Who will turn the dark and painful page ?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter humanino
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the decision by President Obama not to prosecute CIA operatives involved in interrogation practices labeled as torture. Participants express their outrage, disappointment, and concerns regarding accountability, legality, and the implications of not addressing these actions. The conversation touches on themes of justice, moral responsibility, and the potential consequences of ignoring past actions related to human rights violations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express outrage at the lack of prosecution for torture, questioning the moral implications of forgetting past actions.
  • Others argue that operatives were following orders from higher-ups, complicating the issue of accountability.
  • There is a suggestion that prosecuting those involved could be messy and may not yield convictions, as some believed their actions were legal at the time.
  • Some participants emphasize the need for accountability at all levels of command, including those who authorized torture methods.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for a "Pandora's box" effect if prosecutions were pursued, suggesting that it could lead to further complications.
  • Several participants discuss the specifics of legal memos that authorized interrogation techniques, questioning their legality and the implications for those who wrote them.
  • There is a division on whether pursuing prosecutions would be a meaningful gesture or a futile exercise, with some advocating for accountability and others suggesting it would be better to focus on current issues.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus. There are multiple competing views regarding the appropriateness of prosecution, the implications of the decision, and the responsibilities of those involved in the chain of command.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved questions about the legality of actions taken under the Bush administration, the complexity of determining blame within a hierarchical structure, and the potential for conflicting interpretations of legal authority at the time.

  • #91


Proton Soup said:
better yet, you show me a criminal indictment against any former president for crimes committed during office.

Nixon escaped indictment essentially only because of the blanket pardon he was granted by Ford. Jaworski's team tried very hard to find some way to avoid indicting Nixon, pushing off the decision as long as possible, but ultimately were convinced they had no choice but to; Ford then took the decision out of their hands.

Exactly under what terms and whether an ex-President can be charged for crimes while in office is to some extent an open constitutional question. But the question I'd ask here is, if it is not constitutionally possible to indict an ex-President, then why did Ford need to pardon Nixon?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92


drankin said:
It's a legal battle that would take a loooong time I'm sure. It would probably have to go to the SC. Meanwhile, many of us don't believe there was a crime in the first place. If it does happen as you would like, then we could start digging up stuff on Clinton. That would be fun.

So long as we are agreed then that Cheney or Bush could in fact still be prosecuted for crimes committed in office ... I'll leave it to the particulars of any indictment as to what could or could not be accomplished in a criminal proceeding.
 
  • #93


drankin said:
It's a legal battle that would take a loooong time I'm sure. It would probably have to go to the SC. Meanwhile, many of us don't believe there was a crime in the first place. If it does happen as you would like, then we could start digging up stuff on Clinton. That would be fun.

I believe that it would first go before Congress or a congressional committee. Then, if it is a crime linked to the office of president, to a federal court. Since there seems to be little in the way of legal precident for prosecuting the president in a criminal court it will likely land in the supreme court eventually. You may be right that the likelihood of the occurrence is slim but that it can not happen is just flat out wrong.
 
  • #94


Coin said:
Nixon escaped indictment essentially only because of the blanket pardon he was granted by Ford. Jaworski's team tried very hard to find some way to avoid indicting Nixon, pushing off the decision as long as possible, but ultimately were convinced they had no choice but to; Ford then took the decision out of their hands.

Exactly under what terms and whether an ex-President can be charged for crimes while in office is to some extent an open constitutional question. But the question I'd ask here is, if it is not constitutionally possible to indict an ex-President, then why did Ford need to pardon Nixon?

well, Nixon resigned under the knowledge that impeachment was imminent. that certainly complicates things.

if it is an open question whether an ex-president can be charged for crimes while in office, then it's an equally open question whether Ford's pardon had any effect legally beyond keeping the question open.
 
  • #95


Coin said:
Nixon escaped indictment essentially only because of the blanket pardon he was granted by Ford. Jaworski's team tried very hard to find some way to avoid indicting Nixon, pushing off the decision as long as possible, but ultimately were convinced they had no choice but to; Ford then took the decision out of their hands.

Exactly under what terms and whether an ex-President can be charged for crimes while in office is to some extent an open constitutional question. But the question I'd ask here is, if it is not constitutionally possible to indict an ex-President, then why did Ford need to pardon Nixon?

