An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Mistakes On A Plane

U.S. and Torture: For Mr. Obama, It’s ‘Hard to Be Gorby’: Izvestia, Russia »

Truth, Consequences and Andrew Sullivan

Posted by DENNIS SANDERS in Politics.
Apr 27th, 2009 | Comments

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.

  • joeaudio
    Dennis,
    This post has to be the most shallow, uninformed piece of drivel I've yet read on this blog.
    Let's be clear: Sullivan is correct (in this case) and you live in fairytale land.

    You wrote:
    "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."

    Oh my, wouldn't it be just HORRIBLE if people who committed crimes were prosecuted!
    It wouldn't be nice at all for them, and their friends might get mad and try to get revenge on other nice people.
    How are we going to have a nice, polite country if people act like that?

    Do you understand ANYTHING about rule of law? Have you ever read the Constituition?
    People have DIED building and defending our nation of laws.

    You believe that if someone achieves a certain level of political status, that laws do not and should not apply to them?

    Your knowledge of history is incredibly shallow.
    If we let this bunch of criminals slide, the next bunch will be much, much worse.

    I'm very sorry to have to tell you this, but you need to get your head out of your ass.
  • Kenneth_Almquist
    We've been through Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Whitewater, so I have a hard time seeing how investigating the use of torture by the Bush Administration would lead to endless political warfare. It seems to me that the genie is already out of the bottle.

    There are some crimes that I might be willing to overlook even if there were only a small chance that doing so might bring the country together, but torture is not one of those crimes. Remember when Bush declared that, "we do not torture." He didn't merely say that we hadn't tortured; he was expressing the idea that torture is inconsistent with our national identity, and I think he was correct. As I understand it, the United States committed itself to prosecuting torture when it signed the U.N. convention against torture, but that wasn't regarded as a concession by the United States. The assumption is that we would prosecute torture anyway, and that the point of the convention was to restrain other countries with lower moral standards. In my view, the prohibition against torture is too fundamental to be tossed aside for political reasons.

  • AustinRoth
    joeaudio -

    Your thinking is the incredibly shallow one.

    Presidents have routinely lied, violated the Constitution in the name of saving it and Democracy, sanctioned murder, assignations, government overthrows, betrayals, willfully ignored the Constitution and the Supreme Court, and yes, authorized torture. REAL torture, not the namby-pamby sort that the remaining BDS warriors are using to cling desperately to their mental-masturbation image of seeing Rove, Cheney and Bush frog-marched in chains off to jail, that they feel they they have been denied.

    Real politics requires really nasty, dirty work and decisions, as every single President in history, every single one, has found out. It is time for the Left to stop living in THEIR fairyland, as they are the ones that certainly are. The world is not a nice place, and the Neville Chamberlain's of the world are not the heroes or defenders of Good; the Churchill's and Bush's are, despite the queasy little feeling it gives the faint of heart in their tum-tums when those men have to do what is necessary, when it is necessary, for the greater Good.
  • I'd like to ask (with less obscenities), why should we consider torture something of a political nature? Torture, at its core, is the physical, mental and emotional dominance of another human being. We've established many times that it is considered depraved and unacceptable to American concepts of governmental powers.

    My basic question is, why is a inquiry into the previous administration's use and institution of torture as a means to gather intelligence view through partisan lenses? It's immaterial (to me) if a hypothetical administration that tortured was Democratic, Republican, Green or Martian; if torture was a part of its policy, we needs to investigate. Anything else is an acceptance of a sliding scale of justice, that if the politically well-connected err, we can't talk about it because their supporters will get angry.

    Furthermore, picture the debate we'd be having if the previous administration (regardless of political affiliation) had a policy of rape (which, when you think about it, is similar to torture). Would the allied political faction still be defending them? If so, what does that say about that political faction? The country as a whole? The fact we're even debating this means that, in a way, we've already lost. The terrorists have already won.
  • joeaudio
    Austin,
    you are so RIGHT.
    It's time for us to MAN UP and admit that we're {} Nazi fascist pigs.
    Zeig heil.
    for the greater Good. Ha!
    Imbecile.
  • joeaudio
    "their mental-masturbation image of seeing Rove, Cheney and Bush frog-marched in chains off to jail, that they feel they they have been denied."

