Truth, Consequences and Andrew Sullivan
David Broder doesn’t get a whole lot of respect in the blogosphere. In more than one case, Border has been viewed as some what bland and grey with his calls for bipartisanship. But of course, Broder has been a reporter for a long time, longer than some of us (myself included) have been alive. He remembers when politics wasn’t as nasty as it is now, and remembers when politicians of all stripes worked for the greater good.
Broder wrote an op-ed recently where he called for the President to “stick to his guns” and not move towards the prosecutions of Bush-era officials who sanctioned torture. He thinks (as I do) that Obama was correct in releasing the torture memos, but fears that going after former Bushies will open a Pandora’s box:
But having vowed to end the practices, Obama should use all the influence of his office to stop the retroactive search for scapegoats.
This is not another Sept. 11 situation, when nearly 3,000 Americans were killed. We had to investigate the flawed performances and gaps in the system and make the necessary repairs to reduce the chances of a deadly repetition.
The memos on torture represented a deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places — the White House, the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department — by the proper officials.
One administration later, a different group of individuals occupying the same offices has — thankfully — made the opposite decision. Do they now go back and investigate or indict their predecessors?
That way, inevitably, lies endless political warfare. It would set the precedent for turning all future policy disagreements into political or criminal vendettas. That way lies untold bitterness — and injustice.
Suppose that Obama backs down and Holder or someone else starts hauling Bush administration lawyers and operatives into hearings and courtrooms.
Suppose the investigators decide that the country does not want to see the former president and vice president in the dock. Then underlings pay the price while big shots go free. But at some point, if he is at all a man of honor, George W. Bush would feel bound to say: That was my policy. I was the president. If you want to indict anyone for it, indict me.
Is that where we want to go? I don’t think so. Obama can prevent it by sticking to his guns.
It’s a fair question. Going down the road towards prosecutions will infuriate the right and you can bet that when a Republican adminstation takes power, they will start looking under rocks for supposed crimes.
None of this impresses blogger Andrew Sullivan. He responds to Broder with a withering answer, full of fury at President Bush:
For an administration to secretly and illegally unleash this weapon – against citizens and non-citizens alike – and to demand that it not be subsequently called to account, that it be allowed to get away with it under some absurd notion that it’s too divisive to hold war criminals accountable for their crimes is and was an outrage. Punishing those responsible for war crimes is not “scapegoating”. You know what scapegoating is? It’s throwing Lynndie England in jail for following orders given by George W. Bush, while leaving him to the luxury of a Texan suburb.
He concludes by saying that the stakes are high in not seeking justice:
If America – America – discovers that its own president has illegally tortured and decides that it simply won’t do anything about it, that it doesn’t matter, that it’s too polarizing to restore the rule of law … then what hope do those people have? To whom will they look when they fight far more pervasive tyranny, buttressed by the same absolute power to coerce the truth and break the human soul?
I have to say that I lost a lot of respect for Andrew Sullivan a long time ago. My problem with him is that he takes on a cause so passionately that he refuses to see the consequences of his actions. In the run-up to the Iraq War, he was one of the most passionate supporters for the war, damn all the concerns that the war could become a quagmire. Anyone that believed we shouldn’t go to war, was basically consorting with evil.
Now, Sullivan wants to see the Bushies, the ones he once supported, prosecuted for war crimes and damn the consecquences. Nevermind if this could rip this country apart in ways we have not known.
I am no fan let alone a friend of the Bush Adminstration. I think they did a lot to destroy the Republican Party and sully America. I think they were wrong to even entertain the thought of torture. But other concerns have to be taken into account before we think we need to have war crime trials. If we start investigating a former adminstration in the way that Sullivan and others want, it will not stop there. We will have opened a nasty precedent that we will have to live with for generations. Investigations will fly like crazy.
