questioning of a witness in a trial.

But my guess is the defense attorney would say because the evidence proves someone else conducted the torture. But its classified and we can't look at it.

Seriously, you're just totally making shit up. Do you have ANY idea how evidence is introduced in a trial? Go ahead, explain it. I'll bet a dollar to the hole in a donut that you're going by things you learned on TV.

The judge could privately review the evidence to see if it's relevant without endangering anyone. Like I said, please, show some evidence for your assertions that doesn't include, well, first Detective Munch said...

Seriously, you're just totally making shit up. Do you have ANY idea how evidence is introduced in a trial? Go ahead, explain it. I'll bet a dollar to the hole in a donut that you're going by things you learned on TV.

The judge could privately review the evidence to see if it's relevant without endangering anyone. Like I said, please, show some evidence for your assertions that doesn't include, well, first Detective Munch said...

The sixth amendment guarantees a speedy and public trial which normally includes the evidence.
Also review by the judge depends on the judge having or being able to get it the relevant clearance to see the information.
Not to mention suppressing of defense evidence is very rare. Almost all your suppressed evidence is prosecution.
In general if the defense wants to bring evidence to the jury they are allowed, or the prosecution fails to meet beyond a reasonable.

Irrelevant. It's not a valid legal defense.

Perhaps it should be taken into account. I really think it's ultimately quite a subjective quantifying of who has responsibility. Just because the grunts wont get charged doesn't mean some of the hyperboles about Obama simply 'sweeping it under the rug' is true.


It was always illegal. We've prosecuted people for waterboarding in this country many times and no laws have changed.

I don't see how this contradicts what I said.

Moreso, it shouldn't be all or nothing. No one is satisfied with the little boys. No one that gave a shit about outing CIA agents felt it was okay to offer up Scooter Libby and certainly not to pardon him. We want justice. We just don't get it.

But you seem to be saying that as long as we don't get justice from the big boys we should stop trying to get it from those we can. And that's crap. I'll take as many convictions as we can get. Maybe it won't stop the next Bush, but perhaps, just perhaps, it will make the next soldier/agent/peon think twice about following illegal orders.

In a perfect world. In this one there is no shortage of patsies, no shortage of people convinced that they'll be shielded, that they'll be Libby or North and not Englund. But we live in this world, and in this world I want something actually done, I don't want a token move. I don't want symbolic justice, I want real justice. I don't want to treat the sniffle, I want to cure the cold.

Moreso, it shouldn't be all or nothing. No one is satisfied with the little boys. No one that gave a shit about outing CIA agents felt it was okay to offer up Scooter Libby and certainly not to pardon him. We want justice. We just don't get it.

But you seem to be saying that as long as we don't get justice from the big boys we should stop trying to get it from those we can. And that's crap. I'll take as many convictions as we can get. Maybe it won't stop the next Bush, but perhaps, just perhaps, it will make the next soldier/agent/peon think twice about following illegal orders.
no

i think that its OK to go after the little boys even if they end up getting off. we need as a country to make it clear that this was unacceptable. (we need as a country to enforce our treaty obligations)

if we prosecute no one, then we are saying that its OK. if we only prosecute the big guys we leave out the people who poured water down prisoners throats. if we only prosecute the actual torturers we leave ourselves vulnerable to having the big guys (who dont give a shit about the life of the little guys and who might be able to pardon them) run roughshod over human rights again.

im not big on vengeance but we need justice on this. we need to let everyone know that it was wrong and exact whatever punishment we can. with bush and cheney that probably means nothing more than embarrassing them--but if that is all we can get we need to get it in spades. they should be permanently disgraced. the lawyers who wrote the memos should be permanently disbarred. if we can get jail time on anyone from the president on down, it needs to be done.

these were not small violations in the heat of the moment. it was ongoing daily torture that rivals (and sometimes exceeds) whatever torture situations we have prosecuted in the past. that it was done by US doesnt excuse it.

It might be something more practical.
Such as the information if released would cost many soldiers their lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. So your example would be more akin to a bank manager deciding to let thieves take the money from the vault, so they don't kill bank patrons.
The purpose of justice is to protect life. If seeking justice causes more harm then good perhaps it is better to wait to seek justice.

Is it worth convicting a few dozen men if the information that comes out during the process puts several thousand US soldiers lives at stake ?

The sixth amendment guarantees a speedy and public trial which normally includes the evidence.
Also review by the judge depends on the judge having or being able to get it the relevant clearance to see the information.
Not to mention suppressing of defense evidence is very rare. Almost all your suppressed evidence is prosecution.
In general if the defense wants to bring evidence to the jury they are allowed, or the prosecution fails to meet beyond a reasonable.
It is difficult to respond to your arguments because they are based on such broad and complete ignorance of the legal system.

At first I thought you were arguing that torture had produced good intel, which we all knew from the start has never been true, and which we have since gotten proof from whistleblowers was certainly not true this time, either. So I could see no way that punishing people for breaking the law in a way that was not helping the troops in any way at all could possibly endanger the troops.

Then I thought you were arguing that if soldiers thought they would be punished for following orders that would somehow put them at greater risk. That, of course, is bullshit because, as Jocabia has amply shown, US soldiers are already required to disobey illegal orders, which also requires them to recognize an illegal order when they get one, and they already know that they will be punished if they follow illegal orders. This has been true for decades, at least, and it has not noticeably increased any risk levels, to my knowledge.

Now, finally, I think you are arguing that, if trials proceed, they will release information about how torture was done, and that this information will somehow put troops at risk.

How did you come up with that nonsense? You had to run around the whole house to connect those completely unrelated dots, didn't you?