    BTW, when you go off on your perverted fantasies, you might want to keep it yourself.
    Others find it disgusting. Keep your hands to yourself.
  • AustinRoth
    LOL

    If you are SO offended at the term 'mental-masturbation', frankly, you shouldn't be hanging around the internet at all.

    Of course, you are not offended, just full of, well, I don't want to use 'foul language', so I will say 'excrement'.

    Or is that too harsh as well, and likely to give you the vapors?

    HA HA HA HA!
  • joeaudio
    Austin,
    right, never use foul language, your thoughts are foul enough.

    now you're doing fart jokes?

    as I said:
    imbecile.
  • AustinRoth
    Facebook - rape as a method of attempting to extract information is real torture. None of the methods used remotely climbs to that level, which is part of the point I am have had an issue with around the whole torture controversy.

    Have you read the actual memo's, in their entirety, not just the excerpts? It was a reasoned attempt to define where the line was, and much of them discussed that fact - doing 'x' is crossing the line, not doing 'x' is not. It was not a carte blanch approval of 'whatever you want to do'.

    The disagreement now is an after the fact re-examination of the conclusions of those memo's. If BushCo really was bent on freewheeling torture, why did they even bother to commission the memo's in the first place? The argument to provide political cover doesn't hold water, as we see, and did define limits. If they wanted no limits on their actions, then they would not have requested them - they would have had Bush attempt to issue secret Executive Orders with no underlying boundaries.
  • AustinRoth
    joeaudio -

    Last post (ever) to you, troll.

    You are allowing your ignorance and lack of education to show. The only thing you could possible think was a 'fart joke' was my comment about you getting the vapors. You display your own crudeness, and stupidity, in your lack of comprehension and knowledge.

    So, your last bit of education for the night:

    "The vapors is an old term for hypochondriasis or hysterical depression. It was also used as a pseudonym for female hysteria, a Victorian-era diagnosis. Women considered to be suffering from it exhibited a wide array of symptoms including faintness, nervousness, insomnia, fluid retention, heaviness in abdomen, muscle spasm, shortness of breath, irritability, loss of appetite for food or sex, and "a tendency to cause trouble"."
  • joeaudio
    1. you think that people in U.S. custody have not been raped? you need more complete info.
    2. the memos were written after the fact to justify things already done.
    3. the torture was used to produce false confessions, as it was used by the commies that SERE learned it from.
    4. "which is part of the point I am have had a issue with."
    where ... did you learn to speak English?
    5. again: imbecile
    6. no response to my comment?: "It's time for us to MAN UP and admit that we're fucking Nazi fascist pigs."
    7. not enough time or words to explain the ways you are wrong.
    8. repeated ad hominem: imbecile
    9. have a good night, don't think I'm mean because I call you bad names. sometimes bad shit just happens.
  • By allowing the executive branch to get away with potential crimes, we are sincerly giving the example the "Administration is Above the Law" new meaning.

    I guess every American should commit some crimes and not get investigated by claiming executive privilege :-), then we can have some legal equality.

    Why is it, that all of a sudden, investigating the government in America, is Un-American, and going to open a pandora's box.

    For the naysayers:

    Can you please provide real life examples, of an investigation of government that caused a pandoras box to open? And please show an investigation of Government, that also undermined that nations security and safety for it's citizens.

    If you can show me one, I will be on board with your agrument.
  • onebadapple
    So, you subscribe to the belief that the "rule of law" only applies to grunts like Lynndie England, but I'll be damned if it applies to men in expensive suits!!!

    Come on, I'm so tired of the rich and powerful doing whatever they want to do, without answering for their crimes. How do you think Lynndie England feels when she can't get a job at a burger joint because of her felon status? What was her crime? Stepping into a few pictures out of thousands that were taken. She didn't touch anyone, or torture - she wasn't even a guard at AG - she was visiting Graner who was simply following orders. You have no idea what those reservists went through at AG, or since then. Meanwhile, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld live in luxury.

