Who will turn the dark and painful page ?

[humanino]

Simple logic: if he didn't think it was torture, then he wasn't lying.

Great he is not a lier, he is only stupid. That does make him less guilty.

 

[misgfool]

I'm not saying the two are equivalent and it is "shocking" to me that you would get that impression and "shocking" to me how badly you misunderstand what I was doing with that. Both of you: how do you guys not get the concept of analyzing opposite extremes in order to highlight similarities and differences?

You keep telling that this a very complicated matter. I see it as a very simple matter. You (the US) allegedly tortured (waterboarded) prisoners. If there is evidence that waterboarding did take place, then it is reasonable that the person responsible gets a sentence. What more is there?

You're completely missing the point of the exercise.

This is the first thing I can agree on.

 

[Proton Soup]

i think the real reasons obama can't prosecute the CIA are first, it would tear apart the CIA and damage our ability to gather intelligence and conduct operations. even the people that don't get prosecuted will go into CYA mode and destroy their effectiveness as agents.

second, these are not some peon soldiers that you can just lock up in leavenworth and silence them. they are going to talk, or their friends are going to talk, and all the politicians involved in this, senate democrats included, will get outed publicly.

besides, this is primarily a PR move, anyway. if we really need intel from some prisoner, he'll just be rendered.

 

[LowlyPion]

The fundamental problem is that Obama is faced with an array of difficulties, not only from the legacy of the previous administration's ill advised, conceived and executed war, but the economic shambles wrought from lack of oversight and enforcement, and the looting of the public treasury to throw tax breaks and refunds at people's feet to buy them more time in power.

Finding scapegoats for the torture is not a difficult job. We have the names of the interrogators, but they were arguably badly misled. They were lied to about the legalities of what they were doing and they were ordered in the name of fighting Jihad that extracting information, regardless of means, was somehow ennobling in some higher cause. It seems unjust to me then that even though they may have been the point of the sword, that we would seek to punish the tip, when it was the hand wielding the sword that was knowingly violating US principles for their own ends, and did so without regard for principles that they claim to hold dear, and were sworn to preserve and serve and defend.

Then that suggests to me that the only appropriate parties are at the Cheney/Bush end of the stick. That they are the ones that really should bear the burden and the infamy and shame. But what healing can there be in the nation if we are met with such a polarizing pursuit at this point? These are old toothless discredited men now, that have been repudiated and removed from power. I say leave them to their dreams of libraries and legacies, history won't be kind to them in any event, and let us get on with straightening out the mess they've left behind, rather than devoting attention and resources to intramural squabbling, when we need all the attention and resources we can muster to right the ship and move forward.

 

[Proton Soup]

Then that suggests to me that the only appropriate parties are at the Cheney/Bush end of the stick. That they are the ones that really should bear the burden and the infamy and shame. But what healing can there be in the nation if we are met with such a polarizing pursuit at this point? These are old toothless discredited men now, that have been repudiated and removed from power. I say leave them to their dreams of libraries and legacies, history won't be kind to them in any event, and let us get on with straightening out the mess they've left behind, rather than devoting attention and resources to intramural squabbling, when we need all the attention and resources we can muster to right the ship and move forward.

i believe you would find that even the former senator clinton is part of that "end of the stick".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Letting them go will silently approve the policy.

I don't see that as fair either. We have now defined waterboarding to be torture. What happened was that the Bush admin was playing games with the words defining torture, and then devised a means of waterboarding and other tactics that allegedly didn't meet the standard for torture. While you and I and most of the rest of the world see how the logic fails here, there is an argument to be made that not everyone involved can be held legally liable. However, if we also fail to prosecute those who approved the use of these methods, then I too would say that Obama has taken the message of reconciliation and moving-on too far. Someone has to be held accountable here.

Addendum for clarity: Our Attorney General stated that the Justice Department can't prosecute people for torture, when just three years ago, the Justice Department stated that the approved methods of waterboarding wasn't torture.

 

[LowlyPion]

i believe you would find that even the former senator clinton is part of that "end of the stick".

Certainly not insofar as the Iraq related tomfoolery has been concerned.

 

[rootX]

Ve ver only following zer orders?