Border’s approach is not perfect. Yes it would allow the Bushies “to get away with it.” But in the real world, we sometimes have to make some calls we don’t like. Sullivan’s approach might be feel better, wrapped in a cloak we think is justice, but it might end up a phyrric victory: winning the battle of bringing Bush to justice and destroying the fabric of America.
Broder remembers when Republicans and Democrats disagreed but were able to friends. he knows the past and sees the present which is not like that anymore. He also fears what the future brings.
Sometimes the old man has something worthwhile to say. It would be nice if young whippersnappers like Sullivan would listen.
95 Responses to “Truth, Consequences and Andrew Sullivan”
So, just to be clear. We're agreed that they're evils. We're agreed that things like, you know, prosecuting torture would have consequences.
How again are we not agreed that torturing and making torture a policy should have consequences too?
Would you say atrocities and torture committed in Germany, Japan, or genocide or any misdeeds committed in Somalia or Rwanda were done with a nation that had its collective sanity?
If we're going to say 'this is the exception! We should not prosecute!” Then we have to make sure that the argument you're using is actually an exception. Torturing nations are very rarely in their right minds when they do it. That doesn't give people exempt status. Drunk drivers are quite literally not in their right minds, and when they hit someone, we give them harsher penalties in the United States than if they had just been bad drivers that had done it accidentally. People who put insanity up as a defense in a court, furthermore, would get it shot down if there was proof of pre-meditation, and rightness of mind to cover-up after the fact.
If we were insane when this happened, why get legal counsel? Why ignore and bury legal dissents? Why demand the continuation of torture not for any information, but for information on a specific link between Al Qaeda and Iraq so as to get more than one flaky source? Why destroy the tapes? Why try to destroy the dissent memos? Why keep reporters and the Red Cross away?
If you put up an insanity plea with what's gone on, you'd get it shot down mighty quick in prosecution.
Look, if there was a policy of torture, if it was put in place, and covered up, if legal arguments were manufactured to allow it and legal dissents to do with it buried, if it was all hidden away, and if it was all done with the purpose of fabricating a link to justify a war, then that merits inquiry, investigation, and prosecution.
It's not just a matter of punishing people. It's a matter of finding out the truth. What was the government really after when it administered these policies? What is the bigger picture? If it was about the best interests of that nation, let them make that argument publicly and in court. And not in the sense of 'torture works', but in the sense of 'these are the means we were working toward, and this is why they were important to this country.' This country needs to know not only what it did, but why.
And you don't do that by moving on. You don't torture someone for the purpose of producing specific information regarding a non-urgent link so as to justify an invasion and a second war, and just move on from that. That's not a ticking time bomb. That's not a few bad apples. That's not collective insanity.
If you're going to argue against prosecution based on this being an exception, then prove that it is an exception. I think you'll find for each piece of reasoning not to prosecute, you can take that reasoning and re-apply it elsewhere and see exactly how ridiculous it seems at times.
I think there is a case to be made on behalf of the administration, not that they were acting in the best interests of this nation, nor that they were freaked out. But rather, like the 26 percent of their supporters that stood there till the very end, they found that spot inside of themselves where they could justify torture rather than just denying it took place. Maybe there was a trauma produced in this country, and these officials fell into it. But that's a case to be made in the process of an investigation.
And it's still not exceptional. All countries that strayed did it with a mass of supporters. That hasn't stopped prosecution or investigation of them.
Now that we have our sanity back, maybe we should have our law and its enforcement back too.
Polimom and CS
So your positions are that because 9/11 was so psychically disruptive to many in our country, we should just move on from the group insanity, “That 'the number of people who have not yet recovered' is still quite substantial.”
Where does justice and the rule of law reside in you concerns?
good comment, happysurge.
International law and treaties exist because there is no agreement about who is the enemy or who is a threat. Israel sees an existential threat and is under attack. Do they have the right to torture? Iran sees an existential threat and rumblings of imminent attack. Do they have the right to torture? The Japanese we prosecuted saw an existential threat and were under attack. Getting information about Allied troop placement, movements and plans could save Japanese lives. It was a “ticking time bomb” scenario. Did they have the right to torture?