    By the way, I hear that Lynndie's only authorized biography will be in bookstores on June 1. The title is: "Tortured: Lynndie England, Abu Ghraib, and the Photographs that Shocked the World"...
  • HemmD
    AR

    Leaving aside the histrionics, don't you believe Americans should be held to the same standards we have judged our enemies?

    The US executed Japanese who water boarded Americans after WWII.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/stateme...

    That was "the real world" then, why argue we now live in a fairyland now? Real politics require acknowledgment of that fact or else you're just making justice up as you go along. Nothing has changed but the actors.
  • I have some sympathy with both sides of this argument.

    The thought of torture by my country's government makes me sick to my stomach. It flies directly in the face of my own view of us. If we are going to present ourselves to the world as some kind of shining example, then we are going to have to insist on higher standards for our own behavior -- not just when things are going well, but also when we're challenged by adversity.

    That is, after all, the real test of one's values -- and the government is the representative of us, is it not?

    But... I also think a lot of people are whistling right past the political cemetery here.

    The "left" has put rather a lot of energy in past years (all 8 of the Bush years, I think) into talk about impeachment. And there's a LOT of residual anger about the Clinton persecution. BDS is not a phantom invented by the fringey 'right'. Thus, it's nearly impossible now to see the cries for investigation and prosecution as somehow above the fray, or impartial.

    Furthermore, I have to agree with AustinRoth on one point: governments (including ours!) have done many vile things in the past for which they have not been held accountable. An example that stands out for me is our activities in Central America over the years.

    Why this, and not other infractions?

    Finally -- I think there's an odd tendency for some folks to misunderstand the incredible depth of reaction to 9/11 that was experienced by many Americans. Yes, it was horrifying for us all, but while many people recovered their equilibrium, not everyone did.

    In many ways, I look at 2002 / 2003 / 2004 as a period of collective American insanity. As a result, I'm sympathetic to the argument that exposing it, drawing a line in the sand against repeating it, and moving on would be best for the country.
  • Jcavhs
    If we don't prosecute those who broke the law by torturing then what is to stop the next person from doing it? If you know that you can get away with it then even knowing it is wrong won't stop you because you have no incentive not to do it. Knowing that you likely will get prosecuted may stop it from happening again.

    There is also the fact that I think that Americans can handle prosecutions. Aside from the fringe on both sides of the aisle, I have a lot of faith in the country. Will it likely set off some of the people on the far right? Probably yes. But everything President Obama has done has set them off so why should we let a vocal minority dictate what the country does? Polling has suggested that most people support investigations and prosecutions. We're not little kids - we can handle these types of debates and discussions.
  • JSpencer
    I'm somewhat torn on this issue. Accountability is critically important if Americans are to be expected to believe civilized standards apply to everyone, and not just those who don't reach some particular threshold for power and influence. Who should be above the law in our country? Who should have immunity from the consequences of their actions? If leaders in a democratic government, who have been granted trust by their constituents, are found to have been acting in a criminal and immoral fashion, and then are given the equivalent of a verbal scolding, what is the message being sent?

    Conversely, the comments made by Polimom also resonate for me, which is to say, what could be the ramifications of holding those responsible accountable? The partisan divide is already steep and wide, this would only increase it. And where do we draw the line? Prior to the reign of GWB, the greatest partisan debacle in recent history was the Bill Clinton witchhunt, and it still resonates after all this time. The GWB administration did a great deal to continue and worsen that divide, and while the phenomenon of BDS surely exists among some people, most of what I've seen referred to as BDS was in fact appropriate outrage and disappointment at abysmal leadership. That said, it is a bitter pill for many on the right.

    So should the fear of loud, angry, (and often irrational) voices be the deciding factor? Should we try to quash all this talk of holding the proponents of torture accountable for fear of inciting people like Malkin, Savage, Beck, Limbaugh, all the members of their club, and by extension much of the country? We know those people are deeply invested in discontent and they make their living fanning the flames of controversy. Would that become a battling of the Hydra senario? Which battles are worth fighting and which aren't? Wouldn't this be great if partisanship could be removed from the equation. Then the matter could be investigated and resolved based only on the merits of the case. A nice fantasy anyway..
  • Dennis- you said:

    "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."

