36 ms·

Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses

521 points by rpicard 12y ago

darkarmani 12y ago
For anyone doubting the claims you can go right to the Senate Committee's report: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/09/world/cia-torture-report-document.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/09/world/cia-tort... Page 10 is the start of the findings and conclusions.
fargolime 12y ago
They won't be prosecuted, of course. I ostracized those in my life who supported it. That may be the best anyone can do against it, given our 2-party oligopoly.
- jameskilton 12y ago
  At least, as long as they stay in the US. I've read that a few countries will be arresting and prosecuting any participating agents the second they enter their borders. Not that that will solve problems here though. Correction: The UN has said that anyone can if they want to. http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2014/12/12/cia-agents-who-tortured-are-vulnerable-to-prosecution-in-any-country-in-the-world-says-u-n-official/ http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2014/12/12/cia-agents-who-tort...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
higherpurpose 12y ago
The very least that I expect out of this is for the International Criminal Court to convict them as war criminals. Whether those convicted will actually do any prison time is another issue. However, US will have to live with the shame for decades that it's harboring war criminals, and it may even impact its dealings with other countries in the future. US will be in the history books as a country that not only allowed, but keeps condoning torture by refusing to punish the torturers. Brennan even implied that he's not ruling out the use of torture in the future. Maybe eventually, some new US president will decide that it's time to prosecute and imprison them so US can have a "clean start" in its international relations.
- scarmig 12y ago
  On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely do you think it is for President-elect Bush or President-elect Clinton to announce this fresh new start?
  - gorbachev 12y ago
    -1000000
  - a3n 12y ago
    Zero. It's called professional courtesy, from one President (or President-elect) to another.
- enlightenedfool 12y ago
  What? nah. The number of countries that officially have no-torture policy are few. They need US for their economic growth. So, they would be silent. The other countries don't care. And I don't think USA officially feels any shame. I know many of its people do though but they are powerless and minority
  - DanBC 12y ago
    It's in the UDHR (article 5) and the ICCPR (article 7), so most countries have firm legal restrictions against torture.
- at-fates-hands 12y ago
  >>> US will have to live with the shame for decades that it's harboring war criminals, and it may even impact its dealings with other countries in the future. Clearly not a student of history. The US has been harboring criminals since WWII when Operation Paperclip brought Nazi scientists back here to help build the atomic bomb. >>> US will be in the history books as a country that not only allowed, but keeps condoning torture by refusing to punish the torturers. Just like every other country in the world. I certainly don't condone what they did, but on a relative scale, it's a pretty minor considering what other countries have done and still actively do. If they don't include the atrocities the US committed in Vietnam in history books, you can be assured they won't touch this either. >> Maybe eventually, some new US president will decide that it's time to prosecute and imprison them so US can have a "clean start" in its international relations. Obama already tried being nice to these people we're at war with and look what it got us. He tried to have a "clean slate" with the terrorists, even said he would negotiate with the Taliban. Yes, the same Taliban who behead criminals, do not allow women rights and approve of honor killings. Because you know, he thought you could reason with these people - right?
happyscrappy 12y ago
Shouldn't Europe be boycotting the US? They are not in a very good position to do so but maybe they should work on unraveling their dependencies.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- refurb 12y ago
  I think Europe would rather not have the spotlight turned on them.[1] [1]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-europe-complicity-britain http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/09/cia-tor...
spacefight 12y ago
Yes. Prosecute them, put them all in prison. If the US won't do that, the rest of the world has to oblige the moral and legal duty of prosecuting anyone involved in the torture of humans. That will restrict their travels wastly, right Dick?
gorbachev 12y ago
It would be an interesting bit of schadenfreude, if countries imposed some sort of sanctions against the US over harboring war criminals. The State Department would probably release statements of insane hypocrisy given how they're perfectly fine preaching about human rights when OTHER countries violate them.
- spacefight 12y ago
  Alone watching those statements would be of such a great pleasure...
  - geoka9 12y ago
    It gets old very quickly and becomes painful and then you just stop caring for the most time, only occasionally flaring up with righteous indignation.
- scarmig 12y ago
  False equivalence. We freedom-torture enemies of the People, other countries evil-torture their freedom fighters.
- cyphunk 12y ago
  http://youtu.be/tQhIRBxbchU?t=2m8s http://youtu.be/tQhIRBxbchU?t=2m8s
- tempodox 12y ago
  That's why the U.S. can never recognize the International Court in The Hague. If they did, half of D.C. (among others) would go to jail.
g0v 12y ago
I just feel sick when I think of how helpless I am as a citizen while I watch my government's officials get away with shit like this. Yeah, I can sign petitions, vote, contact my congressman, but I always have the feeling of someone that's just watching from the outside. My hope is that those people that we don't see or hear about that work around injustices like these are doing what they can to keep some sort of balance. I try to convince myself sometimes that these people that love their country and want to do good are trying to use what power they have to make things right. I know for a fact that there are amazing people working in government and I hope the good stuff these people do just doesn't get much attention. I love my country, I served, I consider myself a patriot, but I worry about my children and their children. I don't expect much, if anything, to come of this and the fact that that feeling is common for me as an American puts knots in my stomach.
- dangerlibrary 12y ago
  Try living in DC. It's a special kind of hell to live in the city where all this is taking place - where the local news IS what is going on in Congress (good and bad) - and not even be able to write to a voting representative in either house.
  - spacefight 12y ago
    If you can - take your tax money elsewhere.
    - dangerlibrary 12y ago
      Unfortunately, it is not possible to solve the problem that way. There are over 600,000 people living in this city - more than the population of Wyoming and Vermont. You wouldn't just tell everyone in Vermont to move to New Hampshire because the federal government can't get its act together. I was born and grew up in this city, as were many people who happen to fall on this side of the DC border.
      - spacefight 12y ago
DanielBMarkham 12y ago
I'm voting this up even though I think it's a horrendous idea. Here's why: The problem isn't that there wasn't a crime: it certainly looks like there was. I am outraged by parts of what I've read. The problem was that the system sought to legally justify it. The problem is that we changed the system so that a good portion of people believe there was no crime. If somebody is told by the system that there is no crime, we can't then go backwards in time and declare there was one. History shows us that such legal application is always more destructive to society than the original incident. An important concept to understand is "criminalizing politics". That's when politicians, who rotate through office and are expected to spend most of their lives as private citizens, make decisions that could be criminal but do not involve personal gain. We elect people to make hard choices that involve results that could be construed in other contexts as criminal, especially with respect to foreign policy. We always have. I do not like any of this, but it's very important to understand that the problems here are systemic. A different president and VP were just as likely to make the same choices. Want to go back and try people for Japanese interment? All the rendition done prior to 2000? Assassinations and coups overseas? Spying on MLK? Such an emotional attitude is understandable, but you just can't continue a government like that. If the system was acting as best as it could, and it screws up? You fix it. You don't get the firing squads out. That's banana republic territory. So let's fix the system so it doesn't happen again. If we want somebody to hang, start a nice show trial. But since folks were acting in good faith (which is more important than "just doing their jobs"), pardon them and let's move on. There is no justice to be had here. We need to learn. This is not the time to let emotional outrage lead us into hurting each other needlessly.