Speaking for myself only, my biggest concern is the ongoing (and widening) rift I sense developing in the country. There are a lot of otherwise (and formerly) rational people out there who supported the administration's policies. By gunning for the prior administration (and for the record, I disliked them enormously), we are, in effect, going after them as well.
I don't agree wholly with Rudi's comment earlier, but his quote from Daniel Larison is excellent. If more people were in his head space, I would not perhaps be suggesting that moving on is a good idea. But they're not. Instead, they're going defensive — and for many folks, defensive positions are hostile.
good point PM. “We all speak a different language, talking in defense” – Mike and the Mechanics
“PM and CS, you're usually more rational than this.”
I'm clearly not getting my point across well, darn it.
I'm trying to say that the alienation of the citizens from one another is being exacerbated by some of this. If it were just a fringe group that supported the prior administration, that would be one thing. But it wasn't. It was an enormous segment of the American population.
Perhaps I should simply give up. I can't seem to find my way through to clarity from my side.
My opinion is very much like PM's.
I think the dichotomy is on what you believe will serve the interests of justice the best- holding certain indviduals accountable, or acknowledging the wider base of culpability of the American people as a whole. The latter, in my opinion, leaves greater opportunity to 'move on' toward better legal statutes to prevent future infractions. I understand the counter argument, but I see an overriding concern there.
And I think DaGoat is right, that a lot of tangential things are getting thrown in the mix here. We have some people assuming that it is definitively true that people within the administration ordered torture in order to establish political cover for the invasion of Iraq, and as far as I've seen, that's only been alleged by one anonymous source.
We also have conflation of international law with domestic statutes. If the international community sees the need to investigate, then so be it- but we're talking about the decision to proceed with investigations by the DOJ of the current administration against past administration and Congressional leaders, to uncover potential breaches of domestic law.
PM- you are using the past tense where I would go further and say that an enormous segment STILL supports the use of these tactics. As in, half of the population. Someone earlier referred to the number as 26% standing till the end with Bush, but there's actually another quarter of the population who apparently don't view Bush favorably but still feel that these tactics were justified.
CS, not an anonymous source at all. It's in the Army's report to Congress and I posted a link to their 276 page report.
I am aware that prosecution would be hugely divisive, and understand very well why Obama doesn't want to prosecute. But there were clear violations of law and it's not victimless. If a taxi driver is tortured and killed (see Taxi to the Dark Side. Please) his widow, with 2 year old child has a right to report the crime. The police and prosecutors have a right to do their jobs, and the US has an obligation to turn over the alleged criminals for prosecution. If our Justice Department refuses that extradition, they break our treaties and our laws.
Come on. Admit at least that the most egregious violations of even the pathetic rationalizations of the torture memos should be prosecuted.
Plus, I note no one has commented on whether Israeli, Iranian or Japanese torturers should be excused. I have avoided bringing up the Nazis, but actually, the Nuremberg trials settled these issues long ago, in terms of international standards for the treatment of prisoners.
GD- my opinion on those other governmental instances is that whether or not violations should have been prosecuted under their domestic laws is an open question, and I don't have enough information to know how to answer that. But again, domestic investigations are not the same as international ones.
I did not see your link to the Army's report to Congress. Can you repeat it?
CStanley:
Last try. Any number of presidential commissions could not be more different in substance. The JFK assassination commission, space shuttle Challenger commission and 9/11 commission being examples.
I am not comparing the substance of the 9/11 Commission with a possible torture commission. You are. What I am comparing — and you do not address — is the partisan rancor surrounding the run-up to the 9/11 commission and similar rancor on the torture issue.
If you don't care to address why the 9/11 Commission WAS DIFFERENT IN YOUR VIEW IN THAT RESPECT, then fine.
But if you want to address my point — now proffered three times, then please do so.