To avoid further disgrace to our Nation...Obama needs to end this nonsense!

What next, a civil suit with damages to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad? I'm sure he'd accept 183 nuclear warheads as payment...might find them useful to complete his plan.
 
  • #96


TheStatutoryApe said:
I believe that it would first go before Congress or a congressional committee. Then, if it is a crime linked to the office of president, to a federal court. Since there seems to be little in the way of legal precident for prosecuting the president in a criminal court it will likely land in the supreme court eventually. You may be right that the likelihood of the occurrence is slim but that it can not happen is just flat out wrong.

When are we going to question the (Democratic) Congress role in this...who knew what and when, etc.?
 
  • #97


drankin said:
I think the CIA torture methods should be allowed in cases of foreign threats against our national security.

And you would allow any other nation in the world to torture US citizens if they were deemed a threat against the other nation's national security? ... Didn't think so!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Movie_poster_team_america.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #98


WhoWee said:
What next, a civil suit with damages to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad?

Not a bad idea.

I'd give him Cheney's ranch in Wyoming as compensation for the indignities he was made to suffer at the hands of Cheney's henchmen.
 
  • #99


cristo said:
And you would allow any other nation in the world to torture US citizens if they were deemed a threat against the other nation's national security? ... Didn't think so!



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Movie_poster_team_america.jpg
[/URL]

Of course we wouldn't allow it to be done to us! LOL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #100


eh, i don't get it. the crimes committed in vietnam were far and away worse than anything alleged here.
 
  • #101


LowlyPion said:
Not a bad idea.

I'd give him Cheney's ranch in Wyoming as compensation for the indignities he was made to suffer at the hands of Cheney's henchmen.

Really?

And what should Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (and his henchmen) pay to the families of people killed on September 11, 2001?

Remember, if you (they) destroy the United States of America...you will lose your rights.

There is a limit to radical left cheering...you are clearly there.
 
  • #102


WhoWee said:
And what should Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (and his henchmen) pay to the families of people killed on September 11, 2001?

You've got a point.

OK Seize the ranch he just got from Cheney and sell it to give to the victim's families.
 
  • #103


LowlyPion said:
You've got a point.

OK Seize the ranch he just got from Cheney and sell it to give to the victim's families.

I'm sorry for the tone LP...this is an emotional topic...just as decision making immediately after 9-11 was emotional.
 
  • #104


WhoWee said:
And what should Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (and his henchmen) pay to the families of people killed on September 11, 2001?

I'm sure that if they weren't turnips they'd be bled already.
 
  • #105


TheStatutoryApe said:
I'm sure that if they weren't turnips they'd be bled already.

Can you please explain what that means?
 
  • #106


You can't get blood out of a turnip. You can't get financial compensation out of a criminal who has no assets.
 
  • #107


turbo-1 said:
You can't get blood out of a turnip. You can't get financial compensation out of a criminal who has no assets.

Thank you Turbo, that's valid, but I'd like to know TheStatutoryApe's intended meaning.
 
  • #108


WhoWee said:
Thank you Turbo, that's valid, but I'd like to know TheStatutoryApe's intended meaning.

Turbo hit it on the nose. I apologize if my meaning was not clear.
 
  • #109


WhoWee said:
I'm sorry for the tone LP...this is an emotional topic...just as decision making immediately after 9-11 was emotional.

I understand. I am no friend of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. I can't weep that he would be subjected to hell on this Earth and whatever awaits him in his, as his was the act of a coward, planning something that he did not carry out.

But neither should we sweep aside the Law in our eagerness to seek retribution. How can we pretend to honor the rule of law, except for when it is inconvenient to satisfing our lust to inflict harsh treatment on our enemies. If the law is malleable to the agendas of whoever may be in power at the moment, that seems a very dangerous precedent.
 
  • #110


LowlyPion said:
I understand. I am no friend of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. I can't weep that he would be subjected to hell on this Earth and whatever awaits him in his, as his was the act of a coward, planning something that he did not carry out.

But neither should we sweep aside the Law in our eagerness to seek retribution. How can we pretend to honor the rule of law, except for when it is inconvenient to satisfing our lust to inflict harsh treatment on our enemies. If the law is malleable to the agendas of whoever may be in power at the moment, that seems a very dangerous precedent.