- fargolime 12y ago
  All gov't workers take an oath to uphold the Constitution. When a law is clearly unconstitutional they have the obligation to work against it, not abide by it. So we can definitely declare that torture was illegal retroactively.
- gorbachev 12y ago
  Torture is not politics.
- RyanMcGreal 12y ago
suprgeek 12y ago
"Whoever fights with monsters must be careful lest he become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzsche Based on their actions (which ultimately may have not yielded anything useful either) the torturers and their masters are monsters of the worst kind - state sanctioned. So now why stop at just releasing the report? Take the next logical step & prosecute these sociopaths.
- innguest 12y ago
  > Take the next logical step & prosecute these sociopaths. But they're friends with the cronies! So it's not going to happen. No matter how many "voters" beg daddy Govmints. Keep cheering though. Maybe something will change. Not.
- a3n 12y ago
  > "Whoever fights with monsters must be careful lest he become a monster." I believe this is one of the overlooked but very important reasons not to torture. The torturers are also damaged, in their own way. We should not require this of anyone.
- orbifold 12y ago
  The "School of the Americas" a US military training facility for middle and south american militaries has been known for training some of worst human rights violators in the region. So it is not like the US government is new to the idea of creating monsters.
DanBC 12y ago
A few low level torturers were prosecuted and put in prisons. Their bosses had the political language to endorse and encourage torture while using language vague enough to escape prosecution.
tacon 12y ago
I'm still searching for a society in history that engages in torture against its opponents that doesn't eventually turn to torturing its own citizens. They will, of course, be labeled terrorists when that happens, but that time is coming. When that story came out of Chicago a few years ago about a two decade history of torturing inmates to get them to confess to crimes, we asked how that could go on for so long. Well, apparently you can torture powerless people of color in Chicago without consequence. They were only torturing "bad" people, weren't they? I get ill listening to the "arguments" for torture. "Well, it works." I want to drop my head into my hands. The efficiency expert's answer to moral questions. But what about a ticking bomb? Can't Jack Bauer put a bullet in a prisoner's knee to get him to talk? The Israeli's have the process down: They torture supposedly because of a ticking bomb, a time limit, whatever, but then they take a break for the Sabath. Gotta keep those priorities in mind. If torture "worked", does that mean we have no limits? Just animals ripping the face off our prey? I'm not very religious. What are Christians thinking when they allow this to happen? Has the iron law of Paul taken over from the Prince of Peace? If there is one piece of evidence that the US is a post-Christian country, this is it.
- scarmig 12y ago
  Not post-Christian enough: https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/12-20-14.jpg https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/12-20-14.jpg The non-religious are the only group of which a majority opposes torture.
  - mleonhard 12y ago
    Source data for that article is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/12/18/National-Politics/Polling/question_15189.xml?uuid=MALZwIcMEeSrz1o9ezsguA# http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/... Select "Show results by: Race/Religion".
    - dthal 12y ago
      Thanks for that link. It seems to me that what that data says is: Americans are for torture, pretty much across the board. That's good to know...
justcommenting 12y ago
"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" - Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
warfangle 12y ago
This is the kind of self-prosecution that you can't trust the USG to pursue with the necessary zeal. This is what the International Criminal Court at The Hague is for.
- stefantalpalaru 12y ago
  Not a chance. The US took the necessary measures to authorize military action against the International Criminal Court if one of its criminals is brought to justice there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pro...
  - warfangle 12y ago
    Huh. Thanks for the education on the matter. I didn't realize that we had not ratified the treaty. Considering how involved we were in the Nuremburg Trials, I had assumed we would be just as keen about the ICC. Naïvely, I didn't take into effect the extent of the USG's cranial-rectal inversion syndrome.
dreamweapon 12y ago
Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses And while we're at it, we should sanction those -- like the New York Times -- who enabled and shielded the torturers via a consistent editorial policy -- solidly in place for 12 years -- of never referring to the practice of torture by name, but instead employing that famous dystopian euphemism: "Harsh Interrogation Techniques."
- colinbartlett 12y ago
  Doubleplus interrogation is one of the best parts of Miniluv's joycamp.
joshuaheard 12y ago
So, let me get this straight. According to the NY Times, Bush pouring water on terrorists' faces and making them stand in place for long periods is bad; but Obama dropping drone missiles on picnics and weddings killing Americans and their whole families is OK.
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  > Bush pouring water on terrorists' faces and making them stand in place for long periods is bad. Are you deliberately trying to phrase torture to sound benign? Or have you not read about what went on? This is not an accurate description of the torture practices that were used, not the ones you were trying to describe, nor the ones you left out. Yeah, torture is bad. > Obama dropping drone missiles on picnics and weddings killing Americans and their whole families is OK. I don't think so. It sounds like you don't either. I'm not sure if you are trying to accuse the NYT editorial board of hypocrisy, or the commenters in this thread, or someone else -- not entirely sure who you think has the opinions you are parodying. But for what it's worth, the NYT editorial board doesn't think it's okay either. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/opinion/a-thin-rationale-for-drone-killings.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/opinion/a-thin-rationale-f... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/07/opinion/reining-in-the-drones.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/07/opinion/reining-in-the-dro...
  - joshuaheard 12y ago
    I had read those opinions by the Times and they mildly disapprove but their tone was much harsher for Bush. Who is hypocritical? Not only the Times, but the Senate Democrats who spent years investigating and released a huge report on Bush's so-called torture, but nothing about Obama's drone strikes, which kills Americans, and suspected terrorists and their families, along with anyone else with 100 feet. And no, I don't think it's torture. I also think death is worse than any technique they used. If you asked all the people who were waterboarded if they preferred waterboarding or death, I am sure they would all vote for waterboarding.
    - jrochkind1 12y ago
at-fates-hands 12y ago
I guess this means we should throw all the Democrats under the bus who suddenly had amnesia about knowing anything about the techniques being used too? http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2014/12/feinsteins-duplicity-68-people-in.html http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2014/12/feinsteins-duplicity-... The report (embedded below) shows that the CIA briefed at least 68 members of Congress on the CIA interrogation program, including "enhanced interrogation techniques" (EITs) . It details the dates of all congressional briefings and in most cases, the members of Congress in attendance and the specific subjects discussed. Keep in mind though, that the topic for each one of these meetings was interrogation of prisoners. For example in April 2002 both the House (HPSCI) and Senate (SSCI) committees on intelligence were briefed on the "Ongoing Interrogations of Abu Zubaydah, who was mentioned in the Feinstein report. According to the report, at this time EITs were referenced but there is no evidence they were discussed in detail. However later meetings not only discussed but gave examples of EITs being used, (but attendees weren't mentioned). Finally near the end of 2002 we see that the most Senior members of the House and Senate committees had meetings totally devoted to EITs.