Shaun, I did address it and I can't help it if you missed it. Partisan rancor sometimes needs to be ignored IMO and other times there are valid reasons for taking the divisive potential of investigations seriously.
Better analogies in my opinion would be all the times that we DIDN'T investigate and/or prosecute- Watergate, for example, or any of the many, many instances when CIA is thought to have overstepped what we'd consider ethical and legal bounds.
That's why the appearance of partisanship would have traction now- because in the past, we turned a blind eye, but this time no one is willing to do so.
” The report found that Maj. Paul Burney, a United States Army psychiatrist assigned to interrogations in Guantánamo Bay that summer of 2002, told Army investigators of another White House imperative: “A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful.” As higher-ups got more “frustrated” at the inability to prove this connection, the major said, “there was more and more pressure to resort to measures” that might produce that intelligence.
In other words, the ticking time bomb was not another potential Qaeda attack on America but the Bush administration’s ticking timetable for selling a war in Iraq; it wanted to pressure Congress to pass a war resolution before the 2002 midterm elections. Bybee’s memo was written the week after the then-secret (and subsequently leaked) “Downing Street memo,” in which the head of British intelligence informed Tony Blair that the Bush White House was so determined to go to war in Iraq that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
Oh, yes. Just in case anyone thinks that quote is taken out of context, feel free to peruse the entire 263 page report HERE.”
http://documents.nytimes.com/report-by-the-sena…
CStanley:
It is obvious that you missed school the day they were teaching about:
* The myriad Watergate investigations and hearings, hours of latter broadcast on daytime TV.
* The United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, better known as the Church committee.
And the score at the end of regulation is:
The Persistence of History = 1
CStanley = 0
PM, I do want to address your concerns, and those of CS too. I agree that prosecution would be divisive. I would much rather see Obama continue to address his/our main priorities. I just don't see how we can avoid our responsibility to obey our own laws. I have suggested many times that I would much rather see us simply honor any calls for extradition and deliver these creeps to France or Pakistan or Australia for trial. Let the circus be there, or the Hague. That would be weaseling out of our responsibility and thus still bothers me, but it addresses my major concern. True victims of these crimes deserve justice. They were very grievously wronged. These are not trivial crimes, like sex in the Oval office or lying about that sex. They're war crimes with victims of incredibly cruel and inhumane, outright disgusting crimes. I don't see how we can let that pass.
Polimom.
I can appreciate your concerns for lessening the divisiveness across our political spectrum, but that rift has been around for as long as Viet Nam. There are some who believe whatever America does is right by definition, and they see you as blind or stupid or partisan for pointing out anything that challenges the righteous myth.
Prosecuting Torture is the current cry of foul from that segment, and glossing it over will not heal that rift. I believe that justice is fundamental to the survival of the US, but justice is a two-edge sword. If US justice is only to be dictated to our enemies, but not applied to our leaders, then our form of noble government is a farce and a lie to ourselves. It's just that simple for me.
Shaun, touche on valid points, albeit made in your usual smartass manner.
Rather than say that Watergate was not investigated, my point was that Ford decided to pardon Nixon in a move that was t universally accepted, but one which history has mostly judged kindly in terms of healing the nation.
And the Church Committee is actually a good example of a broad investigation of a whole host of illicit undercover activities, shining daylight on the processes instead of focusing on culpability of the individuals or the adminstrations that authorized the acts. I was too young to be paying attention at the time, but I don't believe anyone was calling for specific investigations with intent to prosecute anyone in the Kennedy administration for Bay of Pigs, for example, were they? Or RFK for the wiretaps of MLK?
So what I meant was that investigations which are about uncovering systemic problems rather than finding probable cause or pursuing convictions of individual crimes are by nature, less divisive. Some people obviously still object, but that doesn't mean their objections are valid or worth considering.
CStanley:
Points well taken. The smoking light is now on.
OK, Shaun, so now that you see what I'm getting at, can any of you explain why you think the entire moral fabric of our country will unravel if the individuals involved in the recent illicit activities aren't held personally accountable, even though those many historical references show other times that that hasn't happened but we survived and persevered?
