Who will turn the dark and painful page ?

[humanino]

Who will turn the "dark and painful" page ?

How can it be considered acceptable not to punish torture ? Does Obama think we will just forget ? Is he not concerned that some might forget and do it again ? I am outraged and deeply disappointed.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gcf8odiL7Aym4L8F3SWAH-_EQPDgD97K96600 [Broken]

Human rights groups and former detainees in U.S. custody expressed disappointment Friday with the decision by President Barack Obama not to prosecute CIA operatives who used interrogation practices described by many as torture.

 

[AhmedEzz]

I don't know much about this but weren't those operatives ordered by their seniors and their seniors ordered by those above them and so on ? If so, who is to blame? Who is to be prosecuted?

 

[rootX]

I think it would be bit messy to put charges against them. There are more important problems to focus on.

But as I understand, he said he will not prosecute if they followed the law at that time.

 

[waht]

I guess deep down he would do it, but he doesn't want to open a Pandora's box to haunt him.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How can it be considered acceptable not to punish torture ? Does Obama think we will just forget ? Is he not concerned that some might forget and do it again ? I am outraged and deeply disappointed.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gcf8odiL7Aym4L8F3SWAH-_EQPDgD97K96600 [Broken]

I don't agree with the decision, but he is arguing that the CIA was operating under what was portrayed as legal authority by the Bush admin. There is the distinction that they didn't hose down people with machine guns or hook-up high voltage to anyone's testicles. There are clear violation of the law, and then there is the fuzzy-Gonzo [Bush's Attorney General] legality which sought to obscure or avoid the law.

Anyway, like I said, I don't agree either. At the least, people like Cheney and Gonzo should be held acccountable, and maybe they will be. IMO, the entire chain of command that had knowledge of this has failed.. no, betrayed their country. Waterboarding was banned in the Civil war. That was 150 years ago!

 

[mgb_phys]

I don't know much about this but weren't those operatives ordered by their seniors and their seniors ordered by those above them and so on ? If so, who is to blame? Who is to be prosecuted?

Ve ver only following zer orders?

 

[turbo]

I am disappointed, too. It's not just Bush, Cheney, Gonzo, et al at the top, but people all up and down the chain of command at the CIA that ordered the flights, imprisonments at secret locations that were outside of US law, and tortured people in locations that were clearly under US control. There were also professionals like psychologists who advised the torturers how to most effectively "break" the detainees. Sadly, many of the people swept up in the "anti-terror" net were people who had done nothing more than tick off some people in power who were willing to lie and "sell" them to the US for a bounty.

If this is all swept under the rug, the US will have a hard, long road back to respectability in global affairs.

 

[lisab]

This decision makes me mad as hell. I understand the bind that Obama is in here, but come on - we have to follow the law! Assign a special prosecutor, for crying out loud. Literally, it's the least we should do.

 

[Evo]

I think Obama has faced the reality that a long internal probe would only cost the taxpayers millions of dollars and result in no prosecutions. He has confirmed that he is a wise man and not one looking for press.

I think it is a wise decision to say it was wrong, prevent it from happening again, and move ahead.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think Obama has faced the reality that a long internal probe would only cost the taxpayers millions of dollars and result in no prosecutions.

This is what I was thinking. It may not be possible to convict someone who believed that their actions did not legally constitute torture. If they had used more extreme methods, at some point the argument would fail, but as it stands this does get dicey.

 

[Evo]

This is what I was thinking. It may not be possible to convict someone who believed that their actions did not legally constitute torture. If they had used more extreme methods, at some point the argument would fail, but as it stands this does get dicey.

I think you nailed it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The people who wrote the memos authorizing these methods are not off the hook.

 

[Evo]

The people who wrote the memos authorizing these methods are not off the hook.

Are there memos that foolishly describe anything specific that was illegal?

 

[lisab]

This is what I was thinking. It may not be possible to convict someone who believed that their actions did not legally constitute torture. If they had used more extreme methods, at some point the argument would fail, but as it stands this does get dicey.

I can't believe that the people who were doing the waterboarding did not believe that it was torture. The people who are being waterboarded believe they are drowning, and they behave as such.

And despite the cost of the trial and the very real possibility that there would be no convictions, I would feel much better if he went that route. At least we could look back years from now and say, we tried to do the right thing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I can't believe that the people who were doing the waterboarding did not believe that it was torture...