diafygi 12y ago
If you want to see torture prosecutions, write a letter to your editor calling out your elected officials by name (source below). I did it, so can you! How to get your senators' and representatives' attention on any issue without being a wealthy donor | Protip from a former Senate intern[1]. -------- An email to your senator or representative may result in a form letter response and a phone call to the office may amount to a tally mark on an administrative assistant's notepad. But, for any given policy concern, if you want to get their attention a letter to the editor in one of your state's 5-10 biggest newspapers that mentions them specifically BY NAME is the way to go. If your message is directed to your representative, pick a newspaper that is popular in your district. That is the crucial thing to know--the rest of this post is an explanation of why I know this is true. I know this because, when I interned in the D.C. office of a senator one summer, one of the duties I shared was preparing a document that was distributed internally both online and in paper format. This document was made every day and comprised world news articles, national news, state news, and any letters to the editor in the 5-10 largest newspapers within the state that mentioned the senator by name. I was often the person who put that document on his desk, and it was the first thing he read every morning after arriving to the office. I began to suspect that this was standard operating procedure because several other senators' offices share the same printer in the basement of the Russell Senate Office building, and I saw other interns doing the exact same procedures that I was involved in. Since the internship, I've conferred with other Senate and House employees past and present and determined that most--if not all--offices use essentially the same procedure. -------- [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1os8rz/how_to_get_your_senators_and_representatives/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1os8rz/how_to_get...
us0r 12y ago
Vices News interview with the "Architect": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmNUi0itl-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmNUi0itl-8
mkramlich 12y ago
I still find it interesting what the major news websites and channels choose to make front page headlines with or not. In the world I want to live in, there'd be a lot more daily hammering with (apparently factual statements) like: "US Gov Violates Geneva Convention on Torture" ever since the Senate CIA report came out. The US is signatory to that, ratified it by Congress, and indeed was one of its architects in the post-WW2 landscape. They repeatedly posture themselves as one of the Good Guy nations, the ultimate White Hat lawman. They have tortured and violated international law, to which they are signatory, on basic human rights and ethical behavior.
fredgrott 12y ago
question: how exactly do you prosecute the to bosses in a democracy? As the top bosses is the voters..So how will we prosecute the voters?
guelo 12y ago
Obama is a disgrace. The reason he was elected over Hillary was because he initially took a harder line against the war, the spying and the torture. At the end of the Bush administration the American people voted overwhelmingly to break from the recent past, and Obama inexplicably betrayed our democracy. And I have my doubts that it will ever fully recover.
- d23 12y ago
  And yet when polled, citizens seem to mostly be in favor of the torture the CIA was involved in. > The reason he was elected over Hillary was because he initially took a harder line against the war, the spying and the torture. Have you considered that this is a vast oversimplification, and you're mostly just projecting your pet issues onto 70 million other people? I don't want to just regurgitate talking points, but saying he "inexplicably betrayed our democracy" is probably only inexplicable to you because you haven't wanted to take the time to think it through. An attempt to prosecute Bush would basically be political suicide, severely damaging his legacy and cementing complete government inaction for the remainder of his term. You can say that's a betrayal of our country, but calling it inexplicable is just silly. Also, as far as I know, I don't remember one of his stump speech promises being to taking the unprecedented step of pushing for the prosecution of a former President. You can project these ideas onto people if you wish, but no one will ever be able to live up to your standards, much less the President of the United States -- a person that has arguably the hardest, most complex job in the world.
- Spooky23 12y ago
  That's a simplistic view. The reality is, the president doesn't have a ton of power over the workings of the vast bureaucracy. And remember that the intelligence folks start the President's day, every day with their briefing. Makes manipulation of the executive easy. A newbie like Obama didn't stand a chance.
WallWextra 12y ago
I can't think of a worse idea than prosecuting Bush administration officials. Jailing the previous administration would set a terrible precedent, and would fatally undermine the stability of our government. There are many people who are convinced, e.g., that abortion is murder and that politicians who enable it ought to be prosecuted. Or, more on topic, that Diane Feinstein is a traitor for making these torture memos public. They believe this with as much moral certitude as anyone here believes torture is a crime. It is only a matter of time before another right-wing president is in the White House, and when there is I don't want there to be a precedent for jailing one's political rivals.
- kansface 12y ago
  Under your proposed system, no politicians of sufficient office would ever be tried for a crime related to their office (as long as it was for the right reason)? This seems like a very poor incentive system. I do agree with you that prosecution would not be good for stability. However, maintaining a separate rule of law for those in office is not good for stability, either.
- mden 12y ago
  So you are saying we shouldn't prosecute the executive branch even though they clearly broke and sanctioned breaking existing laws. When should we prosecute them? What makes them different from tyrants? Also your example doesn't make any sense. Creating a law for abortion is not even in the same category as breaking current laws. This is not purely an issue of morality, it's about the rule of law as well.
  - kansface 12y ago
    I believe you mean prosecute.
    - mden 12y ago
      Yup, thanks!
- bvanslyke 12y ago
will_brown 12y ago
>Since the day President Obama took office, he has failed to bring to justice anyone responsible for the torture of terrorism suspect. This is such an important topic, that it is a shame it always has to be discussed in the political context (i.e. Obama failed to bring justice anyone from the Bush administration). #1. Obama's administration continued using the Bush era Enhanced Interrogation Techniques; therefore, politically he could not pursue anyone from Bush's administration without subjecting his own administration to the same...including himself. #2 From a legal standpoint anyone who actually engaged in these alleged acts of torture would have a legal defense, they relied on Government officials and attorneys who authorized/ordered them to perform these interrogations. Whether the officials/attorneys were right or wrong in their judgment, this is a lawful defense recorgnized by US criminal courts. See US v. Baker, 546 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
- irremediable 12y ago
  Out of interest, is #2 basically just the Nuremberg defence?
  - will_brown 12y ago
    This legal defense is embedded in US jurisprudence. Most people would be familiar with the concept of "mistake of law" not being a lawful defense. In other words, it is not a recognized defense to say one did the act, but should not be accountable because they did not know it was criminal. However, one exception is if a government official gives a interpretation of the law, even if that interpretation is wrong, then relying on the government official's interpretation becomes a lawful defense. Therefore, it is a little different that the Nuremberg defense, as I understand it, where that defense is essentially claiming you were ordered by superiors to take an action that was unlawful. So the practical difference being in one case you know or believe what you are being commanded to do is criminal and the other case you are specifically informed by some government official with authority that the act you are being ordered to do is lawful.