CS and Shaun
Not to turn the smoking light back off, but the effect of Watergate was the systematic uncovering of illicit acts that resulted in many going to jail and a President to resign instead of being impeached by votes from his own party. Hardly a commission to merely uncover the truth and moveon.
And CS, the pardoning of Nixon implies guilt was found in his case too. You may think that commissions are less divisive, but that's only when people see the issue from non-partisan views; otherwise, it's all partisan politics and justice is left out of the equation.
CS, look again at the Abu Ghraib pictures. Read some of the testimony of those who were subjected to these procedures. These were truly depraved acts, not comparable to wiretapping or burgling the Watergate.
Now imagine our government spending taxpayer dollars to shield and defend those who ordered, rationalized and carried out depraved acts.
Obama did not approve or order these acts. Why should he become an accessory after the fact to kidnapping, sexual degradation and humiliation, beatings and even rape and murder? Why should we as a nation have taxpayer dollars spent to defend criminals from extradition and prosecution? Why should our Justice Department defend these persons against civil suits by those harmed by these illegal acts? Why would we hamstring law enforcement by invalidating our extradition treaties to protect these people? Why should we sacrifice our ability to seek justice should these kinds of depravity be carried out against our soldiers, diplomatic and humanitarian personnel?
Why? You'll really support defending these reprehensible actions and crimes against fully legal criminal courts in their own countries? How far will you go to see these guys get away with it?
Polimom, JSpencer, et al
Let me disambiguate your torn position to “see both sides” of this issue.~ HemmD
“Torn” in the sense of realizing this will bring even more division, but not in the sense of being ambiguous. There is usually benefit to be had in exploring more than one point of view when it comes to highly charged issues, even it it helps sharpen the focus, which is what is what I thought my questions were doing. If you read them again, I think you will see the answers are fairly obvious. That doesn't mean the answers won't include a real downside though, and this needs to be understood and anticipated. My position on torture has always been consistent, and it bothers me not a whit that democrats as well as republicans might be held accountable.
And CS, the pardoning of Nixon implies guilt was found in his case too. You may think that commissions are less divisive, but that's only when people see the issue from non-partisan views; otherwise, it's all partisan politics and justice is left out of the equation
Alright, Hemm, but there you're overlooking the other part of my argument. In the case of Watergate, it's true that there was guilt assigned but there wasn't the need to convince half the population that the acts in question were in fact criminal and intolerable (which is the case currently.) I realize that most of you don't believe that that's a position that should be given any credibility at all, but when that many people still believe that the acts were necessary and acceptable, I think that should be the overriding concern.
As more pictures, testimony and evidence comes out, I expect public opinion will shift more against what was done.
I think you must see how you've damaged your own moral positions to defend this. I'm done with this debate. I have enjoyed our many debates CS, but how can I take seriously your moral and religious positions on issues like abortion when you have shown me how situational your ethics are? You would have a physician prosecuted for using sterile medical instruments on women with their approval and at their request, but refuse to see soldiers prosecuted for shoving a gun up their orifices. That is truly sad and disappointing.
CS
Your position has been noted, but it just doesn't hold ethical weight.
Justice is not attained through popular consensus. It that were true lynchings would never have been prosecuted on a federal level. Local consensus can be seen by the fact that local court hearings found the perps innocent. Sorry, but the fact that a majority saw no crime does not make it so.
Your logic fails to address the fact that if people feel that torture is ok, then they fail to understand the law. Unfortunate that they are ignorant, but no reason for not proceeding. Why should we go along with the legally and ethically challenged?
Explain to me again how it's good for America to execute those who have water boarded but to move on when we do the same thing?
Actually GD the abortion analogy is apt. Currently the consensus among Americans is that abortion should be legal in many or most instances, so I would not call for the prosecution of doctors who are performing those acts. I would, however, like to change hearts and minds so that most Americans would see the acts as immoral and unacceptable, and change the laws to reflect that.