While I tend to agree, proving this in court is another matter.

And despite the cost of the trial and the very real possibility that there would be no convictions, I would feel much better if he went that route. At least we could look back years from now and say, we tried to do the right thing.

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.

 

[Evo]

And despite the cost of the trial and the very real possibility that there would be no convictions, I would feel much better if he went that route. At least we could look back years from now and say, we tried to do the right thing.

I have to disagree, making a futile gesture to ease someone's conscious? Doing the "right" thing would be to put an end to it. Going through a sham prosecution is worthless. Why would that make you feel better? Looking back in history, the fact that we stopped it will show that we did the right thing.

If they have hard evidence, then, by all means prosecute. Anything else is pointless. Much better to spend that time and money on helping people now, not trying to eliminate feelings of guilt over something we didn't even know about. Do you really feel personally responsible? Or maybe I just really don't understand your point of view, which wouldn't surprise me. I don't feel responsible for slavery, or for anything else that happened in the past.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Are there memos that foolishly describe anything specific that was illegal?

Allegely the authorization of waterboarding could be prosecuted. The reference was in regards to the people who specified who could be waterboarded [or otherwise tortured], how, and for how long. In effect, a how-to manual was issued. For example, it was specified that water used for waterboarding shall not be less than 41 degrees F, so apparently it all gets quite specific.

Here is the story. A link to the documents is provided.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/terrorism/homeland/index.html [Broken]

 

[lisab]

I have to disagree, making a futile gesture to ease someone's conscious? Doing the "right" thing would be to put an end to it. Going through a sham prosecution is worthless. Why would that make you feel better? Looking back in history, the fact that we stopped it will show that we did the right thing.

If they have hard evidence, then, by all means prosecute. Anything else is pointless. Much better to spend that time and money on helping people now, not trying to eliminate feelings of guilt over something we didn't even know about. Do you really feel personally responsible? Or maybe I just really don't understand your point of view, which wouldn't surprise me. I don't feel responsible for slavery, or for anything else that happened in the past.

I recognize that it's idealistic, but what's wrong with a little idealism, especially when it comes to justice? Reminds me of one of my favorite novels, "To Kill a Mockingbird." A hopeless case but Atticus Finch persevered...and lost. But the whole point of the novel was the lesson it taught his daughter.

And yes I do feel responsible for what my government does, in my lifetime - I have no feelings of responsibility for slavery. But things that the Bush adminstration did that reflect badly on all Americans, I do feel some responsibility for (even though I didn't vote for him). Because, it's my government - it represents all of us, how can I not feel responsible?

 

[misgfool]

I have to disagree, making a futile gesture to ease someone's conscious? Doing the "right" thing would be to put an end to it. Going through a sham prosecution is worthless. Why would that make you feel better? Looking back in history, the fact that we stopped it will show that we did the right thing.

As an outsider, I can say that there are a lot of keen eyes watching especially this case. This isn't about what happens to the torturers or the possible futility of the legal battle. It is about what the US represents - freedom or something completely different. Letting them go will silently approve the policy.

 

[rootX]

I recognize that it's idealistic, but what's wrong with a little idealism, especially when it comes to justice? Reminds me of one of my favorite novels, "To Kill a Mockingbird." A hopeless case but Atticus Finch persevered...and lost. But the whole point of the novel was the lesson it taught his daughter.

So idealistically, government should start out a new drama and distract itself from more real problems
I can see if Obama economic plan fails, this can work out as good distraction.

 

[Evo]

As an outsider, I can say that there are a lot of keen eyes watching especially this case. This isn't about what happens to the torturers or the possible futility of the legal battle. It is about what the US represents - freedom or something completely different. Letting them go will silently approve the policy.

Here, you are innocent until proven guilty. A case can be dismissed if there is too much press that could keep them from getting a fair trial. I think the press has already pretty much killed the possiblity of finding an impartial jury.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Here, you are innocent until proven guilty. A case can be dismissed if there is too much press that could keep them from getting a fair trial. I think the press has already pretty much killed the possiblity of finding an impartial jury.

A supposed inability to find an impartial jury doesn't necessitate a case dismissal though it can be used as grounds for appeal. An appeal will most assuredly be made if they are found guilty and the whole affair dragged out for years.

The major obsticle I think would be proving that they are guilty regardless of a good faith belief in the legality of their actions as handed down from the white house. This is a case where the superiors ought to be held responsible for their orders as opposed to the men on the ground for carrying them out.