    - irremediable 12y ago
srenihwon 12y ago
If two people kidnapped your wife and children saying they would rape and slaughter them in 24 hours, and you somehow caught one of the two culprits, you would do whatever it took to save your family. Whatever it took. And if you say you wouldn't, then you're either a lier, or you are a cruel and cowardly person. On the world scale, performing non-lethal EIT on one terrorist in order to save 500 or 5000 or 50000 lives is both reasonable and moral. To think otherwise is just shocking.
- alkonaut 12y ago
  And to do it on 500 terrorists, where in 499 cases it didn't lead to anything and in the 500th case it led to saving 500 lives is it still moral and reasonable? Apart of course from the fact that any information revealed during torture is usually useless. And of course the fact that it's, you know, illegal.
- woah 12y ago
  If someone kidnapped, raped, and murdered your father and brother, would it be justifiable to join a militia opposing them? I think you're basically advocating for IS here.
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  Would you feel bad if person you found turned out to be unrelated, you had him confused with someone else? And then after keeping him locked in your basement for a few years and torturing him a bunch, maybe a little bit of rape too, you accidentally killed him? And it turns out it was just some dude? Would you feel bad? Would you feel guilty? Would you think about the family of the guy you accidentally killed, because you thought that was how to save your family somehow, would you think about the family of the dead guy in your basement, and how they must feel? Would you think that, it turns out, maybe your methods had been disastrous, monstrous even, and should be revisited? Not if you're Dick Cheney. Okay, now let's say you're not the one who had the wife and children kidnapped, you're the brother of the guy THAT guy picked up accidentally thinking he was a kidnapper, locked in a basement for a few years, tortured, raped, and killed. NOW what would you do?
- drjesusphd 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rdxm 12y ago
Does anyone honestly believe that the current administration which has: 1) doubled down on the Bush admins attack on the Fourth Amendment; 2) attacked the 1st Amendment directly (something even Bush/Ashcroft didn't do..) and 3) run what is an arguably similar program in its moral and ethical ambiguity(Drone strikes) to the interrogation techniques; would even think about going after the previous administration!?!? Give me a break, that's beyond laughable. This piece by the Times is about what you'd expect from an organization that has lost its grip on reality. What's worse is that people actually pay attention to the Times at this point. Sadly, what we lack in this country is an honest journalistic broker that can objectively communicate about the political realities we have in front of us and our shortcomings as a nation and an electorate. Here's the thing, all of us that vote (and those that don't), are responsible for the mess in D.C.. The people that inhabit the beltway are simply taking advantage of our apathy and incompetence as an electorate..nothing more, nothing less...it's up to us, as the electorate, to purge our government of the latent corruption and decay that has come to permeate that town. Until we take up that charge in a meaningful way, we can't even have a discussion about topics such as this, it's just a waste of time..
darasen 12y ago
Sorry, I can not take any organization seriously that complains of "torture" while fully supporting the act of siphoning out an unborn child's brain.
- ossreality 12y ago
  Oh you're so cute. Do you understand why it makes you an asshole to lose your head about abortion and not give a shit about the actual human lives that we ruin in ways that are arguably worse than simple death before consciousness? I'm guessing you don't.
mtimjones 12y ago
For all you liberals out there who want to go after Bush, don't forget that Obama has been killing people indiscriminately with drone strikes. Something tells me you'll be less likely to go after him, indicating the real source of your outrage. The CIA report was written solely by Democrats with an ax to grind, and sought no information from an opposing side. Go back and watch any 9/11 news video (as it happened) and put yourself in the shoes of those who struggled to find direction during that time. I personally don't think torture is a good decision, but those in power did it out of precaution to identify possible future acts. When the next terrorist attack occurs, please think about the bullshit you wrote here.
- spankalee 12y ago
  > but those in power did it out of precaution to identify possible future acts. That simply doesn't matter. Torture is illegal in all circumstances, reprehensible, and completely ineffective. There's no justification, period. The "collateral damage" of drone strikes, and all of our quasi-war military actions, concerns me greatly, but the fact that drones are involves is immaterial. We've been killing civilians and combatants outside of declared war and emergency situations for a long time now. Maybe that all needs to be looked at again with the result being possible indictments. If so it would go back before Obama and Bush, to at least every post-WWII president.
- dalke 12y ago
  If it helps any, I agree with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that US drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan have likely broken international human rights law and should be investigated as war crimes. I want a full, serious, and public war crimes investigation, to include drone attacks and torture. If we find out that Obama, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Frank had a secret meeting to allow torture then I want them and all who knew about it behind bars. Torture is illegal under US and international law. The law allows no extenuating circumstances. Are you with me? When ISIS dressed James Foley in orange then beheaded him, do you think that was a deliberate reference to Guantanamo or just coincidence? If we find out that those predicted attacks of yours occur because someone wanted revenge for having their parent, or sibling, or friend anally raped by US orders ... then what? More torture? Which will help because? "Sought no information from an opposing side"? Are you saying the CIA is on the same side as the committee members? Because the members certainly sought information from the CIA, which must count as 'an opposing side'. Good on you for saying there are multiple sides; what do you think the sides are? And you must despise Senator Mike Gravel, who put the Pentagon Papers in the public record without first seeking information from an opposing side. Do you just like it when the Executive branch systematically lies, not only to the public but also to Congress, and tries to keep it hidden? I don't.
auston 12y ago
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/prosecute-full-extent-law-all-parties-responsible-use-torture-outlined-cia-report/17ZgKTtB https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/prosecute-full-ext...
kvl7 12y ago
Just as Obama will never be impeached, imprisoned, or in any other way brought to justice for his atrocities committed against the Constitution, the people in the highest offices responsible for the torture will never see punishment. Rightly so I say, there is nothing wrong with interrogating terrorists.
- orthecreedence 12y ago
  I hope you're joking. Mainly because this line of thinking is easily shown to be slippery. Sure, let's say interrogating terrorists is always good. But what defines a terrorist? All of a sudden black and white becomes a murk, once again.
known 12y ago
Prosecute and Confiscate their properties/wealth
cyphunk 12y ago
"looking forward" (as the article attributes to being Obama's argument for not prosecuting) is something one does to forgive others. self-punishment is something one does to prove trust to others. The looking forward policy of the US was important in the construction of the Marshal Plan. But now is the time they need to show they are trustworthy arbitrators of any moral ground. If they fail to prosecute anyone for torture they set a horrible precedent but more importantly the lack of correction turns any future moral arguments into platitudes. This article deserves juxtaposition with this scene from the Act of Killing: http://youtu.be/tQhIRBxbchU?t=2m9s http://youtu.be/tQhIRBxbchU?t=2m9s "We need our gangsters to get things done" @BarackObama

