News Who will turn the dark and painful page ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter humanino
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on President Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA operatives involved in interrogation practices labeled as torture, which has sparked outrage among human rights advocates and former detainees. Critics argue that failing to hold anyone accountable sends a dangerous message and risks repeating past abuses. Some participants highlight the complexity of assigning blame, noting that operatives acted under orders from higher-ups, raising questions about the entire chain of command's responsibility. There is a call for a special prosecutor to investigate, despite concerns about the potential futility and costs of such actions. Ultimately, the conversation reflects a deep concern for the implications of this decision on U.S. moral standing and legal accountability.
  • #31


When I read this comparison
russ_watters said:
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
russ_watters said:
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 ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32


misgfool said:
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.
 
  • #33


humanino said:
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).
 
  • #34


russ_watters said:
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?

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

Yes.

russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #35


russ_watters said:
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
humanino said:
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #36


russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #37


russ_watters said:
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?

russ_watters said:
You're completely missing the point of the exercise.

This is the first thing I can agree on.
 
  • #38


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.
 
  • #39


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.
 
  • #40


LowlyPion said:
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".
 
  • #41


misgfool said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #42


Proton Soup said:
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.
 
  • #44


Ivan Seeking said:
...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?
 
  • #45


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.
 
Last edited:
  • #46


russ_watters said:
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!
 
  • #47


mheslep said:
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.
 
  • #48


russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #49


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
 
  • #50


Thank you LP
 
  • #51


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...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52


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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53


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
 
  • #54


mgb_phys said:
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.
 
  • #55


Ivan Seeking said:
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.
 
  • #56


mgb_phys said:
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.
 
  • #57


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?
 
  • #58


LowlyPion said:
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.
 
  • #59


Ivan Seeking said:
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.
 
  • #60


mgb_phys said:
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K