[Winstonm]

Quote

In the case of Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld I believe that we are nowhere close to the sort of situation where this would be called for.

Ken,

Most who I have read who oppose prosecution argue that other presidents have broken the law and besides this president was only trying to keep America safe. As I have pointed out in quotes, keeping "X" safe has been the reasoning for other cases of torture that were prosecuted.

Besides, arguing an explanation for lawbreaking still does not excuse the violation. All criminals have an excuse for their actions. Excuses and reasons may have some bearing on the penalty phase of a case, but when was the last time a cop listened to a robber's excuse and let him go without arrest?

I do concede that the nature of the crime has bearing on whether or not it should be prosecuted: some minor-to-fairly-serious offenses may be better left unprosecuted for any number of reasons, benefit to society being most apt.

I recommend the documentary "Torturing Democracy" It runs 1 hour in length: http://video.google....188675654300379

[kenberg]

orlam, on Jan 18 2009, 02:57 AM, said:

I would be happy to offer a 3:1 bet that polls in no Western European country would show majority support for torture.

Sure. Even Dick Cheney knows the answer to the quiz question "Are you in favor of torture?" I am thinking more of looking at what countries have actually done in the past.

[Winstonm]

Lest we forget - this torture has been commited against SUSPECTS:

Quote

Guantánamo Bay - Facts and figures
James 9 January 2009, 10:38AM

Sunday 11 January 2009 marks seven years since the first detainees were transferred to the US military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The following facts and figures were updated in December 2008.

Quote

Nearly 800 detainees have been held in Guantánamo, the vast majority without charge or trial.

Quote

Approximately 250 detainees are still held in the military prison. Nearly 100 of them were Yemenis.

Quote

26 Guantánamo detainees have been charged for trial by military commission; three had been convicted and sentenced; charges against six had been dismissed (although they could be re-charged); six were facing the death penalty.

Quote

Approximately 520 detainees have been released from Guantánamo

Quote

At least four men are reported to have died in Guantánamo as a result of suicide. Dozens more suicide attempts have been reported.

.

Quote

An analysis of around 500 of the detainees concluded that only five per cent had been captured by US forces; 86 per cent had been arrested by Pakistani or Afghanistan-based Northern Alliance forces and turned over to US custody, often for a reward of thousands of US dollars.

The worst of the worst as Cheney claimed or the best worst money can buy?

[orlam]

kenberg, on Jan 18 2009, 01:07 PM, said:

orlam, on Jan 18 2009, 02:57 AM, said:

I would be happy to offer a 3:1 bet that polls in no Western European country would show majority support for torture.

Sure. Even Dick Cheney knows the answer to the quiz question "Are you in favor of torture?"

He does??

Quote

I am thinking more of looking at what countries have actually  done in the past.

Such as...Germany?

[kenberg]

I intended this to mean that if you ask almost anyone, including Dick Cheney, if he favors torture the answer will of course be no.

I do not think that you have to go back to everyone's favorite example of Germany under Hitler to find tough interrogation techniques. I am no expert on these matters but I understand that France was not too squeamish during its troubles with the Algerians. Or later when there were plots to assassinate DeGaulle. But they don't report their activities to me so maybe that's all just a figment of my imagination.

I don't mean to pick on the French in particular here. The withdrawal of Europe from Africa was a long process and I imagine we could look into many particulars.

In an earlier incarnation of this discussion I went on the web and quickly found a current example of British interrogation that did not look very gentle.

I am to saying that Ralph or Pierre or whoever did it so we can do it too. I am saying that there is a substantial gap between the virtue that some claim and reality.

We are, apparently, going to be fighting in Afghanistan for a while. Our (almost installed) new president supports this. I suppose some of the people that we fight sometimes surrender. I have no idea what then happens to them. My guess is that it isn't good. Probably we don't do the deed, whatever it is. Still...

This has been ugly, it will continue to be ugly, I don't know what we should do, I am opposed to putting Bush et al in prison.

I do have a prediction. Holder, if confirmed, will not bring federal charges against Cheney, against Bush, or against Rumsfeld on either waterboarding or on electronic eavesdropping. There are many reasons why Obama would not allow this to happen, one of the obvious ones being that Obama now inherits this mess, he will be making choices, and he will one day be an ex-president himself.

[Winstonm]

Ken,

I am almost always impressed with your reasoning and lack of emotional interference in your postings - not that I always agree but they nearly always get me to think and that's a good thing.