    Wrong Dennis, they will fly only until future administrations figure out they can't get away with breaking the law. If investigations fly like crazy until then - good.
    If this is not investigated and prosecuted where appropriate we all become guilty of war crimes.
  • shaun
    Well, I guess we're going to read and hear just about anything as the torture debate rages on. But accusing a blogger who has been out in front of this story for a couple of years of being too passionate and praising a veteran Inside-the-Beltway journalist who lost his mojo even more years ago for wishing the whole sordid mess away is a first.

    Job well done, Mr. Sanders!
  • CStanley
    Ron, your assessment is only accurate if you presume that investigations only come up when there's actual probable cause of a crime, rather than investigations motivated by partisanship.
  • Lit3Bolt
    Partisanship, the most evil, nasty word here at the Moderate Voice. Truly there is not a more vile curse one could cast at another. I am willing to do anything-ANYTHING-including defend torture, as long as I'm not accused of partisanship! If I were, my wink and nod, It's all a game, Villager status would be in severe doubt.

    Also, I agree with AustinRoth. Presidents have broken the law before, and will in the future, so why shrink away from it? Instead, let us celebrate the President-as-Tyrant image. Also, I fully expect AustinRoth to come out and admit the Clinton impeachment was partisan-motivated and Clinton should have allowed to dip his stick where he may then lie about it, without fear of prosecution.

    @ Polimom-Why this, instead of other crimes? Well, it's probably because no Administration has been caught red handed so fully and effectively.
  • shaun
    CStanley:

    According to many accounts at the time, the calls for a 9/11 Commission were partisan and it was conveniently parsed as such by a White House that did NOT want to get to the bottom of the events leading up to that horrible day because, as we were to learn, it had much to hide and feared a witch hunt.

    And so by your crude calculus calls for a thorough investigation of what most people would now consider to be torture cannot be given their due because they too are being portrayed as partisan.

    Therefore, I can reasonably conclude that you would have opposed the 9/11 Commission, correct?
  • CSStanley
    I'm not going to say that partisan witch hunts won't occur but those will probably happen anyway. That is no reason to not go investigate those who actually may have broken the law. The fact that this is a partisan issue at all shows just how low this country has gone. Apparently we are no longer a nation of laws and that many if not most are OK with that. A very sad day.
  • Rudi
    AR I'm shocked that we fing gambling partisanship going on here. I wonder how the dark side reacted when Roberts stonewalled his Phase II report, I bet he was considered a 'true patroit'.
    Current Chairman John Rockefeller (D-WV) said the committee faced "constant" pressure from Vice President Cheney to delay the report, and Roberts and his allies went "along with the administration."
  • Let me remind you again what you on the right are defending. Innocent people with no evidence against them, naked and shivering in the dark, for weeks, then dog collared, humiliated, degraded, urinated and defecated on, sodomized with broom handles and rifle barrels, hearing destroyed by yelling through a megaphone in their ears, electrodes on their genitals, beaten, kicked and yes, sometimes raped and murdered.

    That is what you are defending. That is what you want us to move on from. What if it was your son or daughter? What if their Iranian torturers had a note from their lawyer?

    On this issue, I have ZERO sympathy for those who condone or excuse this inhumanity. May you find your reward in hell.
  • DaGoat
    Let me remind you again what you on the right are defending. Innocent people with no evidence against them, naked and shivering in the dark, for weeks, then dog collared, humiliated, degraded, urinated and defecated on, sodomized with broom handles and rifle barrels, hearing destroyed by yelling through a megaphone in their ears, electrodes on their genitals, beaten, kicked and yes, sometimes raped and murdered.

    Baloney. No one is defending those actions and your hyperbole makes an excellent argument for what David Broder is saying.
  • HappySurge
    Dennis, I'm sorry. I can't seem to remember. What was your stance on the Iraq War? Moreover, I could be wrong, but weren't you quite a stringent supporter of the Republican Party line and George W. Bush for several years?

    My point here is not to dismiss your criticism, but to point out that there's more than one way to make mistakes and reach the wrong and/or damaging conclusions about things.

