-
Website
http://themoderatevoice.com/ -
Original page
http://themoderatevoice.com/29887/a-couple-of-overlooked-points-about-the-torture-investigation-debate/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All court justice is necessarily "retroactive", unless we've secretly implemented a Judge Dredd system of law enforcement. The fact that Bush and Cheney lied about what was going on for six years made it virtually impossible to build the evidence based call for investigations and prosecutions.
That past executives weren't held accountable for their crimes isn't a valid concern unless you do in fact believe that executives should be above the law.
Hasn't every war criminal acted in some perverted form of "good faith". Hitler believed he was protecting Germany by exterminating the Jews. Stalin's purges were a way of solidifying the national government. Those crimes certainly dwarf torture, but they were all committed in "good faith" for what the perpetrators thought was the betterment of their country.
I don't care if they release the documents, and I'm definitely not opposed. On the other hand, I wonder where Dick "Transparency Advocate" Cheney was when the CIA destroyed the interrogation videos.
Hrmm? How so?
Wouldn't it be nice if these stories didn't have to come from an "extremist web site"?
:-p
Steve Hynd, Newshoggers
Senior Comrade Licentious Nihilist Extremist
Ahh back to that meme eh tough guy internet commenter? "I can't believe you want to coddle the trrrrrrerists!"
Well you know what, some of the people we've locked up and tortured were innocent or had already told us everything they knew. The fact you don't give a damn is something you'll have to square with your God. Meanwhile, the rest of us can put your future comments into the context that your level of morality is on level with brutal dictators.
Well yeah I did. Would any of you have felt that past administrations should have been held criminally liable for overstepping legal bounds in times of war? War not withstanding.
LBJ - Viet Nam
Dick Nixon - Illegal bombing in Cambodia
Dick Nixon - watergate
Reagan - Iran Contra
So yeah, I did.;
I also prefer to have the whole Blair memo released.
But Blair himself called the cuts in the redacted memo a normal part of the editing process and had no quarrel with them.
So if Blair is credible in one instance, he's credible in both, right?
LBJ - Viet Nam
Dick Nixon - Illegal bombing in Cambodia
Dick Nixon - Watergate
Reagan - Iran Contra
Every single one of these started out with "cherry picked" evidence "leaked" for "political gain."
The problem going into these situations is that none start with all the info coming out in neat little quanta. The claim of political partisanship has historically been the opening stanza of denial and denial-denial.
What stockboy said.
It's been obvious for sometime that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were, for the most part, ordered by Rumsfeld and other top officials. Now we know that Abu Ghraib soldiers were under the same types of orders as the CIA interrogators.
So if you think the CIA torturers and their masters should be let off the hook, then logically you have to extend that kindness to the Abu Ghraib torturers. The only difference at this point is that we have pictures of what happened at Abu Ghraib.
In fact, yesterday I made the Abu Ghraib comparison.
And I sort of feel, in a way I can't really articulate, that this torture issue is of a piece with the financial crisis. In both cases, people who were responsible for knowing better did things that were stupid and destructive. In both cases, they still feel entitled to their bonuses, reputations, status--all the rest. Consequences are for the little people. Like I say, I can't put my finger on it.
"And I sort of feel, in a way I can't really articulate, that this torture issue is of a piece with the financial crisis. "
I would suggest the similarities are
1. Both demonstrate an "institutionalization" of law breaking. WS lobbied hard to remove the regulations so that what was once illegal is now permissible. The torture memos did the same for Bush et al.
2. Both rely the most most dire consequences if they are held responsible. WS threatens our credit market if they fail, stopping torture puts America in danger.
3. Both point to "success" as a justification. WS point to the stock market's high water mark of 12k as proof that deregulation is good for the economy. Torture points to significant information as its justification.
Those are just off the top of my head, but maybe these are a few of the similarities I've noted.
Are you saying you want more facts?
I'm asking because I would also like more facts.
Let's agree on the desirability of more facts.
I think Abu Ghraib and Gitmo could have been the start of something bigger and while we might have acknowledged torturing three people, certainly I think the spotlight on the Bush administration over Gitmo and Abu Ghraib nipped in the bud actions that could have spiraled out of more control.
I agree that if we (as a country and our leaders) decide to prosecute the people responsible for endorsing and creating the policies that support torture, but decide not to prosecute the lower level soldiers who did their bidding and were told to follow orders, then we should release our soldiers we prosecuted with regards to Abu Ghraib.
Either that or prosecute everyone involved.
But my feeling is that we should go after the leaders who put in place these procedures. We should leave the soldiers (and members of Congress, of both parties) alone, unless there is proof that they helped form the torture policies.
After all it is the president's responsibility to follow and enforce the laws passed by congress. It's not the president's job to break them.