Interesting that both happened about the same time.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=307446

 

[mheslep]

...There are people who exceeded the CIA guidelines. For this reason they could still be held liable for torture. And again, according to an interview with experts [just now on the PBS Newshour], the people who authorized this are not in the clear.

The Newshour reports people exceeded guidelines? April 18th show?

 

[jreelawg]

I feel sorry for Obama having to deal with such a difficult issue. He is in a position where the right thing to do is very dangerous and in some aspects counter productive. However I believe firmly that there should be a full scale investigation.

The alarming thing is not that people were tortured. The alarming thing is the sophisticated network of people conspiring to undermine the law. Torture is not the only example of the Bush administration finding ways to undermine the law. What has happened is that our nations most powerful criminals have succeeded in manipulating our legal system. It is a good thing that they only had eight years because the legal grounds that hold our Nation together had been eroding underneath us.

Obama's task is to dismantle the conspiracy to undermine the law. The thing that makes this hard is that its part of the CIA's job to undermine Law. One of the main reason the CIA is so secretive is that many of it's operations are illegal.

So the main issue here is if and where we draw a line? The CIA has gotten away with worse than torturing suspected terrorists. Does anyone remember the mind control experiments ran by the CIA in Canada. Which were carried out on American and Canadian patients. These people were strapped to beds, kept sedated for months on end with head phones strapped to their heads playing voices and noises, they were exposed to shock therapyat 30 to 40 time the power, with a goal of wiping out memory. The victims of this experiment essentially forgot who they were, many of them thought that their "doctors" were their parents.

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

To my knowledge, nobody was prosecuted for this abuse of our own people. If I am not mistaken, that was illegal. My point here is that the CIA has a history of abuse of power and disregard for human rights. Of coarse we like to hope that the atrocities of the 50's 60's and 70's were isolated events and that things have changed since then, but under George bushes watch, there was a fear that dark sides and secrets within our government were coming back and trying to gain a foothold. This is what needs to be protected against, and I think it is worth the effort.

However there is also the argument that we need a body within our government which can carry out our dirty work illegal or not so long as it keeps America Safe. The problem is how can we trust this body with so much power and secrecy, especially given the history?

Now Obama probably wants to draw some kind of line to the extent that the CIA can go with regards to illegal and perhaps disturbing activity regardless of so called security reasons. Releasing the memos acts as some kind of middle ground in line drawing with a hope of not making enemies with the CIA, and with hopes of getting re-elected. So this is a huge challenge, and there is no perfect solution, but I think he is doing the right thing.

I think that if Obama wants to be successful, he needs to slowly implement a body of strong oversight that infiltrates deeply into the realms of our secretive organizations. This will provide protection against potential threats from the inside because if something is overboard or entirely out of line, it can be released and people held accountable. So it is kind of like a warning, you won't be punished this time, but if you cross us, then you will be front page news.

 

[cristo]

It is my understanding that in the UK, confessions are regularly beaten out of suspects as a standard operating procedure.

Do you have a reference for this? Beating of suspects is not standard operating procedure for any police force I know of!

Regardless, they also have the interrogating of terrorists suspects issue to deal with: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7983914.stm

Let's be clear: the UK security services have been accused of being "complicit" in torture of Binyam Mohammed, who was in US custody at the time. At least the Met are investigating MI5/6's part in this!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Newshour reports people exceeded guidelines? April 18th show?

Yes, apparently some people violated the guidelines. It was the April 17th show. I provided a link on page 1 of this thread.

It was reported so by one of their panelists.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is my understanding that in the UK, confessions are regularly beaten out of suspects as a standard operating procedure. Regardless, they also have the interrogating of terrorists suspects issue to deal with: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7983914.stm

From your link

...Responding to the latest claims from Cageprisoners the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) said it took any allegations of mistreatment or torture "seriously".

"The UK's position on torture is clear. We abhor torture. We don't participate, solicit, encourage or condone it. We unreservedly condemn extraordinary rendition for torture," said a statement...

...and compared to the things that the UN let's go in other countries, (supposedly, Hussein used to lower dissidents into plastic shredders), this wouldn't be high on the list of important issues there.