    Your criticism of Andrew Sullivan is apt. He always get extremely passionate about everything, and it makes him very blind at times, to the reality of the alternate point of view. You had to support the war. Then you had to recognize it was awful. You had to support, and then you had to be outraged. Everything had to be done at an absolute level. When things seemed to be progressing (the surge), Andrew was already being overly optimistic about touting an exit as closer and perhaps more blood-free.

    Your assessment of that flaw is pretty accurate. However, it's important to remember that it's not the only cognitive flaw that exists, and that a person can be mistaken even in moments of moderacy.


    *I'm not being coy with the Iraq War comment. I actually can't remember what your stance is. I suspect it was for, perhaps a nuanced for, but I can't say for sure so I am writing in part for clarification.
  • Baloney back, DaGoat. That is what was done in our names. It's not hyperbole. How I wish it were. These were documented acts against human beings. Now the right doesn't want these crimes investigated or prosecuted. AR calls these methods "the namby-pamby sort" and not real torture.

    "The right" wants Obama to become accessory to those crimes by not doing his constitutional duty to vigorously investigate and prosecute, and they want him to invalidate international extradition treaties to keep those who have been VICTIMS of crime from prosecuting these criminals.

    Real victims had their lives destroyed and some died, leaving widows and orphans. They deserve justice.
  • HemmD
    Polimom, JSpencer, et al

    Let me disambiguate your torn position to "see both sides" of this issue. The US hung people for water boarding, a rather unambiguous judgment for the very act we are debating.

    This is not land deals or BJs, this is torture. This is the reason we have laws, and why we hold those laws above men; not vice versa. Calculating the future political effects may seem reasonable, ignoring executed men is not.
  • CStanley
    GD, as I've said repeatedly, I do not defend those actions despite your repeated attempts to portray my position that way.

    My view is that the end goal of stopping those acts in the future is best served by convincing all Americans that those acts are morally wrong and unnecessary for our general defense and security. Since polling is showing that half of the country is as yet not on that page, I think that our efforts should go toward changing hearts and minds rather than attempting to finger certain individuals and have them punished for the acts. And since criminal investigations will actually harden the minds of the people whose minds need to be changed, I oppose prosecutions on those grounds.

    So please, spare me your outrage on what I am 'defending'. I'm simply being a realist about what I believe will be the most effective course toward a more just stance going forward.

    Shaun- no, you are not correct. The two situations are quite different, therefore my assessment of what I think is the best way to proceed right now and the way I felt we should have proceeded then are also not identical.
  • CS, with all due respect, you are defending the idea that criminals should go free who did what was already illegal and is obviously morally reprehensible. You have steadfastly asserted that those who ordered these practices, the lawyers who rationalized them and the sadists who carried them out should ALL be excused.
  • For those who hold that prosecution is the only answer: do you accept that the outcome would possibly bring down the top-levels of government, on both sides of the aisle?
  • shaun
    CStanley:

    Nice try but no cigar.

    My intent is not to ignite a flame war, let alone a side debate, but the 9/11 Commission and what to do about torture are precisely analogous insofar as the partisan angle.
  • HemmD
    CS
    "I'm simply being a realist about what I believe will be the most effective course toward a more just stance going forward."

    A very sophisticated view, but how does that sophistication deal with the US hanging those who had water boarded Americans, but "move on" when we do the same to others? Please explain the subtle difference.
  • DaGoat
    Baloney back, DaGoat. That is what was done in our names. It's not hyperbole. How I wish it were. These were documented acts against human beings. Now the right doesn't want these crimes investigated or prosecuted. AR calls these methods "the namby-pamby sort" and not real torture.

    What we're "defending" is acceptable methods of interrogation as outlined by the Bush Administration attorneys. Almost none of the actions you mention were felt to be acceptable. This is the problem with this discussion - the definition of torture is all over the place.

    The issue is really were the guidelines set by the Bush Administration excessive, and is so were they excessive to the point where vigorous investigation/prosecution is appropriate. While I think some of the guidelines were excessive, none of them condoned sodomy, rape, murder, etc.
  • shaun
    No, DaGoat, that was last month's issue.

