5 ms·
>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 importan
by 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 agoOut of interest, is #2 basically just the Nuremberg defence?
- will_brown 12y agoThis 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 agoThanks for the clarification. That makes a lot of sense. Still a damnable outrage, but I can see more of an argument for not prosecuting the torturers.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> Out of interest, is #2 basically just the Nuremberg defence? It is somewhat different, its "I relied on the entity now trying to prosecute me". This does refer to the same entity as "Just following orders of my superiors" when the entity prosecuting you is also the one you worked for, but its a substantively different defense in the general case (and note, in the Nuremberg tribunals, this defense would not have been equivalent to the so-called "Nuremberg defense" even in the entity it refered to.) There is a very good reason for a legal system to have this defense as a bedrock principle that applies without exception within the legal system, and there is a very good reason for crimes against humanity and war crimes to have international tribunals with personal jurisdiction to try them so that this defense doesn't become a shield for perpetrators that happen to be backed by the top officials of a government at the time they act.
- irremediable 12y agoThanks for the clarification. Yet another reason for the ICC and its ilk...
- orbifold 12y agoWhich the US does not submit to.
- phaemon 12y agoI do find it interesting that the replies concentrated on point #2 as a stopping point. On point #1: If I, personally, had to give up my job and perhaps even face personal abuse, in order to stop someone from being tortured....I think I might manage that. Maybe Obama's administration could manage to summon a similar degree of bravery?