I would be surprised if Eric Holder would bring charges - unless a deal had been made where Obama would issue a pardon after the charges had been made.

This does not halt the rest of the world from bringing charges, though, and other countries or even an international tribunal could be held - doubtful without U.S. cooperation, though.

None of this answers the basic question: should charges be brought, regardless of our personal wants, likes or dislikes. If you have watched either documentary, Taxi to the Darkside or Torturing Democracy it brings a reality to what these people authorized, allowed to happen, and then defended as legal.

We paid thousands of dollars in bounties for people whose only guilt turned out in being an Arab - we took them to Guantanemo, we held them, and we tortured them - and got nothing out of it - most of those held were not terrorists.

Problem is I don't think a prosecution would be attempted and even if it were it would devastate the country - but to let these guys walk goes against every concept I have of justice and basic humanity.

Things like this bother me - and it bothers me that as late as last Tuesday Cheney was still saying that what was left at Guantanemo was "the worst". We had someone there who fought FOR US, on our side:

Quote

Lawyers for Mr. Bismullah, 29, presented sworn statements from officials of the American-supported Afghanistan government of Hamid Karzai that indicated Mr. Bismullah had been named as a terrorist by collaborators of the Taliban who wanted to take over his position as a provincial official. In fact, after Mr. Bismullah was shipped to Guantánamo, a local official said in a sworn statement, one of his accusers stole his car and drove it for two years.

Taliban sympathizers turned him is as a terrorist. And the people who authorized this walk with no punishment?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jan 18 2009, 11:19 PM, said:

I would be surprised if Eric Holder would bring charges - unless a deal had been made where Obama would issue a pardon after the charges had been made.

what would be some reasons he would not bring charges? could "no crime was committed" be one of them?

Quote

This does not halt the rest of the world from bringing charges, though, and other countries or even an international tribunal could be held - doubtful without U.S. cooperation, though.

what would your views be if, next week, japan tried truman for war crimes committed during wwII? just curious

Quote

Things like this bother me - and it bothers me that as late as last Tuesday Cheney was still saying that what was left at Guantanemo was "the worst".  We had someone there who fought FOR US, on our side:

Quote

Lawyers for Mr. Bismullah, 29, presented sworn statements from officials of the American-supported Afghanistan government of Hamid Karzai that indicated Mr. Bismullah had been named as a terrorist by collaborators of the Taliban who wanted to take over his position as a provincial official. In fact, after Mr. Bismullah was shipped to Guantánamo, a local official said in a sworn statement, one of his accusers stole his car and drove it for two years.

Taliban sympathizers turned him is as a terrorist. And the people who authorized this walk with no punishment?

would you be surprised if you learned that a lawyer for an accused person spoke words advocating the innocence of his client?

[Gerben42]

Quote

There are many reasons why Obama would not allow this to happen, one of the obvious ones being that Obama now inherits this mess, he will be making choices, and he will one day be an ex-president himse

That's a bad reason. What if at day one he decides to make no more compromises to the Geneva convention again? He already said he wanted to close Guantanamo right after the inauguration.

[Winstonm]

Quote

what would be some reasons he would not bring charges? could "no crime was committed" be one of them?

No. President Bush and VP Cheney have both stated publicly that they authorized waterboarding. Eric Holder make it clear that he considers waterboarding torture. U.S. law makes torture a federal crime, a felony.

Quote

what would your views be if, next week, japan tried truman for war crimes committed during wwII? just curious

What war crimes did Truman commit? Did he start a war of aggression? Did he have Japanese prisoners tortured? Did he declare the himself above the laws in wartime? Just curious.

Quote

would you be surprised if you learned that a lawyer for an accused person spoke words advocating the innocence of his client?

No, I wouldn't be shocked. Would you be shocked to find out that this man was released from Gitmo, found to have been wrongly charged?

As an aside, it defies all logic to me how any sane, rational human being can attempt to justify the treatment of prisoners held at Guantanemo if that person had done even the most rudimetary investigation as to the methods of capture, conditions of interrogation, and treatment of captives.

[Winstonm]

Quote

There are many reasons why Obama would not allow this to happen, one of the obvious ones being that Obama now inherits this mess, he will be making choices, and he will one day be an ex-president himself.

Ken,

I think you are doing what we all want to do - create in our minds valid reasons for the actions taken by present administration. It is the human and humane thing to try to do. We put ourselves mentally into positions of power and remember the attacks of 9-11 and find justification.

This statement about Obama infers to me that Obama would have come to the same conclusions as did Bush and implement the same procedures as did Bush, that the differences are not legal but political.