    This month's issue is what, if anything, to do about key Bush administration enablers now that there is a fairly widespread consensus (yes, including conservatives beyond that Shep Smith) that what occurred what textbook torture and, except for the morally and politically impaired, torture is not an acceptable government policy.
  • HemmD
    Polimom

    "do you accept that the outcome would possibly bring down the top-levels of government, on both sides of the aisle?"

    Conversely, do you accept we give up a nation of laws for political expediency?

    Your hypothetical implies a threat to the government, it is merely a threat to citizens who broke the law. The threat to our government only occurs in we chose to ignore government institutionalized criminality. I submit that the government's survival is not at stake, only people who broke the law while serving in government. You seem to miss that distinction.
  • "Your hypothetical implies a threat to the government, it is merely a threat to citizens who broke the law. The threat to our government only occurs in we chose to ignore government institutionalized criminality."

    HemmD, no. Not at all. I'm asking whether you (and others here) recognize that prosecution would doubtless extend to members of Congress as well -- including prominent Democrats.

    I was merely trying to see whether folks understand that there was more to this than Bush / Cheney / usual partisan targets.
  • OK, DaGoat, how about prosecuting those who went beyond what the memos authorized? Set your bar. Those who sodomized or raped prisoners should be prosecuted. Is that acceptable to you? What about the megaphones in the ears (organ damage is specifically defined as torture)?

    Then we can quibble about whether you think "humiliation and degradation" which IS authorized by those memos, should be excused. The pictures that horrified the nation, naked in dog collars. Is that not humiliation and degradation? Should those be (should they have been) prosecuted?
  • HemmD
    DaGoat
    "
    What we're "defending" is acceptable methods of interrogation as outlined by the Bush Administration attorneys."

    Your defending what compelled the US to execute water boarders in the past. What's so different now?
  • CStanley
    Shaun, sorry but "I'm right, you're wrong" isn't an actual debate.
  • Polimom, I do not believe legislators are culpable, as they were excluded from decision-making. I would accept them being tried, Democrats included, but really doubt there is any chance of conviction. The Executive Branch made clear that they had full authority to do these things without authorization from Congress.
  • shaun
    CStanley:

    Not even close and certainly no cigar.

    So you are saying that the partisanship displayed in the run-up to the eventual formation of a 9/11 Commission and the partisanship today are not analogous?

    Just what are you saying?
  • HemmD
    Polimom

    I did not mean to imply lack of insight on your part.

    I believe those that serve in government who break the law should be punished to the maximum measure. This is not an attempt at revenge, it is a belief that those who hold the public trust never break that trust. That is part of our definition of "a nation of laws."
  • CStanley
    Yes, Shaun, that is what I'm saying and I don't even understand how you could see it differently. Was there a crime (on the part of US officials) being investigated by the 9/11 commission? Was there as serious of a difference of opinion which divided the country on how the country needed to go forward on an issue of moral importance like torture?

    I've explained my reasoning- that the divide right now in the country between the very substantial number of people who still feel that the interrogation tactics were justified and those who feel that that's absolutely incorrect and the tactics must stop, is the most critical hurdle that we have to pass. There was no similar division of opinion that affected future policy in the case of the 9/11 commission, and no one was looking to litigate any policy decisions that had been made by the current or past administrations. Those are the salient differences that make your analogy inapt.
  • GreenDreams -- then you feel that Congress-critters who were briefed, but did not try to raise the roof about it, are not culpable? I don't get that, personally.

    This train of thought, btw, goes back to my original comment on this thread. Like the invasion of Iraq, I believe we've all been living in a country suffering from collective insanity. No, everyone didn't succumb, but many -- maybe even most -- did. Some have not yet recovered.