 

[misgfool]

Here, you are innocent until proven guilty.

Nooh.. really?

A case can be dismissed if there is too much press that could keep them from getting a fair trial. I think the press has already pretty much killed the possiblity of finding an impartial jury.

So the case of the captured pirate can be dismissed as well?

 

[rootX]

Here, you are innocent until proven guilty. A case can be dismissed if there is too much press that could keep them from getting a fair trial. I think the press has already pretty much killed the possiblity of finding an impartial jury.

Gotta love China in that case:

Soon the authorities took notice and arrested her. Now they are accusing her of promising high returns to 148 investors, but actually using the money for herself, repaying loans, buying real estate and vehicles, and running her business.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8004002.stm

 

[russ_watters]

How can it be considered acceptable not to punish torture ? Does Obama think we will just forget ? Is he not concerned that some might forget and do it again ? I am outraged and deeply disappointed.

Could you at least comment on why you disagree with the reasoning given? (Ivan described it reasonably well)

 

[russ_watters]

I am disappointed, too. It's not just Bush, Cheney, Gonzo, et al at the top, but people all up and down the chain of command at the CIA that ordered the flights, imprisonments at secret locations that were outside of US law, and tortured people in locations that were clearly under US control. There were also professionals like psychologists who advised the torturers how to most effectively "break" the detainees. Sadly, many of the people swept up in the "anti-terror" net were people who had done nothing more than tick off some people in power who were willing to lie and "sell" them to the US for a bounty.

If this is all swept under the rug, the US will have a hard, long road back to respectability in global affairs.

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

...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.

 

[russ_watters]

I can't believe that the people who were doing the waterboarding did not believe that it was torture. The people who are being waterboarded believe they are drowning, and they behave as such.

A child who is denied iced cream or an office worker in a long meeting might think he is being tortured - that doesn't make it true. The issue is much more complicated than that.

I recognize that it's idealistic, but what's wrong with a little idealism, especially when it comes to justice?

What's wrong is that if you lose the case, you've lost the case! What is worse: looking back and saying we didn't try or looking back and saying we acquitted torturers!?

 

[russ_watters]

So the case of the captured pirate can be dismissed as well?

The pirate was caputured in the act of piracy, so I think his odds of conviction are probably pretty good. How can you not understand the difference between really thin evidence and really solid evidence?

 

[misgfool]

...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.

Wow.. so the US tries to do better than Hussein. How ambitious.

A child who is denied iced cream or an office worker in a long meeting might think he is being tortured - that doesn't make it true. The issue is much more complicated than that.

The ice cream doesn't belong to the kid and an office worker can leave at any time. My guess would be (I could be wrong though) that waterboarding isn't/wasn't voluntary.

What's wrong is that if you lose the case, you've lost the case! What is worse: looking back and saying we didn't try or looking back and saying we acquitted torturers!?

Yes, truth hurts.

 

[misgfool]

The pirate was caputured in the act of piracy, so I think his odds of conviction are probably pretty good. How can you not understand the difference between really thin evidence and really solid evidence?

You are a hawk, aren't you? Sea piracy is only another name for organized crime. However, if there is a legal technicality that sets the pirate free, then there is little to do. It is of course possible that he may set sail and return to the adventurous swashbuckling career on the high seas, but such is life.

 

[humanino]

When I read this comparison

A child who is denied iced cream or an office worker in a long meeting might think he is being tortured - that doesn't make it true.

that you dare making in such a context, I did not want to answer. However, I will not let it go that easily. I want to point out before continuing that your comparison is very shocking. The claims of torture that your official administration is suspected with by many citizen of this world can not be considered so lightly as you do. Please realize that it is possible that several innocent human beings are now free to walk around with their psychology destroyed. I consider this situation worse than death. However I have a pretty simple answer

What is worse: looking back and saying we didn't try or looking back and saying we acquitted torturers!?

not trying definitely.

What may be interesting, if you claim that "obeying the orders" is fine, then as a logical consequence you put all responsibility back on the top of the administration. The repugnant lier who told his people he did not order torture becomes even more guilty. I personally think responsibilities should be shared. But it would be acceptable if your previous administration was entirely charged, for the victims what matters is that they are recognized as victims.

