The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

ChrisWWW — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 18:10:49 -0000

it&#39s completely inevitable that this will be perceived as a partisan move.

Are we talking about holding people accountable for torture, or the sort of post-war international commission? In the latter case, I agree. It&#39d be something we&#39d 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.

I hope you can see that if we can accept in some cases that the guilty aren&#39t held accountable and the system doesn&#39t fall apart, there is precedent for holding that justice doesn&#39t always mean that individual guilt is assigned and punishment paid for the acts.

That&#39s 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&#39t 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&#39re being consistent. Otherwise you&#39re perpetuating the idea that there is one system of justice for the rich and powerful, and another for the rest of us.

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&#39s not so. And looking for personal culpability will IMO, greatly undermine the opportunity to changing people&#39s mindset about that.

I don&#39t 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&#39d give future torture advocates and the people they ordered second thoughts about instituting similar programs.

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

ChrisWWW — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:10:49 -0000

it's completely inevitable that this will be perceived as a partisan move.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

CStanley — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 12:52:01 -0000

Chris, my point is that if a law that&#39s been on the books has never been enforced before, but then calls are made to enforce it against a particular executive branch official by an executive branch official of the opposing party, it&#39s completely inevitable that this will be perceived as a partisan move.

And since I believe it&#39s 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&#39t had time to read all of Mikkel&#39s links but read the one of his own articles that he linked back to about justice, and while it&#39s 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&#39t agree with me about the factors in this case being of the same nature as that (as obviously I&#39m 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&#39t held accountable and the system doesn&#39t fall apart, there is precedent for holding that justice doesn&#39t always mean that individual guilt is assigned and punishment paid for the acts.

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

CStanley — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:52:01 -0000

Chris, my point is that if a law that's been on the books has never been enforced before, but then calls are made to enforce it against a particular executive branch official by an executive branch official of the opposing party, it's completely inevitable that this will be perceived as a partisan move.

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.

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

ChrisWWW — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:56:24 -0000

There&#39s just an element of retroactive punishment to a standard that people haven&#39t 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 &#39good faith&#39, but overall I think that was most of the motivation. If there&#39s a way to tease out the good faith from the more nefarious motivations, fine- but I&#39m not inclined to push for retribution of people who made incorrect decisions if those were made in good faith.

All court justice is necessarily "retroactive", unless we&#39ve 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&#39t held accountable for their crimes isn&#39t a valid concern unless you do in fact believe that executives should be above the law.

Hasn&#39t every war criminal acted in some perverted form of "good faith". Hitler believed he was protecting Germany by exterminating the Jews. Stalin&#39s 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.

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

CStanley — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:54:49 -0000

By construct, I meant the implementation of what you described here:
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&#39t 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&#39t 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&#39ve 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&#39s 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&#39s just an element of retroactive punishment to a standard that people haven&#39t 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 &#39good faith&#39, but overall I think that was most of the motivation. If there&#39s a way to tease out the good faith from the more nefarious motivations, fine- but I&#39m 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&#39m not sure what you&#39re saying and somehow we appear to be talking past each other, but I don&#39t 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&#39m going to have to leave it.

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

ChrisWWW — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:31:34 -0000

casualobserver,
Ahh back to that meme eh tough guy internet commenter? "I can&#39t believe you want to coddle the trrrrrrerists!"

Well you know what, some of the people we&#39ve locked up and tortured were innocent or had already told us everything they knew. The fact you don&#39t give a damn is something you&#39ll 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.

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

casualobserver — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:07:37 -0000

Actually, since these are all good guys unfairly detained, Chris has agreed to open up his home as a halfway house for all the Gitmo releasees.

Bravo, Chris, I admire a person that who actually walks the walk.

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

mikkel — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:58:59 -0000

Yeah, no way will the Supreme Court allow people that have been that abused to have convictions stand...and they already ruled they have to be convicted of something. They&#39ll probably end up having to release and deport them, then hope they don&#39t fall off the radar.

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

pacatrue — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:58:43 -0000

Ummm... Legally alleged; many in fact, some not in fact. Yeah, some of the real terrorists will likely go free because we&#39ve destroyed the cases we had against them.