The difference is that the world expects more from us, and rightfully so.

 

[LowlyPion]

Obama trying to turn the page at the CIA today. He really got a lot of applause though I must say when I saw it earlier and he was introduced. [prior to the start of this clip.] Not everyone there dislikes his approach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmuAO-OEUQQ

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Thank you LP

 

[Coin]

Three thoughts.

1. Whenever Obama is trying to avoid addressing Bush-era lawbreaking, he portrays it as "putting the past behind us". This isn't about the past. It is about the future. Obama will be President for at most eight years. If there are no prosecutions-- no consequences for those who broke the law-- then as soon as Obama is out, there will be nothing to prevent the next President from breaking the law. We simply cannot "turn the page" without first doing what is necessary to ensure this does not happen again.

2. Everyone seems to be focusing on whether the individual CIA officers who enacted the torture policies will be held accountable. I think this is less important than whether the higher-ups who created the torture policies will be held accountable.

3. There is at least one case where it is possible to make this happen, at least in part, even given the apparent uncooperativeness of the Obama administration. This would be the case of Jay Bybee.

Jay Bybee was a lawyer with the OLC in 2002, and wrote the first of the four "torture memos" released last week-- the memo that was as far as I know the groundbreaking first attempt by Bush administration lawyers to gut our torture laws. A few months after this memo was written, Bush succeeded in getting Bybee appointed to the 9th circuit court of appeals. Bybee-- the man who wrote that fascinating little aside about how locking someone in a small box with insects is humane so long as you pick the right insects-- remains a federal judge today. There is a way to hold Federal officeholders responsible for crimes even if the executive branch wants to look the other way, it's called impeachment.

Both the New York Times and the Los Angeles County Democratic Party have called for Bybee's impeachment; and there is a movement trying to get the California Democratic Party to pass a resolution at its convention this month calling on the House of Representatives to impeach Bybee:

http://www.calitics.com/diary/8584/yes-we-can-impeach-jay-bybee

If you are bothered by what has happened here, then I think it is worth it to contact your congressperson about this-- and if you are in California especially, then it is worth it to check that link out and contact the CDP to urge them to pass the impeach-Bybee resolution...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From Obama, today.

...For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corner of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it is appropriate for them to be prosecuted. With respect to those who formulated those legal decision, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge them...

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/04/prosecution-for-torture-memos-up-to-atty-gen.html

 

[mgb_phys]

I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge them

Considering that it was the previous Republican appointed attorney general who approved the torture and it will be the new Democrat appointed attorney general who decides if there is to be a trail - saying that it's not political is a bit disingenuous

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Considering that it was the previous Republican appointed attorney general who approved the torture and it will be the new Democrat appointed attorney general who decides if there is to be a trail - saying that it's not political is a bit disingenuous

Only to the extent that it was the Republicans who broke the law. Your comment suggests that only an AG from the offending party can rightfully prosecute criminals.

I hope the AG nails these guys to the wall.

 

[mgb_phys]

Your comment suggests that only an AG from the offending party can rightfully prosecute criminals.

I meant that he can't claim this isn't about politics and is purely a legal matter when the AG that approved the acts and the AG that may or may not prosecute the previous AG are both political appointees.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I meant that he can't claim this isn't about politics and is purely a legal matter when the AG that approved the acts and the AG that may or may not prosecute the previous AG are both political appointees.

I still don't see your point. A prosecution of these individuals may set the Republicans on fire, but it is still a matter of law. IMO, those who authorized these tactics are almost certainly guilty of crimes and should be prosecuted.

In this country, less the actions of the previous administration, the law takes precedence over politics.

 

[LowlyPion]

Hey. I'm not against kicking this Bybee off the court. He was supervising Yoo and those outrageous memos. Since Congress was unaware of these memos and their authorship at the time of his confirmation to the court, I see nothing out of order in straightening the fraud that he participated in. Since he has shown himself to be an obedient ideologue ahead of being a jurist then I'd say he is patently unfit to be deciding issues of public interest.

I'm not against trying Cheney either and likely even Rove for their arrogance in working to concoct these ways to flaunt the laws as well. I don't think there is any question but when all the facts are known these men will have been found to have been abusers of power to forward their agendas at the expense of the general welfare.