521 points by rpicard 12y ago

For anyone doubting the claims you can go right to the Senate Committee's report: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/09/world/cia-torture-report-document.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/09/world/cia-tort... Page 10 is the start of the findings and conclusions.

fargolime 12y ago

They won't be prosecuted, of course. I ostracized those in my life who supported it. That may be the best anyone can do against it, given our 2-party oligopoly.

jameskilton 12y ago
At least, as long as they stay in the US. I've read that a few countries will be arresting and prosecuting any participating agents the second they enter their borders. Not that that will solve problems here though. Correction: The UN has said that anyone can if they want to. http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2014/12/12/cia-agents-who-tortured-are-vulnerable-to-prosecution-in-any-country-in-the-world-says-u-n-official/ http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2014/12/12/cia-agents-who-tort...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

higherpurpose 12y ago

The very least that I expect out of this is for the International Criminal Court to convict them as war criminals. Whether those convicted will actually do any prison time is another issue. However, US will have to live with the shame for decades that it's harboring war criminals, and it may even impact its dealings with other countries in the future. US will be in the history books as a country that not only allowed, but keeps condoning torture by refusing to punish the torturers. Brennan even implied that he's not ruling out the use of torture in the future. Maybe eventually, some new US president will decide that it's time to prosecute and imprison them so US can have a "clean start" in its international relations.

scarmig 12y ago
On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely do you think it is for President-elect Bush or President-elect Clinton to announce this fresh new start?
- gorbachev 12y ago
  -1000000
- a3n 12y ago
  Zero. It's called professional courtesy, from one President (or President-elect) to another.
enlightenedfool 12y ago
What? nah. The number of countries that officially have no-torture policy are few. They need US for their economic growth. So, they would be silent. The other countries don't care. And I don't think USA officially feels any shame. I know many of its people do though but they are powerless and minority
- DanBC 12y ago
  It's in the UDHR (article 5) and the ICCPR (article 7), so most countries have firm legal restrictions against torture.
at-fates-hands 12y ago
>>> US will have to live with the shame for decades that it's harboring war criminals, and it may even impact its dealings with other countries in the future. Clearly not a student of history. The US has been harboring criminals since WWII when Operation Paperclip brought Nazi scientists back here to help build the atomic bomb. >>> US will be in the history books as a country that not only allowed, but keeps condoning torture by refusing to punish the torturers. Just like every other country in the world. I certainly don't condone what they did, but on a relative scale, it's a pretty minor considering what other countries have done and still actively do. If they don't include the atrocities the US committed in Vietnam in history books, you can be assured they won't touch this either. >> Maybe eventually, some new US president will decide that it's time to prosecute and imprison them so US can have a "clean start" in its international relations. Obama already tried being nice to these people we're at war with and look what it got us. He tried to have a "clean slate" with the terrorists, even said he would negotiate with the Taliban. Yes, the same Taliban who behead criminals, do not allow women rights and approve of honor killings. Because you know, he thought you could reason with these people - right?

happyscrappy 12y ago

Shouldn't Europe be boycotting the US? They are not in a very good position to do so but maybe they should work on unraveling their dependencies.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
refurb 12y ago
I think Europe would rather not have the spotlight turned on them.[1] [1]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-europe-complicity-britain http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/09/cia-tor...

spacefight 12y ago

Yes. Prosecute them, put them all in prison. If the US won't do that, the rest of the world has to oblige the moral and legal duty of prosecuting anyone involved in the torture of humans. That will restrict their travels wastly, right Dick?

gorbachev 12y ago

It would be an interesting bit of schadenfreude, if countries imposed some sort of sanctions against the US over harboring war criminals. The State Department would probably release statements of insane hypocrisy given how they're perfectly fine preaching about human rights when OTHER countries violate them.

spacefight 12y ago
Alone watching those statements would be of such a great pleasure...
- geoka9 12y ago
  It gets old very quickly and becomes painful and then you just stop caring for the most time, only occasionally flaring up with righteous indignation.
scarmig 12y ago
False equivalence. We freedom-torture enemies of the People, other countries evil-torture their freedom fighters.
cyphunk 12y ago
http://youtu.be/tQhIRBxbchU?t=2m8s http://youtu.be/tQhIRBxbchU?t=2m8s
tempodox 12y ago
That's why the U.S. can never recognize the International Court in The Hague. If they did, half of D.C. (among others) would go to jail.

g0v 12y ago

I just feel sick when I think of how helpless I am as a citizen while I watch my government's officials get away with shit like this. Yeah, I can sign petitions, vote, contact my congressman, but I always have the feeling of someone that's just watching from the outside. My hope is that those people that we don't see or hear about that work around injustices like these are doing what they can to keep some sort of balance. I try to convince myself sometimes that these people that love their country and want to do good are trying to use what power they have to make things right. I know for a fact that there are amazing people working in government and I hope the good stuff these people do just doesn't get much attention. I love my country, I served, I consider myself a patriot, but I worry about my children and their children. I don't expect much, if anything, to come of this and the fact that that feeling is common for me as an American puts knots in my stomach.

dangerlibrary 12y ago
Try living in DC. It's a special kind of hell to live in the city where all this is taking place - where the local news IS what is going on in Congress (good and bad) - and not even be able to write to a voting representative in either house.
- spacefight 12y ago
  If you can - take your tax money elsewhere.
  - dangerlibrary 12y ago
    Unfortunately, it is not possible to solve the problem that way. There are over 600,000 people living in this city - more than the population of Wyoming and Vermont. You wouldn't just tell everyone in Vermont to move to New Hampshire because the federal government can't get its act together. I was born and grew up in this city, as were many people who happen to fall on this side of the DC border.
    - spacefight 12y ago

DanielBMarkham 12y ago

I'm voting this up even though I think it's a horrendous idea. Here's why: The problem isn't that there wasn't a crime: it certainly looks like there was. I am outraged by parts of what I've read. The problem was that the system sought to legally justify it. The problem is that we changed the system so that a good portion of people believe there was no crime. If somebody is told by the system that there is no crime, we can't then go backwards in time and declare there was one. History shows us that such legal application is always more destructive to society than the original incident. An important concept to understand is "criminalizing politics". That's when politicians, who rotate through office and are expected to spend most of their lives as private citizens, make decisions that could be criminal but do not involve personal gain. We elect people to make hard choices that involve results that could be construed in other contexts as criminal, especially with respect to foreign policy. We always have. I do not like any of this, but it's very important to understand that the problems here are systemic. A different president and VP were just as likely to make the same choices. Want to go back and try people for Japanese interment? All the rendition done prior to 2000? Assassinations and coups overseas? Spying on MLK? Such an emotional attitude is understandable, but you just can't continue a government like that. If the system was acting as best as it could, and it screws up? You fix it. You don't get the firing squads out. That's banana republic territory. So let's fix the system so it doesn't happen again. If we want somebody to hang, start a nice show trial. But since folks were acting in good faith (which is more important than "just doing their jobs"), pardon them and let's move on. There is no justice to be had here. We need to learn. This is not the time to let emotional outrage lead us into hurting each other needlessly.