This is the point I believe where the argument breaks down - the entire basis for the administration's war on terror stems from Dick Cheney's concept of Presidential authority, and this White House surrounded itself with like-minded lawyers who wrote legal opinions validating their claims - and thus far there has been no legal challenge to those claims.

And THAT is what is Most important - the illegality of torture is wrapped in a shroud of Presidential power theory that has never been legally tested. If we ignore torture, we are accepting the justification granting the authority to torture. By ignoring torture, we accept the theory of the Unitary Executive and unlimited wartime powers of the President.

This non-tested acquiescence to political theory we simply cannot allow if we are to remain the same Republic as before.

And that is Obama's great challenge - whether or not to voluntarily yield power or to authorize power usurped by design to bypass normal checks and balances.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jan 19 2009, 11:15 AM, said:

Quote

what would be some reasons he would not bring charges? could "no crime was committed" be one of them?

No. President Bush and VP Cheney have both stated publicly that they authorized waterboarding. Eric Holder make it clear that he considers waterboarding torture. U.S. law makes torture a federal crime, a felony.

why have a trial, then? you and holder have, evidently, declared them guilty

Quote

Quote

what would your views be if, next week, japan tried truman for war crimes committed during wwII? just curious

What war crimes did Truman commit? Did he start a war of aggression? Did he have Japanese prisoners tortured? Did he declare the himself above the laws in wartime? Just curious.

i was thinking that you might have considered the dropping of the 2 bombs to be overkill... also, while not tortured (to my knowledge) he did have many japanese american citizens incarcerated, depriving them of their constitutional rights

Quote

Quote

would you be surprised if you learned that a lawyer for an accused person spoke words advocating the innocence of his client?

No, I wouldn't be shocked. Would you be shocked to find out that this man was released from Gitmo, found to have been wrongly charged?

no... but my point was, you can't take something an advocate says as being proof of anything, necessarily

Quote

As an aside, it defies all logic to me how any sane, rational human being can attempt to justify the treatment of prisoners held at Guantanemo if that person had done even the most rudimetary investigation as to the methods of capture, conditions of interrogation, and treatment of captives.

i understand that you can't imagine why anyone would disagree with you, winston... fwiw i'm on record as saying that my personal view is that torture is barbaric and morally indefensible... i'm also on record as saying that i'm very glad *i'm* not the one in charge of keeping this country safe from those who wish to harm its citizens

[Winstonm]

Quote

why have a trial, then? you and holder have, evidently, declared them guilty

Because a trial is following the rule of law - whether or not I think them guilty is irrelevant.

Quote

i was thinking that you might have considered the dropping of the 2 bombs to be overkill... also, while not tortured (to my knowledge) he did have many japanese american citizens incarcerated, depriving them of their constitutional rights

Had Japan been sealed off and dirt poor, blockaded, with their only source of resistance homeade missiles then yes, the bombs would have been overkill. As Japan was a viable nation at war - it was an act of war and within the limits of legal warfare. The treatment of Japanese Americans while wrong cannot in any stretch of the imagination be compared to buying prisoners in Afghanistan, subjecting them to SERE techniques, and using their confessions as proof of guilt.

Would you have agreed if Korea had used the confessions of American pilots to sentence them to death? Make no mistake - any confession we have obtained by SERE tactics has as much validity as the Korean confessions of our troops. The SERE techniques came directly from what we learned of Korean Communists' techniques.

Quote

i understand that you can't imagine why anyone would disagree with you, winston... fwiw i'm on record as saying that my personal view is that torture is barbaric and morally indefensible...

That is quite a stretch. I find it quite easy to imagine disagreement with me and I can be swayed by good arguments - but I reject simplistic notions that are based on nothing more than biases.

I can understand how Guatanemo occured - the fear and fright of another attack. I am on record saying that this administration would be forgiven if only they acknowledged wrongdoing. I could understand it, even.

But when hubris steps in and continues to say this is the right thing to do, we shouldn't close it, and we are down (once again) to the "worst of the worst" and simple research proves beyond question those claims to be wrong then yes, I cannot imagine how someone without a bias or an agenda can try to justify that.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jan 19 2009, 12:11 PM, said:

Would you have agreed if Korea had used the confessions of American pilots to sentence them to death?

i would have agreed with nuking them if they had

Quote

Quote

i understand that you can't imagine why anyone would disagree with you, winston... fwiw i'm on record as saying that my personal view is that torture is barbaric and morally indefensible...