So to the extent that the laws were broken the executive branch needs to be held accountable for failure to perform their duties (and they broke laws).
So the GOP is just making this into a partiisan issue in an attempt to save their thick hides and thick skulls and bones. Of course the GOP will continue this attack on anyone who wants to see criminals punished if those criminals are them. They have nothing to lose by continuing their rhetoric, and if they can wear the American public and elected officials down to the point where we don't prosecute, then the guilty parties have won by staying out of prison. They're not interest in justice. They just don't want to go to prison.
Quite frankly I would be willing to go along with prosecuting the soldiers who did not stand up and say that what they were being asked to do was illegal. But that's difficult because soldiers are trained to do what's told of them and they relie on their superiors for guidance. So I'm not inclined to prosecute them.
Yep... some of us have known about this for a long time.
I'd like to see these torture supporters come out and demand our government release our convicted soldiers from Abu Ghraib.
Wouldn't it be nice if a "moderate" perspective did not rely exclusively on an extremist web site for its discussion?
OK, I’ll bite. What in the world are you talking about?
"Just following orders" is not a valid defense for committing war crimes. We've executed foreign nationals under that reasoning.
Why wasn't somebody saying, "Who the hell are these guys?"
If "civilians" were present, they either worked for the CIA, or they were hired assistants; either way, they demonstrated that the pictures held much more as to what was going on than the official meme explained. Leave it to Bush to outsource torture, I hope he paid less than union wage.
To be honest CS, this is why I think the different treatment of the soldiers (who did what they were told and vastly in line with the memos) will gain the most traction. Simply for the fact that I don't see how you can reconcile that at all. As for the other things, those are mostly first person sources that came out at the time and were roundly smeared as sore liars or marginalized completely. There were many people that tried to stop it that have been vindicated that they were honest -- that holds regardless of whether you think the program has merit.
And the international community did react exactly like anti-torture people (I won't say "the left" since most of the time the strongest objections came from career military and intelligence people in a non-political viewpoint) said it would.
So yeah, I think it does close most of the case for what was argued about the last 6 years. That doesn't mean that it follows logically what to do now or in the future...just that the narrative on one side was far more accurate.
You're helping me get there.
Thanks.
The dastardly Obama administration redacted the part at the end of the memos that said "PYSCHE! j/k!".
I wasn't necessarily in favor of the releases that have already happened (I think that there should be some process for classified hearings.) But worst of all is for the current administration to cherry pick what is released.
So at least the part where the claims are being made for a closed case against efficacy, there's a good bit of cherry picking going on.
I'd say that when mikkel refers to historical context there is selectivity as well. Would any of you have felt that past administrations should have been held criminally liable for overstepping legal bounds in times of war?
I dunno about anyone else, but I would. I agree with the idea that there should be an international tribunal that automatically opens at the end of all wars that investigates and charges people on any side. I think that the firebombing in WWII and many strategies in Vietnam were blatantly illegal...the former opinion explicitly recognized by the people involved in carrying it out.
Of course I am also skeptical that the rules of war actually protect citizens or soldiers and question whether they've made the world more peaceful or war more humane. And of course there is the enforcement problem and how it comes down to victor's justice. So that makes me one of the few people that simultaneously is for bringing up many commanders on war crimes while simultaneously wondering whether the rules should be made less strict.
I'm confused...when they said "we don't torture and Abu Grahib saw things we didn't approve," and the people on the inside said "what they are doing is historically considered torture and Abu Grahib/Gitmo were within the released guidelines for the most part" then how are these things "selective" in supporting the latter view? The denials were absolutes and have been shown to be liars...
This is what I mean about changing the narrative. Suddenly it's all about "well what about one memo that said maybe it was effective occasionally" or "well what about all the other administrations" or "well the democrats knew about it as well." Those weren't the issues until the other stuff became undeniable.
To paraphrase Cyndi Lauper: And that's what I love about you, Steve. :-)
The argument over efficacy is one without a resolution. Of course the torturers are going to say it worked, would you honestly expect them to say otherwise? On the other side you have interrogators and the logic that says torture is at least as likely to elicit false confessions.
Of course no information they can release would change the legal or moral ramifications of what they did.
Yes. Our country has too easily exercised its military power, especially in the last six decades. Fear of the law might have caused a welcome bit of restraint.
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2009/04/who-car...
Let's see what that reveals.
casualobserver,
So, the rightwing view is that torture is great as long as it works?
Word.
Of course in releasing all these official documents, it'll make it impossible to convict anyone, which pretty much means that either they'll have to go free or they'll have to make a precedent that can be abused. Yes all this is fantastic.
And from the looks of it, Cheney is more interested in opening up these documents than your side is.
Let all the documents come out. whatever chips fall is secondary to ascertaining the truth.