Agreed.
 
  • #112


LowlyPion said:
Jon Stewart on Rove and Cheney contracting Balzheimers over torturing, and now suddenly becoming the champion of transparency and declassification.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225124&title=balzheimers-disease

I have to admit...Stewart is a funny guy.

I think we're living in the famed "opposites world" now...Castro and Chavez are our friends...UK and Israel...not so much. Cheney and Rove wanting transparency only makes sense in "opposites world"...right?
 
  • #114


drankin said:
I believe that Cheney is saying, without saying, that there is a huge can of worms behind all this declassification and public disclosure.

Now, now...let's not speculate...(but I think you're right).
 
  • #115


drankin said:
I believe that Cheney is saying, without saying, that there is a huge can of worms behind all this declassification and public disclosure.

So this is why he's now calling for declassification?

No. I think Cheney is getting a little worried. Not only about trying to fudge the past to massage how history will think of his legacy (he's lost that battle), but also to maybe even start crafting a defense, if the torture trail runs to his desk.
 
  • #116


Calling for declassification and release of memos can set the stage for defense claims that it is not possible to get a "fair trial" for the people who approved torture. If I was Cheney (gahhhh! the thought is repulsive) I would pursue this vigorously, and then paint any effort at prosecution as "political". FOX would eat that up.
 
  • #117


turbo-1 said:
Calling for declassification and release of memos can set the stage for defense claims that it is not possible to get a "fair trial" for the people who approved torture. If I was Cheney (gahhhh! the thought is repulsive) I would pursue this vigorously, and then paint any effort at prosecution as "political". FOX would eat that up.

I'd think with Cheney appearing to be such a paranoid personality, that he likely has been more than careful not to put his name on anything that would catch him up. After all the talk when he was in office about executive privilege, limiting discussion of classified issues, the man-safe in his office, and his refusal to part with documents even to the National Archives, because by some legerdemain with the Constitution he inhabited some netherworld that was not the Executive, yet was when it suited his purpose, ... he's really only made himself out to be a woeful hypocrite. Not that this has seemed to bother him in the past, I might be quick to add.

I note today, however, that his daughter is now out trying to speak for him, by saying that he wouldn't have had any input into legal opinions. Now if that doesn't smell like a dead rat in the walls somewhere, I have to say that increases my thought that he just may have been more involved than he has let on, or that I might have presumed, in letting his daughter run point for him.
 
  • #118


I think the President will put and end to this soon. I'm sure he's familiar with the old saying..."treat people the way you want to be treated". Someday, be it 4 or 8 years from now, Obama will leave office. Setting a precedent of dragging former administration officials (or a President) in front of a witch hunt-like tribunal could have future consequences...especially if his programs/policies don't yield the results he's outlined.
 
  • #119


WhoWee said:
I think the President will put and end to this soon. I'm sure he's familiar with the old saying..."treat people the way you want to be treated". Someday, be it 4 or 8 years from now, Obama will leave office. Setting a precedent of dragging former administration officials (or a President) in front of a witch hunt-like tribunal could have future consequences...especially if his programs/policies don't yield the results he's outlined.

Of all of his concerns, I'd say that's the least.

For one thing Obama clearly has integrity. I doubt he has any concerns that he would ever be caught up in a witch hunt. His has been a life of public service. Not even the witch hunting Republicans, if they survive, would be so bold as to suggest anything like that. They wouldn't dare.
 
  • #120


LowlyPion said:
Of all of his concerns, I'd say that's the least.

For one thing Obama clearly has integrity. I doubt he has any concerns that he would ever be caught up in a witch hunt. His has been a life of public service. Not even the witch hunting Republicans, if they survive, would be so bold as to suggest anything like that. They wouldn't dare.

Really?

What if he's called upon in the future to explain why his people needed to lie about his famous bow before the King...if you tell a little lie...there MUST be other lies...right?

As for his life of public service...has anyone ever even produced his birth certificate yet?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174
How many signatures are on that petition...250,000?

Better yet, maybe he'll be asked to explain what "dabbling" (in drugs) actually means.

Are any of these topics more ridiculous than Clinton's "dress"?

In politics, ANYTHING is possible.
 

Similar threads

News William Ayers turned back at Canadian border
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K