Now, there is a distinction of course because the law as it currently stands does prohibit torture. But at issue is how torture is defined, and while it's more clear in international law and convention, it's ambiguous enough in our domestic statutes that legal experts found ways to justify these acts. I do not think they were correct (either in the legal sense or the moral one) in doing so. However, I recognize that we need to convince half the American public that the laws must be strengthened to more strictly and clearly prohibit these acts.
When half of the public thinks that these acts should be legal, we have a problem to address there that in my opinion is more serious than the application of retribution- which is basically the same principle that I apply to the abortion situation.
Why should we go along with the legally and ethically challenged?
If they were in the minority we shouldn't- but when it's slightly more than half of the population, I think it has to be addressed.
Your question about executing or prosecuting the Japanese for waterboarding is the most difficult one for me to reconcile. The best answer I can give is that this is in fact an example of hypocrisy, but it's also important to note that we never specifically made waterboarding illegal in our own domestic statutes. You would think that most people would agree that it meets the legal standard, but obviously many people aren't in agreement with that.
And thus the hypocritical stance is what should be used in the debate to convince people that our laws need to be amended.
CS
“When half of the public thinks that these acts should be legal, we have a problem to address there that in my opinion is more serious than the application of retribution”
The application of justice can be really instructive. Or would you prefer to allow the ignorant and lied to just keep their fantasies intact?
The problem here is that people without time and skill have been led down the primrose path of America right or wrong. If you wish to heal the nation, instruct the people. Of the group who advocates torture, how many do you think know about the waterboarding executions of WWII?
If we bury this because it will cause an uproar, and it will, what do we teach our children? America is singular in the cornerstone of it's beliefs, no person is above the law. A Democratic Republic is loud, chaotic, and messy. The American people can handle the truth of this chapter as long as they be shown that some principals over ride partisanship.
I would welcome any uproar if it meant that the rule of law can still be taught to our children. Can't you?
I think it would harden the minds of some people. However, criminal convictions do carry a certain amount of weight. One of the things psychologists have learned is that people sometimes conform their beliefs to match their behavior, rather than the other way around. (Look up “congitive dissonance”). I think that applies here as well; if we prosecute torture that will make it easier to make the case that torture is inconsistent with American values. And I think that if trials occur, they will stand the test of history. If we hold ourselves to (something close to) the same standard we apply to our enemies, I think that future generations are more likely to be inspired by this than to condemn us for it. So I think that over the long term, criminal prosecutions would be more likely to help than to hurt the battle to convince people that torture is (seriously) wrong.
That cuts both ways. I share your concern about the divisions in this country, but suggest that the solution is for people to stop defending torture. I don't advocate prosecuting people in the Bush Administration for things like illegal wiretapping, but for me, torture is a different level of evil.
We simply have a difference of opinion on how to best instruct those members of the public, Hemm.
And I noticed no one really answered my question regarding past abuses like the ones brought to light by the Church Committee. Why is it that you think we've been able to maintain our status as a country based on rule of law when no one was prosecuted for past crimes like political assassinations and attempted coups?
Kenneth- that's a well reasoned comment and although I'm not completely convinced, I will continue to mull over your points.
I'm devoting the rest of the day to pulling wings off of flies while blowing cigar smoke in their widdle faces, but I think the estimable Hilzoy has done about as good a job as any blogger in putting these grotesqueries in perspective:
“If most people tried to make the case that prosecuting their criminal acts was just 'looking backwards,' or a sign that the prosecutor was motivated by a desire for retribution, they'd be laughed out of court. Imagine the likely reaction if your average crack dealer were to urge the judge not to dwell on the past, or if someone who used accounting fraud to flip houses told offered a prosecutor the chance to be 'very Mandelalike in the sense [of] saying let the past be the past and let us move into the future,' or if I were pulled over for speeding and, when asked if I knew how fast I was going, replied that 'Some things in life need to be mysterious . . . Sometimes you need to just keep walking.' I don't think any of us would get very far.”