But you must agree that such pursuits would certainly absorb many news cycles at a time when the country should be focusing on bigger issues. And might we not as well risk precipitating an endless cycle of recriminations with each change in administration, with each change in power rummaging through the past, in order to disadvantage the vanquished even further?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But you must agree that such pursuits would certainly absorb many news cycles at a time when the country should be focusing on bigger issues. And might we not as well risk precipitating an endless cycle of recriminations with each change in administration, with each change in power rummaging through the past, in order to disadvantage the vanquished even further?

I'm not sure there is such a thing as "bigger issues". This strikes at the heart of our values and system of goverment.

 

[mgb_phys]

In this country, less the actions of the previous administration, the law takes precedence over politics.

That's rather the point.
The previous administration appointed Mr Gonzales because of his support for their interpretation of the rules on torture.
The current administration appoints an AG who shares their views on Mr Gonzales and will decide if it is political expedient to prosecute or not.

To claim that they are not acting politically but that it is totally a matter of legal opinion is like the CIA claiming that they had no opinion on the use of torture but were waiting for Mr Gonzales to decide for them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's rather the point.
The previous administration appointed Mr Gonzales because of his support for their interpretation of the rules on torture.
The current administration appoints an AG who shares their views on Mr Gonzales and will decide if it is political expedient to prosecute or not.

To claim that they are not acting politically but that it is totally a matter of legal opinion is like the CIA claiming that they had no opinion on the use of torture but were waiting for Mr Gonzales to decide for them.

Our system of government is designed such that even Presidents can be held liable for crimes. No one is above the law and politics is not a shield against legal review.

What you fail to understand is that the previous admin was a severe aberration in our system. Our legal system, which is the practical implentation of our Constitution, is designed to deal with these situations.

If anyone is convicted of a crime, it will be because, beyond any reasonable doubt, they are guilty.

 

[edward]

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, said, "There's a lot of evidence that remains to be gathered. And I think no good prosecutor would make a decision about going forward until he had all the evidence in place." According to the New York Times, "CIA interrogators used waterboarding...266 times on two key prisoners from Al Qaeda, far more than had been previously reported." The Washington Post editorializes, "Now comes the revelation that CIA interrogators were far from restrained in their use of this ancient and cruel technique."

266 times on just two detainees. If water boarding was as successful as was proclaimed just what information did they expect to get after the first success?

Cheney Wants More Memos Released Former Vice President Dick Cheney, on Fox News' Hannity , said, "I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process. ... And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos. ... Let's have an honest debate." Former Bush aide Marc A. Thiessen, in a Washington Post op-ed, writes that "Obama declared that the techniques used to question captured terrorists 'did not make us safer.' This is patently false."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090421.htm

Cheney formally asked the CIA?? Someone needs to inform the CIA that Cheney can no longer formally ask for anything.

 

[humanino]

But you must agree that such pursuits would certainly absorb many news cycles at a time when the country should be focusing on bigger issues.

Like what ? Some people have been guilty of putting "security" before the respect of another human being's dignity. Now money and flaws in the financial system should be put in such priority that we forget about fundamental human rights ? If some humans out there had more dignity, your financial system might be better too BTW

 

[Coin]

But you must agree that such pursuits would certainly absorb many news cycles at a time when the country should be focusing on bigger issues.

Like Obama's dog, and something stupid Miss California said? Oh, and there is a woman on Youtube who sang a song from "Le Miz" very well. These are the things I see the news focusing on lately.

No, I disagree. There is plenty of time to handle this issue alongside the other important ones, and by my personal standards I'm not sure it's possible for an issue to be more important than this. By this same argument Obama should stop working on health care to focus on the economy, or whatever it was the Republicans were saying last week.

And might we not as well risk precipitating an endless cycle of recriminations with each change in administration, with each change in power rummaging through the past, in order to disadvantage the vanquished even further?

Actually I'm all in favor of this. If the Obama administration breaks the law, they deserve recriminations.