Can you think of a medical doctor confirming you can take the pain longer ?
Do you care that wikipedia has pictures and even sentences such as

Waterboarding is a form of torture [...] In 2007 it was reported that the CIA was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the United States Department of Justice had authorized the procedure, a revelation that sparked a worldwide political scandal.

And it's not just about waterboarding. Sleep deprivation also destroy one's psychology for instance. It's a one way path towards a permanent life in nightmare for the victims. So which is worse : death or torture ?

 

[russ_watters]

Wow.. so the US tries to do better than Hussein. How ambitious.

I'm not sure you read what I wrote. You certainly didn't respond to it...

The ice cream doesn't belong to the kid and an office worker can leave at any time. My guess would be (I could be wrong though) that waterboarding isn't/wasn't voluntary.

My point was that the person who is experiencing something that they think is torture doesn't have the benefit of detachment and can't rationally judge whether the act is or is not torture.

Yes, truth hurts.

Huh? What truth? If the court case is lost, then isn't the truth "not torture"? Which hurts more, a painful truth or something that is judged true that you would rather not have judged true?

You are a hawk, aren't you? Sea piracy is only another name for organized crime.

No, it most certainly is not, and I don't me being (or not being) a hawd has to do with it.

 

[russ_watters]

When I read this comparisonthat you dare making in such a context, I did not want to answer. However, I will not let it go that easily. I want to point out before continuing that your comparison is very shocking. The claims of torture that your official administration is suspected with by many citizen of this world can not be considered so lightly as you do. Please realize that it is possible that several innocent human beings are now free to walk around with their psychology destroyed. I consider this situation worse than death. However I have a pretty simple answernot trying definitely.

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're completely missing the point of the exercise.

What may be interesting, if you claim that "obeying the orders" is fine...

I never made such a claim, in fact I'm pretty sure you participated in a thread where I explicitly stated the opposite.

...then as a logical consequence you put all responsibility back on the top of the administration.

Indeed it would, but Bush had the same legal guidance as the people following his orders, so a court case would logically work out the same for him as for them. That's the point here: Bush sought legal guidance before laying out the policy. He attempted to find the line and walk as close to it as possible without being on the other side. It is true that most people would draw the line in a different place, but the fact that he made an effort to draw a line and stay on the proper side is what makes prosecution problematic for both him and the people carrying out the acts.

The repugnant lier who told his people he did not order torture becomes even more guilty.

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

Do you care that wikipedia has pictures and even sentences such as...

And wikipedia is the governing authority on such things?

And it's not just about waterboarding. Sleep deprivation also destroy one's psychology for instance.

Indeed. So since you want exact apples-to-apples comparisons, then any two people who are being deprived sleep for the same amount of time are undergoing the same "torture", right?

And it's not just about waterboarding. Sleep deprivation also destroy one's psychology for instance. It's a one way path towards a permanent life in nightmare for the victims. So which is worse : death or torture ?

You are letting your emotions cloud your judgement and leading you away from the topic in the OP. Most of what you are saying here has nothing to do with the issue of whether people can or should be prosecuted for this. The issue is a whole lot more complicated than just saying what they did was bad and they should go to jail. Heck, I'll even stipulate to that!: Waterboarding is torture and people who do it should go to jail. Now - that doesn't effect anything else I've said here at all. It has virtually nothing to do with the question of whether they can or should be prosecuted. This is the difference between emotion and practical reality. In your head, your emotions can take you where-ever you let them. In the real world, your emotions will not get these people sent to prison, legal realities will (or won't).

 

[misgfool]

My point was that the person who is experiencing something that they think is torture doesn't have the benefit of detachment and can't rationally judge whether the act is or is not torture.

I'll bite. If waterboarding isn't torture, then what is it?

If the court case is lost, then isn't the truth "not torture"?

Yes.

No, it most certainly is not, and I don't me being (or not being) a hawd has to do with it.

The fact that it may happen in international waters doesn't make the actual act any different from typical operations run by organized crime.

 

[humanino]

I never made such a claim, in fact I'm pretty sure you participated in a thread where I explicitly stated the opposite.

Sorry if that was misleading : after I answered your question

What is worse: looking back and saying we didn't try or looking back and saying we acquitted torturers!?

not trying definitely.

My opinion is as following : since everybody is innocent by default, releasing someone as innocent does not mean this person is innocent. It only means we could not prove them guilty. It happens all the time. I don't think it's an acceptable argument anyway, otherwise there would never be any trial at all in my understanding of the system. I think we mostly disagree on that.