CS
So we also have a difference of opinion on how to raise children.
I have taught mine that the US form of government is the noblest form of government attained because the rule of law trumps the rule of men.
Like it or not, burying torture is teaching children that the US is the biggest bully on the block, nothing more.
As to the Church commission, you merely prove my point. We failed to hold any accountable for illegal activities. Do you actually believe that that failure doesn't dovetail into our present problem? Do you really think the Bush Administration would have felt their sense of impunity to the rule of law if criminal activities had been prosecuted in 1975?
Well, Hemm, I suppose the view is clearer when you're up on that high horse. I teach my children that morality, ethics, and the law are not as black and white as we'd like to think they are, and that even any government of men is fallible because men are fallible.
And no, I do not think that if we'd prosecuted for the acts that I mentioned that there would be any less likelihood that the recent round of actions would have been taken. That may be one of the reasons we disagree- I don't think that people in government will be deterred by past prosecutions, because there's always a new reason to rationalize unethical behavior (look at how widespread that was in both parties after 2001), and there will always be the recklessness among politicians who think that they won't be caught even if someone else was.
So I suppose if I was operating under the same set of assumptions you are about deterrence, I might be more inclined to agree with you but I'm not in agreement on the base assumptions.
So for those who haven't given an inch on prosecutions. Final question. Is there not a single act that should be prosecuted? Rape? Murder? Sodomy? You would excuse all of these or do you admit that SOME of what was done rises to the level of clearly illegal acts that should be prosecuted?
CS I truly hope you are not teaching your children that the law is such a gray area that even these are sometimes justified.
“Is there not a single act that should be prosecuted? Rape? Murder? Sodomy?”
GD — do you think that someone above the level of the rapist / murderer / sodomite should be prosecuted? Or are you asking whether they themselves should be?
Ah, PM beat me to it. To me it's a tenuous connection at most to say that those crimes were justified by people up the chain of command. I was limiting the discussion to the idea of waterboarding which was authorized and given the cover of legal justification in the memos.
I think this thread's dead, but just in case, I meant specifically those who went beyond even the perversions “authorized” by the memos. Should they not be prosecuted?
GD – GREAT question, even if this thread is dead.
If you believe, as I do, that the memo's were indeed a 'good faith' attempt by the lawyers to define the 'bright-line' definition of what did and did not constitute torture as a legal concept, under existing statutes and laws, then absolutely yes, exceeding those definitions are a punishable and prosecutable crime.
No doubt about that answer to me.
I agree completely with AR.
well I'm very pleased that there are some acts you would not condone. Though I strongly disagree that degradation and humiliation, especially sexual degradation, can ever be justified for supposedly civilized nations. And I hope that “water torture” will never be practiced by us again, or by others on our troops. I also continue to believe that a court, either here or elsewhere, should rule on whether or not those legal opinions are in accord with our obligations under international and domestic law. Time to officially close the book on those practices that civilized nations never resort to.
GD -
I also have zero problem whatsoever in courts reviewing those memo's, and even ruling them incorrectly reasoned. That happens all the time in our court system. In fact, more court resources go to such types of contract-oriented litigation than criminal litigation.
What I don't agree with, though, is the concept that if subsequent courts rule the finding of the memo's are flawed and incorrect, that the lawyers who crafted them should be subject to criminal penalties.
OK, fair enough and that's your opinion. We prosecuted the Nazi lawyers who wrote similar justifications.
OK, then should we prosecute ALL lawyers that have legal opinions at a later date ruled incorrect, even sometimes un-Constitutional? How about lawmakers, too? Or only those you disagree with, or that make you squeamish?
How about lawyers who defend rapists, murders, swindlers, child molesters, etc.? If their client is found guilty, should we try them for the underlying crime, too?
Of course, it would have the positive side effect of reducing the number of lawyers and lawmakers, that is for sure!