fargolime 12y ago
All gov't workers take an oath to uphold the Constitution. When a law is clearly unconstitutional they have the obligation to work against it, not abide by it. So we can definitely declare that torture was illegal retroactively.
gorbachev 12y ago
Torture is not politics.
RyanMcGreal 12y ago

suprgeek 12y ago

"Whoever fights with monsters must be careful lest he become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzsche Based on their actions (which ultimately may have not yielded anything useful either) the torturers and their masters are monsters of the worst kind - state sanctioned. So now why stop at just releasing the report? Take the next logical step & prosecute these sociopaths.

innguest 12y ago
> Take the next logical step & prosecute these sociopaths. But they're friends with the cronies! So it's not going to happen. No matter how many "voters" beg daddy Govmints. Keep cheering though. Maybe something will change. Not.
a3n 12y ago
> "Whoever fights with monsters must be careful lest he become a monster." I believe this is one of the overlooked but very important reasons not to torture. The torturers are also damaged, in their own way. We should not require this of anyone.
orbifold 12y ago
The "School of the Americas" a US military training facility for middle and south american militaries has been known for training some of worst human rights violators in the region. So it is not like the US government is new to the idea of creating monsters.

DanBC 12y ago

A few low level torturers were prosecuted and put in prisons. Their bosses had the political language to endorse and encourage torture while using language vague enough to escape prosecution.

tacon 12y ago

I'm still searching for a society in history that engages in torture against its opponents that doesn't eventually turn to torturing its own citizens. They will, of course, be labeled terrorists when that happens, but that time is coming. When that story came out of Chicago a few years ago about a two decade history of torturing inmates to get them to confess to crimes, we asked how that could go on for so long. Well, apparently you can torture powerless people of color in Chicago without consequence. They were only torturing "bad" people, weren't they? I get ill listening to the "arguments" for torture. "Well, it works." I want to drop my head into my hands. The efficiency expert's answer to moral questions. But what about a ticking bomb? Can't Jack Bauer put a bullet in a prisoner's knee to get him to talk? The Israeli's have the process down: They torture supposedly because of a ticking bomb, a time limit, whatever, but then they take a break for the Sabath. Gotta keep those priorities in mind. If torture "worked", does that mean we have no limits? Just animals ripping the face off our prey? I'm not very religious. What are Christians thinking when they allow this to happen? Has the iron law of Paul taken over from the Prince of Peace? If there is one piece of evidence that the US is a post-Christian country, this is it.

scarmig 12y ago
Not post-Christian enough: https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/12-20-14.jpg https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/12-20-14.jpg The non-religious are the only group of which a majority opposes torture.
- mleonhard 12y ago
  Source data for that article is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/12/18/National-Politics/Polling/question_15189.xml?uuid=MALZwIcMEeSrz1o9ezsguA# http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/... Select "Show results by: Race/Religion".
  - dthal 12y ago
    Thanks for that link. It seems to me that what that data says is: Americans are for torture, pretty much across the board. That's good to know...

justcommenting 12y ago

"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" - Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

warfangle 12y ago

This is the kind of self-prosecution that you can't trust the USG to pursue with the necessary zeal. This is what the International Criminal Court at The Hague is for.

stefantalpalaru 12y ago
Not a chance. The US took the necessary measures to authorize military action against the International Criminal Court if one of its criminals is brought to justice there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pro...
- warfangle 12y ago
  Huh. Thanks for the education on the matter. I didn't realize that we had not ratified the treaty. Considering how involved we were in the Nuremburg Trials, I had assumed we would be just as keen about the ICC. Naïvely, I didn't take into effect the extent of the USG's cranial-rectal inversion syndrome.

dreamweapon 12y ago

Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses And while we're at it, we should sanction those -- like the New York Times -- who enabled and shielded the torturers via a consistent editorial policy -- solidly in place for 12 years -- of never referring to the practice of torture by name, but instead employing that famous dystopian euphemism: "Harsh Interrogation Techniques."

colinbartlett 12y ago
Doubleplus interrogation is one of the best parts of Miniluv's joycamp.

joshuaheard 12y ago

So, let me get this straight. According to the NY Times, Bush pouring water on terrorists' faces and making them stand in place for long periods is bad; but Obama dropping drone missiles on picnics and weddings killing Americans and their whole families is OK.

jrochkind1 12y ago
> Bush pouring water on terrorists' faces and making them stand in place for long periods is bad. Are you deliberately trying to phrase torture to sound benign? Or have you not read about what went on? This is not an accurate description of the torture practices that were used, not the ones you were trying to describe, nor the ones you left out. Yeah, torture is bad. > Obama dropping drone missiles on picnics and weddings killing Americans and their whole families is OK. I don't think so. It sounds like you don't either. I'm not sure if you are trying to accuse the NYT editorial board of hypocrisy, or the commenters in this thread, or someone else -- not entirely sure who you think has the opinions you are parodying. But for what it's worth, the NYT editorial board doesn't think it's okay either. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/opinion/a-thin-rationale-for-drone-killings.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/opinion/a-thin-rationale-f... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/07/opinion/reining-in-the-drones.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/07/opinion/reining-in-the-dro...
- joshuaheard 12y ago
  I had read those opinions by the Times and they mildly disapprove but their tone was much harsher for Bush. Who is hypocritical? Not only the Times, but the Senate Democrats who spent years investigating and released a huge report on Bush's so-called torture, but nothing about Obama's drone strikes, which kills Americans, and suspected terrorists and their families, along with anyone else with 100 feet. And no, I don't think it's torture. I also think death is worse than any technique they used. If you asked all the people who were waterboarded if they preferred waterboarding or death, I am sure they would all vote for waterboarding.
  - jrochkind1 12y ago

at-fates-hands 12y ago

I guess this means we should throw all the Democrats under the bus who suddenly had amnesia about knowing anything about the techniques being used too? http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2014/12/feinsteins-duplicity-68-people-in.html http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2014/12/feinsteins-duplicity-... The report (embedded below) shows that the CIA briefed at least 68 members of Congress on the CIA interrogation program, including "enhanced interrogation techniques" (EITs) . It details the dates of all congressional briefings and in most cases, the members of Congress in attendance and the specific subjects discussed. Keep in mind though, that the topic for each one of these meetings was interrogation of prisoners. For example in April 2002 both the House (HPSCI) and Senate (SSCI) committees on intelligence were briefed on the "Ongoing Interrogations of Abu Zubaydah, who was mentioned in the Feinstein report. According to the report, at this time EITs were referenced but there is no evidence they were discussed in detail. However later meetings not only discussed but gave examples of EITs being used, (but attendees weren't mentioned). Finally near the end of 2002 we see that the most Senior members of the House and Senate committees had meetings totally devoted to EITs.