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

ChrisWWW — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:48:27 -0000

My guess is Mikkel was pointing out that we won&#39t be able to convict the genuine bad guys because they&#39ve been abused in so many ways, nothing would ever hold up in court.

Ahh... you&#39re talking about the alleged terrorists?

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

HemmD — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:46:09 -0000

Cheney is interested in muddying the legal waters and "proving" his political views.

Let all the documents come out. whatever chips fall is secondary to ascertaining the truth.

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

pacatrue — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:44:48 -0000

Ambiguous someone, I think. My guess is Mikkel was pointing out that we won&#39t be able to convict the genuine bad guys because they&#39ve been abused in so many ways, nothing would ever hold up in court.

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

ChrisWWW — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:37:24 -0000

And from the looks of it, Cheney is more interested in opening up these documents than your side is.

I don&#39t care if they release the documents, and I&#39m definitely not opposed. On the other hand, I wonder where Dick Cheney was when the CIA destroyed the interrogation videos.

Of course in releasing all these official documents, it&#39ll make it impossible to convict anyone

Hrmm? How so?

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

casualobserver — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:34:16 -0000

We long ago knew you are not capable of holding nuanced views, ChrisWWW, but there are another several hundred million people to hear from.........I agree with you on allowing everyone to see everything at this point and let the chips fall where they may.

And from the looks of it, Cheney is more interested in opening up these documents than your side is.

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

mikkel — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:33:13 -0000

I thought that Elizabeth de la Vega was exaggerating when she said not to start an investigation, as people would just keep handing over evidence to use against them. Apparently not...

Of course in releasing all these official documents, it&#39ll make it impossible to convict anyone, which pretty much means that either they&#39ll have to go free or they&#39ll have to make a precedent that can be abused. Yes all this is fantastic.

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:18:22 -0000

Here&#39s an explanation of what Dick Cheney is after.

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

ChrisWWW — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:13:59 -0000

(sorry, therefore it does not support your claim mikkel that newshoggers is on top of "all" information, but rather just the info that serves the left view)

casualobserver,
So, the rightwing view is that torture is great as long as it works?

Word.

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

casualobserver — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:02:30 -0000

Well, it is pretty much all over the non-left blogosphere (sorry, therefore it does not support your claim mikkel that newshoggers is on top of "all" information, but rather just the info that serves the left view) that Cheney has filed a request for two documents.......including the specific page numbers.

Let&#39s see what that reveals.

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

ChrisWWW — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:38:45 -0000

From the Anonymous Liberal:

even if we were starting from a blank slate and we could simply ignore the fact that techniques like waterboarding are proscribed by numerous laws and treaties, to make a policy case for the use of such techniques, you would have to do much more than establish that they occasionally have produced actionable intelligence. Among other things, you would have to prove that 1) such information could not have been extracted using other means, 2) that the misinformation produced by such methods doesn&#39t overwhelm the accurate information to the point of rending the whole exercise pointless, 3) that the strategic costs of using such techniques (international outrage, increased radicalization of the Muslim world, increased danger to U.S. troops, etc.) don&#39t outweigh the benefits, and 4) the value of the information produced is worth the tradeoff of never being able to use that information (or the fruits thereof) in court and severely jeopardizing any hope of ever convicting that individual in any constitutionally compliant legal proceeding.

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2009/04/who-car...

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

HemmD — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:38:09 -0000

CS

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.

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

ChrisWWW — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:31:47 -0000

Until Obama was compelled by law to release the memos, there seemed to be a pretty unhealthy bipartisan consensus that this entire affair should be swept under the rug.

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

mikkel — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:27:21 -0000

What construct are you referring to?

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

CStanley — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:26:29 -0000

Even so, isn&#39t it sticky that this new construct would begin now, during a time of bitter partisan divide?

Re: A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

mikkel — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:22:12 -0000

"But it doesn&#39t add to that credibility to say that details are now matching up, because the administration obviously would be motivated to release the selective parts of the documentary evidence that does match up with what&#39s been alleged."

I&#39m confused...when they said "we don&#39t torture and Abu Grahib saw things we didn&#39t 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&#39s 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&#39t the issues until the other stuff became undeniable.