That is quite a stretch. I find it quite easy to imagine disagreement with me and I can be swayed by good arguments - but I reject simplistic notions that are based on nothing more than biases.

if you say so, but i find it hard to understand how you could be swayed by anyone who you have already labeled illogical, insane and irrational ("...it defies all logic to me how any sane, rational human being can attempt to justify ...")

[orlam]

Gerben42, on Jan 19 2009, 10:51 AM, said:

Quote

There are many reasons why Obama would not allow this to happen, one of the obvious ones being that Obama now inherits this mess, he will be making choices, and he will one day be an ex-president himse

That's a bad reason. What if at day one he decides to make no more compromises to the Geneva convention again? He already said he wanted to close Guantanamo right after the inauguration.

There are reasons why Obama will stop a possible prosecution, but this is not one of them.

[Winstonm]

Quote

if you say so, but i find it hard to understand how you could be swayed by anyone who you have already labeled illogical, insane and irrational ("...it defies all logic to me how any sane, rational human being can attempt to justify ...")

You cherry pick a portion of a passage, removing the context and thus the modifiers of the claim. I should be more careful with phrasing, lest I be misquoted.

It defies all logic to me how - after doing even a cursory examination of the evidence concerning the methods of capture, the treatment, and the basis for the interrogation methods - any sane, rational human being could still attempt to justify Guantanemo and the treatment of those prisoners.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Would you have agreed if Korea had used the confessions of American pilots to sentence them to death?


i would have agreed with nuking them if they had

You are saying that tortured confessions resulting in death are justifications for terror, then....

Or are you simply saying that whatever your side choses to do is justified but is not justified when done by others?

I guess there is a certain consistency to this type of inconsistency. It is the same type consistent/inconsistency I find that Bush uses to justify his claims.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jan 19 2009, 02:09 PM, said:

Quote

Would you have agreed if Korea had used the confessions of American pilots to sentence them to death?


i would have agreed with nuking them if they had

You are saying that tortured confessions resulting in death are justifications for terror, then....

Or are you simply saying that whatever your side choses to do is justified but is not justified when done by others?

I guess there is a certain consistency to this type of inconsistency. It is the same type consistent/inconsistency I find that Bush uses to justify his claims.

hasn't that been long settled in watercooler philosophy class, that might makes right? if not (and iirc helene said it hasn't been), what does "make right"... this assumes you don't believe there is a real, objective 'right' or 'wrong' - i might be wrong about your thoughts on that

did u.s. law allow bush et al to take the actions they took? there is a difference between being against something (even abhorred by it) and in prosecuting those who you think should be prosecuted

[Winstonm]

Jimmy,

Perhaps this sounds arrogant but I feel humbed by my own ineptness - what I search for is the truth, unbridled, unbiased, and raw. I am also quite aware there is a difference between truth and pragmaticism, between what is right and what is real.

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Jan 19 2009, 11:15 AM, said:

Quote

what would your views be if, next week, japan tried truman for war crimes committed during wwII? just curious

What war crimes did Truman commit?

There were a couple of warehouses and a military hospital in Hiroshima. No military airports or other bases, no factories, nothing that could reasonably be considered a valid military target.

If killing 50,000 civillians for the purpose of showing your military might combined with using those civillians as test subjects for new technology is not a war crime, how can anybody claim with a straight face what Israel or Hamas is doing is? Dozens of people maimed by white phosphorus vs. tens of thousands slowly dying of radiation poisoning. There's just no comparison here.

[mike777]

jtfanclub, on Jan 19 2009, 08:00 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 19 2009, 11:15 AM, said:

Quote

what would your views be if, next week, japan tried truman for war crimes committed during wwII? just curious

What war crimes did Truman commit?

There were a couple of warehouses and a military hospital in Hiroshima. No military airports or other bases, no factories, nothing that could reasonably be considered a valid military target.

If killing 50,000 civillians for the purpose of showing your military might combined with using those civillians as test subjects for new technology is not a war crime, how can anybody claim with a straight face what Israel or Hamas is doing is? Dozens of people maimed by white phosphorus vs. tens of thousands slowly dying of radiation poisoning. There's just no comparison here.

Needless to say I disagree with your facts as well as your analogy.

OTOH the firestorm bombing that the USAF set off would be a fair analogy.

I expect the General and Truman would have been shot. I expect many men would have become slaves and women turned into "comfort girls". I expect Japan would have taken over some land and treasure and stolen it from americans.