diafygi 12y ago

If you want to see torture prosecutions, write a letter to your editor calling out your elected officials by name (source below). I did it, so can you! How to get your senators' and representatives' attention on any issue without being a wealthy donor | Protip from a former Senate intern[1]. -------- An email to your senator or representative may result in a form letter response and a phone call to the office may amount to a tally mark on an administrative assistant's notepad. But, for any given policy concern, if you want to get their attention a letter to the editor in one of your state's 5-10 biggest newspapers that mentions them specifically BY NAME is the way to go. If your message is directed to your representative, pick a newspaper that is popular in your district. That is the crucial thing to know--the rest of this post is an explanation of why I know this is true. I know this because, when I interned in the D.C. office of a senator one summer, one of the duties I shared was preparing a document that was distributed internally both online and in paper format. This document was made every day and comprised world news articles, national news, state news, and any letters to the editor in the 5-10 largest newspapers within the state that mentioned the senator by name. I was often the person who put that document on his desk, and it was the first thing he read every morning after arriving to the office. I began to suspect that this was standard operating procedure because several other senators' offices share the same printer in the basement of the Russell Senate Office building, and I saw other interns doing the exact same procedures that I was involved in. Since the internship, I've conferred with other Senate and House employees past and present and determined that most--if not all--offices use essentially the same procedure. -------- [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1os8rz/how_to_get_your_senators_and_representatives/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1os8rz/how_to_get...

us0r 12y ago

Vices News interview with the "Architect": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmNUi0itl-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmNUi0itl-8

mkramlich 12y ago

I still find it interesting what the major news websites and channels choose to make front page headlines with or not. In the world I want to live in, there'd be a lot more daily hammering with (apparently factual statements) like: "US Gov Violates Geneva Convention on Torture" ever since the Senate CIA report came out. The US is signatory to that, ratified it by Congress, and indeed was one of its architects in the post-WW2 landscape. They repeatedly posture themselves as one of the Good Guy nations, the ultimate White Hat lawman. They have tortured and violated international law, to which they are signatory, on basic human rights and ethical behavior.

fredgrott 12y ago

question: how exactly do you prosecute the to bosses in a democracy? As the top bosses is the voters..So how will we prosecute the voters?

guelo 12y ago

Obama is a disgrace. The reason he was elected over Hillary was because he initially took a harder line against the war, the spying and the torture. At the end of the Bush administration the American people voted overwhelmingly to break from the recent past, and Obama inexplicably betrayed our democracy. And I have my doubts that it will ever fully recover.

d23 12y ago
And yet when polled, citizens seem to mostly be in favor of the torture the CIA was involved in. > The reason he was elected over Hillary was because he initially took a harder line against the war, the spying and the torture. Have you considered that this is a vast oversimplification, and you're mostly just projecting your pet issues onto 70 million other people? I don't want to just regurgitate talking points, but saying he "inexplicably betrayed our democracy" is probably only inexplicable to you because you haven't wanted to take the time to think it through. An attempt to prosecute Bush would basically be political suicide, severely damaging his legacy and cementing complete government inaction for the remainder of his term. You can say that's a betrayal of our country, but calling it inexplicable is just silly. Also, as far as I know, I don't remember one of his stump speech promises being to taking the unprecedented step of pushing for the prosecution of a former President. You can project these ideas onto people if you wish, but no one will ever be able to live up to your standards, much less the President of the United States -- a person that has arguably the hardest, most complex job in the world.
Spooky23 12y ago
That's a simplistic view. The reality is, the president doesn't have a ton of power over the workings of the vast bureaucracy. And remember that the intelligence folks start the President's day, every day with their briefing. Makes manipulation of the executive easy. A newbie like Obama didn't stand a chance.

WallWextra 12y ago

I can't think of a worse idea than prosecuting Bush administration officials. Jailing the previous administration would set a terrible precedent, and would fatally undermine the stability of our government. There are many people who are convinced, e.g., that abortion is murder and that politicians who enable it ought to be prosecuted. Or, more on topic, that Diane Feinstein is a traitor for making these torture memos public. They believe this with as much moral certitude as anyone here believes torture is a crime. It is only a matter of time before another right-wing president is in the White House, and when there is I don't want there to be a precedent for jailing one's political rivals.

kansface 12y ago
Under your proposed system, no politicians of sufficient office would ever be tried for a crime related to their office (as long as it was for the right reason)? This seems like a very poor incentive system. I do agree with you that prosecution would not be good for stability. However, maintaining a separate rule of law for those in office is not good for stability, either.
mden 12y ago
So you are saying we shouldn't prosecute the executive branch even though they clearly broke and sanctioned breaking existing laws. When should we prosecute them? What makes them different from tyrants? Also your example doesn't make any sense. Creating a law for abortion is not even in the same category as breaking current laws. This is not purely an issue of morality, it's about the rule of law as well.
- kansface 12y ago
  I believe you mean prosecute.
  - mden 12y ago
    Yup, thanks!
bvanslyke 12y ago

will_brown 12y ago

>Since the day President Obama took office, he has failed to bring to justice anyone responsible for the torture of terrorism suspect. This is such an important topic, that it is a shame it always has to be discussed in the political context (i.e. Obama failed to bring justice anyone from the Bush administration). #1. Obama's administration continued using the Bush era Enhanced Interrogation Techniques; therefore, politically he could not pursue anyone from Bush's administration without subjecting his own administration to the same...including himself. #2 From a legal standpoint anyone who actually engaged in these alleged acts of torture would have a legal defense, they relied on Government officials and attorneys who authorized/ordered them to perform these interrogations. Whether the officials/attorneys were right or wrong in their judgment, this is a lawful defense recorgnized by US criminal courts. See US v. Baker, 546 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1976).

irremediable 12y ago
Out of interest, is #2 basically just the Nuremberg defence?
- will_brown 12y ago
  This legal defense is embedded in US jurisprudence. Most people would be familiar with the concept of "mistake of law" not being a lawful defense. In other words, it is not a recognized defense to say one did the act, but should not be accountable because they did not know it was criminal. However, one exception is if a government official gives a interpretation of the law, even if that interpretation is wrong, then relying on the government official's interpretation becomes a lawful defense. Therefore, it is a little different that the Nuremberg defense, as I understand it, where that defense is essentially claiming you were ordered by superiors to take an action that was unlawful. So the practical difference being in one case you know or believe what you are being commanded to do is criminal and the other case you are specifically informed by some government official with authority that the act you are being ordered to do is lawful.
  - irremediable 12y ago

srenihwon 12y ago

If two people kidnapped your wife and children saying they would rape and slaughter them in 24 hours, and you somehow caught one of the two culprits, you would do whatever it took to save your family. Whatever it took. And if you say you wouldn't, then you're either a lier, or you are a cruel and cowardly person. On the world scale, performing non-lethal EIT on one terrorist in order to save 500 or 5000 or 50000 lives is both reasonable and moral. To think otherwise is just shocking.