1) Kindly explain precisely how you imagine that information about how war crimes were committed is going to increase the risk for troops in the field. I really want to hear that one.

2) Kindly also explain how there is no such thing as a court-issued gag order to keep information away from the public until a trial is over, or no such thing as proceedings in closed chambers, or no such thing as a sequestered jury, or no such thing as a special tribunal for special crimes, particularly dealing with sensitive/classified matters, or no such thing as any of the other exceptions to the public trial mandate that exist because reality sometimes demands that information be controlled for periods of time. I'd really like to hear all about how none of those things exist, thus guaranteeing that any information testified to at a war crimes trial is going to become public in a way that will endanger troops as you imagine. Don't forget to explain how that will happen, too, or else, this explanation won't make any sense.

no

i think that its OK to go after the little boys even if they end up getting off. we need as a country to make it clear that this was unacceptable. (we need as a country to enforce our treaty obligations)

if we prosecute no one, then we are saying that its OK. if we only prosecute the big guys we leave out the people who poured water down prisoners throats. if we only prosecute the actual torturers we leave ourselves vulnerable to having the big guys (who dont give a shit about the life of the little guys and who might be able to pardon them) run roughshod over human rights again.

im not big on vengeance but we need justice on this. we need to let everyone know that it was wrong and exact whatever punishment we can. with bush and cheney that probably means nothing more than embarrassing them--but if that is all we can get we need to get it in spades. they should be permanently disgraced. the lawyers who wrote the memos should be permanently disbarred. if we can get jail time on anyone from the president on down, it needs to be done.

these were not small violations in the heat of the moment. it was ongoing daily torture that rivals (and sometimes exceeds) whatever torture situations we have prosecuted in the past. that it was done by US doesnt excuse it.
As an American, I would say that, for Americans, the fact that the US did it should make it worse. Because of our own laws and because of those past prosecutions, this betrayal of what we are supposed to stand for is all the more brutal.

As an American, I would say that, for Americans, the fact that the US did it should make it worse. Because of our own laws and because of those past prosecutions, this betrayal of what we are supposed to stand for is all the more brutal.
it sure feels that way for me.

i cant read the torture memos all the way through. they sicken me. i am horrified that the people in charge from top to bottom thought that this was a good idea. and still do think that it was a good idea.

1) Kindly explain precisely how you imagine that information about how war crimes were committed is going to increase the risk for troops in the field. I really want to hear that one.


Arguably disclosing techniques used in interrogation could render them less effective. For example, use of swarms of harmless bugs in a box were authorized. Does this method lose its interrogational value if the prisoner knows about this in advance and is prepared and trained for it?

Arguably disclosing techniques used in interrogation could render them less effective. For example, use of swarms of harmless bugs in a box were authorized. Does this method lose its interrogational value if the prisoner knows about this in advance and is prepared and trained for it?
I don't know, but you know what I do know absolutely will reduce the "effectiveness" of such techniques? Two things:

1) Banning such techniques, which we just did. Not using them at all will certainly reduce any "effectiveness" they might ever have had.

Also

2) The fact that TORTURE DOES NOT GENERATE GOOD INTEL. Never has, never will. So, not being an "effective" technique will certainly harm the "effectiveness" of a technique.

:rolleyes:

It's funny, but not two minutes ago I was discussing this very issue with me mum, who is wise and saintly. She pointed out that some idiot on the news this morning was whining about how, if this information gets out that we are changing our interrogation techniques and if our enemies don't think that we'll kill them during interrogation, they won't fear us anymore.

*has to take a break to recover from the stupid in that notion*

To which I said I thought it might have the opposite effect. All our enemies have to do is watch the news about this issue and, if they are sane people, they will become consumed with a terror that we will kill them during interrogation BY ACCIDENT BECAUSE WE'RE SO FUCKING STUPID. "No, No, please don't send me to GITMO! I don't want to die just because I was standing too close to those fucking morons!"

has rush limbaughs discussion of how torture works because john mccain broke under torture been brought up yet?

what an idiot. breaking and telling your captors outrageous lies doesnt make it effective.

has rush limbaughs discussion of how torture works because john mccain broke under torture been brought up yet?

what an idiot. breaking and telling your captors outrageous lies doesnt make it effective.
Seriously, the arguments in favor of torturing people are of only two kinds -- sick fetishes, and stupidity. It requires a special inability to connect ideas in a person's head for them to think that torture is an effective interrogation technique.

I should modify my earlier comments, because this issue does really boil my blood:

I do not mean to call or suggest than any poster in this forum is stupid.

When I talked about the arguments in favor of torture being dependent on stupidity and when I sarcastically suggested that our enemies should fear that we will kill them during interrogation by accident because we are "fucking morons," I meant to attack the arguments being presented by people out there in the real world, where policy gets made and shit really matters. I also did seriously mean to attack the whole of the US, by association with those policy-making idiots, as being tagged as a nation of drooling fools who can't figure out the simplest things.

Such as: "What if they start training to resist the bug box?" That argument was not original to Intestinal Fluids, unless he is also the political pundit George Will, who posed that very question this morning on "This Week." (And considering George Will's record in recent years, I'm going to guess that's just one of the new Republican Party talking points we're going to hear from lots of party-parrots.)

Obvious Answer That Apparently Never Occurred to Mr. Will: "Fine. Let them train for the bug box. Let them spend years conditioning themselves to accept centipedes as pets and friends. We're not using the bug box anymore. Who gives a shit if they train for it? Now show us the list of techniques we are still using that we've just published to the enemy."

Geez-gods, people, THINK for a minute.