 

[mheslep]

I still don't see your point. A prosecution of these individuals may set the Republicans on fire, but it is still a matter of law. IMO, those who authorized these tactics are almost certainly guilty of crimes and should be prosecuted...

If that is the case (and I do not think it is), then absent a pardon, isn't the Obama administration complicit and guilty of Obstruction of Justice? That is, the implication is that the Justice Department has the option of arbitrarily deciding, based on internal political decisions, to prosecute when there is clear evidence of a crime. I assert they have no such option given your predicate of 'certainly guilty of crimes'. So either your predicate is wrong or the Justice Dept. is breaking the law.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Like what ? Some people have been guilty of putting "security" before the respect of another human being's dignity. Now money and flaws in the financial system should be put in such priority that we forget about fundamental human rights ? If some humans out there had more dignity, your financial system might be better too BTW

There are many heinous crimes which are taken to trial and only some of them receive widespread news coverage. These people need to be taken to trial based on the merit of the case and not based on how much media coverage there is or how many people want to see these people rot in jail cells based on the media coverage. We are not even certain who all could theoretically be charged let alone the merit of their individual cases. Much of the information that would tell us about the merits of the cases is classified so we can not know. We are theoretically supposed to be able to trust the current administration to do the right thing. Under Bush I would not have had such trust. Now I feel that I may be able to justifiably feel that trust.

 

[WhoWee]

266 times on just two detainees. If water boarding was as successful as was proclaimed just what information did they expect to get after the first success?



http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090421.htm

Cheney formally asked the CIA?? Someone needs to inform the CIA that Cheney can no longer formally ask for anything.

Cheney does make a valid point
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/20/cheney-calls-release-memos-showing-results-interrogation-efforts-1862515294/

Telling half of the story isn't fair.

Maybe the people who escaped death by "man made disasters" would like to know the details?

As for waterboarding as a torture method...if someone was tortured 183 times in a month...it must not be very dangerous...uncomfortable/unpleasant...YES...life-threatening...apparently not.

It sounds like waterboarding as a torture is comparable to shoplifting as a crime.

There are certainly other (evil) types:
http://www.medievality.com/torture.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dungeon/9363/history.htm

We know that we were not attacked post Sept 11...if you want to say Bush over-reacted and excessive methods will be stopped is one thing...but the procedures and tactics must be replaced with something that will yield equally safe (to us) results.

It's easy to criticize...now that all of the tactics and secrets are out of the bag...how will Obama keep us safe?

Let's hope he has an alternative plan.

 

[cristo]

As for waterboarding as a torture method...if someone was tortured 183 times in a month...it must not be very dangerous...uncomfortable/unpleasant...YES...life-threatening...apparently not.

Waterboarding (apparently) invokes the sense of imminent drowning, thus whilst it may not be life threatening in that sense, it is certainly perceived by the torturee as being life threatening. This would be classed as severe mental suffering and, as per the UN convention, be illegal.

We know that we were not attacked post Sept 11...if you want to say Bush over-reacted and excessive methods will be stopped is one thing...but the procedures and tactics must be replaced with something that will yield equally safe (to us) results.

Please, where is your proof that such aggressive methods saved you from being attacked post 9/11? Correlation does not imply causation (that's stats 101)!

 

[rootX]

Please, where is your proof that such aggressive methods saved you from being attacked post 9/11?

That made me think of ..

 

[turbo]

I don't buy the argument that Bush/Cheney and their tactics "kept the US safe". To the contrary, they have polarized much of the Muslim world against the US and made it easier for radical groups to recruit. There were NO radical fundamentalist Muslim groups operating in Iraq prior to the US invasion - Saddam wouldn't tolerate their existence. It is indisputable that there were Shi'ite groups in Iraq that were aligned with Iran, but they were kept under check by the Sunni-dominated government and were not much of a threat. Under Saddam, women in Iraq were able to pursue higher education, hold positions of responsibility, and live in a society that is far more secular and free of religious repression than most of the arab world.

 

[rootX]

As for waterboarding as a torture method...if someone was tortured 183 times in a month...it must not be very dangerous...uncomfortable/unpleasant...YES...life-threatening...apparently not.

Are you suggesting that laws are meant for your enemies only ?