alkonaut 12y ago
And to do it on 500 terrorists, where in 499 cases it didn't lead to anything and in the 500th case it led to saving 500 lives is it still moral and reasonable? Apart of course from the fact that any information revealed during torture is usually useless. And of course the fact that it's, you know, illegal.
woah 12y ago
If someone kidnapped, raped, and murdered your father and brother, would it be justifiable to join a militia opposing them? I think you're basically advocating for IS here.
jrochkind1 12y ago
Would you feel bad if person you found turned out to be unrelated, you had him confused with someone else? And then after keeping him locked in your basement for a few years and torturing him a bunch, maybe a little bit of rape too, you accidentally killed him? And it turns out it was just some dude? Would you feel bad? Would you feel guilty? Would you think about the family of the guy you accidentally killed, because you thought that was how to save your family somehow, would you think about the family of the dead guy in your basement, and how they must feel? Would you think that, it turns out, maybe your methods had been disastrous, monstrous even, and should be revisited? Not if you're Dick Cheney. Okay, now let's say you're not the one who had the wife and children kidnapped, you're the brother of the guy THAT guy picked up accidentally thinking he was a kidnapper, locked in a basement for a few years, tortured, raped, and killed. NOW what would you do?
drjesusphd 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

rdxm 12y ago

Does anyone honestly believe that the current administration which has: 1) doubled down on the Bush admins attack on the Fourth Amendment; 2) attacked the 1st Amendment directly (something even Bush/Ashcroft didn't do..) and 3) run what is an arguably similar program in its moral and ethical ambiguity(Drone strikes) to the interrogation techniques; would even think about going after the previous administration!?!? Give me a break, that's beyond laughable. This piece by the Times is about what you'd expect from an organization that has lost its grip on reality. What's worse is that people actually pay attention to the Times at this point. Sadly, what we lack in this country is an honest journalistic broker that can objectively communicate about the political realities we have in front of us and our shortcomings as a nation and an electorate. Here's the thing, all of us that vote (and those that don't), are responsible for the mess in D.C.. The people that inhabit the beltway are simply taking advantage of our apathy and incompetence as an electorate..nothing more, nothing less...it's up to us, as the electorate, to purge our government of the latent corruption and decay that has come to permeate that town. Until we take up that charge in a meaningful way, we can't even have a discussion about topics such as this, it's just a waste of time..

darasen 12y ago

Sorry, I can not take any organization seriously that complains of "torture" while fully supporting the act of siphoning out an unborn child's brain.

ossreality 12y ago
Oh you're so cute. Do you understand why it makes you an asshole to lose your head about abortion and not give a shit about the actual human lives that we ruin in ways that are arguably worse than simple death before consciousness? I'm guessing you don't.

mtimjones 12y ago

For all you liberals out there who want to go after Bush, don't forget that Obama has been killing people indiscriminately with drone strikes. Something tells me you'll be less likely to go after him, indicating the real source of your outrage. The CIA report was written solely by Democrats with an ax to grind, and sought no information from an opposing side. Go back and watch any 9/11 news video (as it happened) and put yourself in the shoes of those who struggled to find direction during that time. I personally don't think torture is a good decision, but those in power did it out of precaution to identify possible future acts. When the next terrorist attack occurs, please think about the bullshit you wrote here.

spankalee 12y ago
> but those in power did it out of precaution to identify possible future acts. That simply doesn't matter. Torture is illegal in all circumstances, reprehensible, and completely ineffective. There's no justification, period. The "collateral damage" of drone strikes, and all of our quasi-war military actions, concerns me greatly, but the fact that drones are involves is immaterial. We've been killing civilians and combatants outside of declared war and emergency situations for a long time now. Maybe that all needs to be looked at again with the result being possible indictments. If so it would go back before Obama and Bush, to at least every post-WWII president.
dalke 12y ago
If it helps any, I agree with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that US drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan have likely broken international human rights law and should be investigated as war crimes. I want a full, serious, and public war crimes investigation, to include drone attacks and torture. If we find out that Obama, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Frank had a secret meeting to allow torture then I want them and all who knew about it behind bars. Torture is illegal under US and international law. The law allows no extenuating circumstances. Are you with me? When ISIS dressed James Foley in orange then beheaded him, do you think that was a deliberate reference to Guantanamo or just coincidence? If we find out that those predicted attacks of yours occur because someone wanted revenge for having their parent, or sibling, or friend anally raped by US orders ... then what? More torture? Which will help because? "Sought no information from an opposing side"? Are you saying the CIA is on the same side as the committee members? Because the members certainly sought information from the CIA, which must count as 'an opposing side'. Good on you for saying there are multiple sides; what do you think the sides are? And you must despise Senator Mike Gravel, who put the Pentagon Papers in the public record without first seeking information from an opposing side. Do you just like it when the Executive branch systematically lies, not only to the public but also to Congress, and tries to keep it hidden? I don't.

auston 12y ago

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/prosecute-full-extent-law-all-parties-responsible-use-torture-outlined-cia-report/17ZgKTtB https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/prosecute-full-ext...

kvl7 12y ago

Just as Obama will never be impeached, imprisoned, or in any other way brought to justice for his atrocities committed against the Constitution, the people in the highest offices responsible for the torture will never see punishment. Rightly so I say, there is nothing wrong with interrogating terrorists.

orthecreedence 12y ago
I hope you're joking. Mainly because this line of thinking is easily shown to be slippery. Sure, let's say interrogating terrorists is always good. But what defines a terrorist? All of a sudden black and white becomes a murk, once again.

known 12y ago

Prosecute and Confiscate their properties/wealth

cyphunk 12y ago

"looking forward" (as the article attributes to being Obama's argument for not prosecuting) is something one does to forgive others. self-punishment is something one does to prove trust to others. The looking forward policy of the US was important in the construction of the Marshal Plan. But now is the time they need to show they are trustworthy arbitrators of any moral ground. If they fail to prosecute anyone for torture they set a horrible precedent but more importantly the lack of correction turns any future moral arguments into platitudes. This article deserves juxtaposition with this scene from the Act of Killing: http://youtu.be/tQhIRBxbchU?t=2m9s http://youtu.be/tQhIRBxbchU?t=2m9s "We need our gangsters to get things done" @BarackObama