Ahh... you're talking about the alleged terrorists?
Bravo, Chris, I admire a person who actually walks the walk and not just....
I agree with the idea that there should be an international tribunal that automatically opens at the end of all wars that investigates and charges people on any side. I think that the firebombing in WWII and many strategies in Vietnam were blatantly illegal...the former opinion explicitly recognized by the people involved in carrying it out.
If the current Democratic administration or Congress decides that we NOW need to start doing that, even though it hasn't been done before (and you and Hemm are both pointing out that such a tribunal would have found guilt in past Democratic administrations as well, yet this wasn't called for then- which is what I meant about selectivity of historical context), then how is it not partisan (or have the strong appearance of partisanship) to decide that this war is the starting point for this kind of scrutiny? We've never before held our elected officials to that standard of accountability. Now, you can certainly make a good argument that we should have, but for heaven's sake, not only was there never any discussion of criminality, those kinds of acts were practically considered heroic acts of war at one time.
All of that should change, but I feel that the only way to get all Americans on board with that is to avoid retroactive punishment under this new formulation of accounting for acts committed in war.
And honestly, I have no love for the previous administration and absolutely no reason to want to protect them. I think I would feel exactly the same if all of the party affiliations were reversed. There's just an element of retroactive punishment to a standard that people haven't been held to in the past that bothers me- and also the fact that nearly everyone involved in the political class either agreed to these acts or looked the other way, and to me those actions had to have been based on what they believed their constituents wanted or needed in the way of national security. I think there may have been exceptions to that rationale of 'good faith', but overall I think that was most of the motivation. If there's a way to tease out the good faith from the more nefarious motivations, fine- but I'm not inclined to push for retribution of people who made incorrect decisions if those were made in good faith.
On your other comment re: Abu Graib- I'm not sure what you're saying and somehow we appear to be talking past each other, but I don't have time to sort through all of the links and figure out where and why we seem to be talking about two different things. Sorry to have brought it up without time to follow through, but I'm going to have to leave it.
And since I believe it's important to unite the country against the acceptance of immoral interrogation techniques, the division that would cause would run counter to the primary goal IMO.
I still haven't had time to read all of Mikkel's links but read the one of his own articles that he linked back to about justice, and while it's well written I just disagree with his central thesis there- I do think that sometimes other factors trump the need for individuals to be held accountable for their acts. Think of times when you might feel that way- that Miranda rights, when neglected, allow probably criminals to go free. I realize you wouldn't agree with me about the factors in this case being of the same nature as that (as obviously I'm not claiming that this is a civil rights for protection of innocent type of exception) but I hope you can see that if we can accept in some cases that the guilty aren't held accountable and the system doesn't fall apart, there is precedent for holding that justice doesn't always mean that individual guilt is assigned and punishment paid for the acts.
In the present case, I think justice is best served by convincing the large group of Americans (well over half) who currently feel these techniques were effective and acceptable, that that's not so. And looking for personal culpability will IMO, greatly undermine the opportunity to changing people's mindset about that.
Are we talking about holding people accountable for torture, or the sort of post-war international commission? In the latter case, I agree. It'd be something we'd have to setup for the completion of future wars. In the former case, foreign leaders and officials have been executed for war crimes, including torture. The precedent is there.
That's why I want everyone in prison for marijuana possession, or three strike laws released. I doubt it would cause our system to fall apart, and it seems like the moral thing to do.
As Yglesias pointed out, the idea of personal responsibility doesn't ever seem to extend to our elites:
The United States isn’t run along Social Darwinist lines, but we’re closer than any other major developed country. To an extent that I find frankly astounding—and certainly unseen in other wealthy nations—people from modest backgrounds are expected to suffer the economic consequences of poor decision-making or bad luck, all in the name of personal responsibility. But when someone really important screws up, either in terms of provoking a financial crisis or overseeing a policy disaster or breaking the law or whatever, well then it turns out that we have better things to do than “look backwards” at who deserves what.
It’s absurd and it’s unfair.
If you want to extend your mercy for torturers to other criminals in the United States, then at least you're being consistent. Otherwise you're perpetuating the idea that there is one system of justice for the rich and powerful, and another for the rest of us.
I don't know how you can say that. The 1/3rd of the country that thought Bush was a great president, seems to be aligned behind him and Cheney in support of torture. Not only that, but they have very prominent mouthpieces in Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn Beck and members of Congress. Versus who? You and John McCain?
These people are not going to stop believing torture is acceptable policy, and they are only one election away from regaining control of the government. The best option we have it to use the law to scare the living sh*t out of them. If Cheney, Bybee and some CIA interrogators are rotting in prison for war crimes, I think it'd give future torture advocates and the people they ordered second thoughts about instituting similar programs.