    Yes, there were objections raised. I raised them myself. But there are millions -- millions -- of people who thought the administration's policies on this subject were necessary evils. And I firmly believe that quite a number of people in Congress fall into that group.
  • CStanley
    PM- I agree completely, and as I've been pointing out, the number of people who 'have not yet recovered' is still quite substantial.
  • Rudi
    This is another veiled attempt to justify torture by bring up AS past rants. But many sincere conservatives address the issues instead of towing a partisan line.
    Larison: http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/04/27/tort...
    One of the things that has kept me from saying much over the last week or so is my sheer amazement that there are people who seriously pose such questions and expect to be answered with something other than expressions of bafflement and moral horror. Something else that has kept me from writing much on this recently is the profoundly dispiriting realization (really, it is just a reminder) that it is torture and aggressive war that today’s mainstream right will go to the wall to defend, while any and every other view can be negotiated, debated, compromised or abandoned. I have started doubting whether people who are openly pro-torture or engaged in the sophistry of Manzi’s post are part of the same moral universe as I am, and I have wondered whether there is even a point in contesting such torture apologia as if they were reasonable arguments deserving of real consideration.

    Another take on not apologizing for W's folly:
    http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/
    http://theamericanscene.com/2009/04/27/why-coun...
  • Kenneth_Almquist
    It occurs to me that the Bush Administration has already been discredited in the view of a majority of the voters. Republicans started distancing themselves from Bush after the 2004 election. By the time Bush proposed the TARP program, Republicans were in open revolt against the nominal leader of their party. So I don't think that investigations into the use of torture by the Bush Administration will do much to improve Democrats' political prospects. If Republicans win the presidency again, it won't be by convincing voters that what the nation really needs is a return to the Bush years, any more than Clinton won by promising to recreate the Jimmy Carter years.

    That won't prevent people on the political right from claiming, or believing, that the calls to hold people accountable are nothing more than an attempt to use the issue for partisan political gain, but it does make the charge a bit less plausible.

    The torture controversy is different from scandals such as Watergate, Iran-Contra, or the various charges against Clinton because Bush is no longer president. The people pushing to investigate those scandals could be viewed as attempting shift the balance of political power by undermining a sitting president. That's not the case for the torture scandal because Bush is no longer president.
  • "GreenDreams -- then you feel that Congress-critters who were briefed, but did not try to raise the roof about it, are not culpable? I don't get that, personally."

    I'm not saying that was acceptable behavior. I'm saying it would not make them guilty in a court of law. They did not design or authorize these techniques. They were not even asked for "advice and consent". They were simply briefed on what the administration planned to do. Nothing the legislators did could cause crimes to be committed or to prevent that. In fact, they were forbidden by law to "raise the roof". They were forbidden to call the press or even tell other legislators, all under the rubric of "state secrets."

    The Bush administration asserted that it was within the authority of the Commander in Chief to implement this program. Like it or not, by asserting exclusive authority, they also assumed exclusive responsibility.
  • HappySurge
    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.
  • HemmD
    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?

    Logic is not on your side here, nor law or morals. I expect that from AR, jwest and SD, but PM and CS, you're usually more rational than this.
  • @ HemmD 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.
  • CStanley
    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.
  • CStanley
    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.
  • CStanley
    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?
  • shaun
    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.
  • CStanley
    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...
  • shaun
    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.
  • HemmD
    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.
  • CStanley
    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.
  • shaun
    CStanley:

    Points well taken. The smoking light is now on.
  • CStanley
    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?
  • HemmD
    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?
  • JSpencer
    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 examining more than one point of view when it comes to highly charged issues, especially when 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. The partisan part of the equation is very real and cannot be denied, therefore it needs to be explored, but that isn't the same thing as saying the right decisions should be made on the basis of partisan concerns. 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.
  • CStanley
    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.
  • HemmD
    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?
  • CStanley
    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.
  • CStanley
    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.
  • HemmD
    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?
  • Kenneth_Almquist
    CS: "...since criminal investigations will actually harden the minds of the people whose minds need to be changed, I oppose prosecutions on those grounds."


    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.

    PM: "I'm trying to say that the alienation of the citizens from one another is being exacerbated by some of this."


    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.
  • CStanley
    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?
  • CStanley
    Kenneth- that's a well reasoned comment and although I'm not completely convinced, I will continue to mull over your points.
  • shaun
    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."
  • HemmD
    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?
  • CStanley
    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. Nevertheless, I also teach them that a system can be good and praiseworthy despite the exceptions.

    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?
  • CStanley
    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?
  • AustinRoth
    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.
  • CStanley
    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.
  • AustinRoth
    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.
  • AustinRoth
    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!
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC