Chances of "Bush's men" going to prison went up today

[Liberty Star]

Torture prosecutions are shaping up to be the big test for Obama administration with the new torture report implicating top Bush men (and one woman) released today:



Guantanamo 'lessons' reached Iraq's front line

James Rowley, Washington
April 23, 2009

US Attorney General Eric Holder.

FORCED nudity, stress positions and police dogs were commonly used by military interrogators to intimidate prisoners at the Abu Ghraib military prison in Iraq, a Senate panel has concluded.

The newly declassified Senate Armed Services Committee report said coercive techniques, later described by military investigators as abuse, were authorised in Afghanistan and at Abu Ghraib, the prison made infamous by photos of naked prisoners that first appeared in April 2004.



April 22, 2009 10:52 AM

Abu Ghraib Head: We Were Scapegoated

by Michelle Levi

Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who ran Iraq prisons in 2003, including the notorious Abu Ghraib prison was insistent that all orders on interrogation practices came from the top down during the Bush administration on CBS News’ The Early Show this morning.

“These soldiers didn't design these techniques on their own…we were following orders,” Karpinski told Harry Smith. “We were bringing this to our chain of command and they were saying whatever the military intelligence tells you to do out there you are authorized to do."

A new Senate Armed Services Committee report finds that early roots of U.S. interrogation practices were being circulated through the CIA and the Pentagon as early as 2002.



Bush's men feel the heat as US torture techniques are exposed

Date: 23 April 2009
By CHRIS STEPHEN
IN NEW YORK

THE most comprehensive report to date detailing American torture techniques used at Guantanamo Bay has been released by the US Senate, increasing pressure for a full-scale inquiry.


http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/22/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4961519.shtml

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iFpfkwuj_1tnlxFeV7vNgySqdIBg

http://www.theage.com.au/world/guantanamo-lessons-reached-iraqs-front-line-20090422-afc2.html


Do you think Obama will prosecute Bush's men and "torture lawyers"?

[asimplegirl]

No.. I don't.

[Liberty Star]

I would have said the same yesterday but now I'm not so sure. Poor "low ranking" Lyndie England many not be the only one now prosecuted and sent to prison for enhanced techniques used at Abu Ghraib and other prisons under US control.

[ChickenHawk]

No way they will ever be prosecuted and even if they were they could never be convicted. Especially the lawyers. How on Earth can you even take seriously the idea of prosecuting someone for a legal opinion?

[asimplegirl]

See, this is how I feel.

And, whetehr they deserve it or not is not what I am questioning...it's whether or not anyone would try them or convict them...and I just don't have much hope in that.

[Liberty Star]

No way they will ever be prosecuted and even if they were they could never be convicted. Especially the lawyers. How on Earth can you even take seriously the idea of prosecuting someone for a legal opinion?

If a lawyer knowingly advises a regime that torture (or genocide or other high crime, to make legal contrast stronger) is "legally ok", they can not be prosecuted?

[ChickenHawk]

If a lawyer knowingly advises a regime that torture (or genocide or other high crime, to make legal contrast stronger) is "legally ok", they can not be prosecuted?

I don't think that prosecuting a lawyer for giving an opinion, regardless of how wrong it is, is a good idea. It just makes it too easy to use the law to punish political enemies. The only people that should be prosecuted are people who actually broke the law.

[Liberty Star]

I don't think that prosecuting a lawyer for giving an opinion, regardless of how wrong it is, is a good idea. It just makes it too easy to use the law to punish political enemies. The only people that should be prosecuted are people who actually broke the law.

Ok, I'll take your opinion as more legally sound than my novice view : -)

Bush's top men would the main culprits.

EDIT:


Obama Says Prosecuting Lawyers for Memos Up to Holder (Update1)

By Roger Runningen and James Rowley

April 21 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama left open the possibility of taking action against Bush administration officials for authorizing the CIA’s use of aggressive interrogation techniques and said any congressional inquiry into the matter should avoid “politicizing” the issue.

The decision on whether to charge former officials who provided the legal advice justifying the use of tactics such as waterboarding will be up to the Justice Department and “I don’t want to pre-judge that,” Obama said today at the White House.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a7vk3hK9A0vY&refer=us



Even if torture memo author lawyers did not go to prison, most likely they would be disbarred. One of them has become a Judge now apparently.

Torture is one issue where I will support Holder's and moveon.org's stances:

YouTube - A.G. Holder: Investigate Torture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBWola7JniM)





Eric Holder: Waterboarding is torture

Attorney general nominee vows review of Bush administration’s practices

By Josh Meyer
January 16, 2009

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee for attorney general said unequivocally Thursday that waterboarding is torture, and he vowed to initiate an extensive and immediate “damage assessment” to fix fundamental problems within the Justice Department that he said were caused by the Bush administration.



http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/jan/16/nation/chi-holder_16jan16

[Liberty Star]

Video: Fmr. Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski implicates Rumsfeld and others.


Frm. Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski - straight line from memos to Abu Ghraib

YouTube - Countdown - Frm. Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski - straight line from memos to Abu Ghraib (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm9_foi0vRs)

[rbu]

Never happen with any of the "usual suspects" holding high positions.

[ChickenHawk]

In my opinion people who committed the torture and those who ordered it should be the ones prosecuted. However, the incidents I have read about are borderline enough that I don't think it will ever happen. I really don't believe that any jury in America is going to convict a government official that tortured a "terrorist". Especially if the torture did not lead to death or permanent injury.

I have a hard time being terribly angry about the "torture", because what I have read wasn't really horrible, and I think it did get some good information from some serious enemies of America. I can see why those who believe that terrorism is a figment of the governments imagination are angry. If I believed that I would be a lot more upset about it myself. I do think that terrorism is a real threat and sometimes requires extraordinary efforts to stop , but we have to be really careful.

And, of course, Abu Ghraib was a total joke. People got thrown under the bus all for a bunch of nonsense that probably wasn't much worse that what goes on in frat houses all across America.

[Liberty Star]

In my opinion people who committed the torture and those who ordered it should be the ones prosecuted. However, the incidents I have read about are borderline enough that I don't think it will ever happen. I really don't believe that any jury in America is going to convict a government official that tortured a "terrorist". Especially if the torture did not lead to death or permanent injury.

I have a hard time being terribly angry about the "torture", because what I have read wasn't really horrible, and I think it did get some good information from some serious enemies of America. I can see why those who believe that terrorism is a figment of the governments imagination are angry. If I believed that I would be a lot more upset about it myself. I do think that terrorism is a real threat and sometimes requires extraordinary efforts to stop , but we have to be really careful.

And, of course, Abu Ghraib was a total joke. People got thrown under the bus all for a bunch of nonsense that probably wasn't much worse that what goes on in frat houses all across America.


Your view above is incorrect, an American Jury has already convicted US military personnel for torturing "terrorists". "Bad apples" who tortured "terrorists" in pics below are in prison already:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2081491&postcount=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Graner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynndie_England

New information today raises big questions if the right "bad apples" were convicted and if massive injustice was done to US military personnel while top Bush aides devising those policies walked free. This kind of justice is not what America is known for and goes against American traditions.

[ChickenHawk]

Your view above is wrong, an American Jury has already convicted US military personnel for torturing "terrorists". "Bad apples" who tortured "terrorists" in pics below are in prison already:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2081491&postcount=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Graner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynndie_England

New information today raises big questions if the right "bad apples" were convicted and if massive injustice was done to US military personnel while top Bush aides devising those policies walked free.

I'm pretty sure they were all convicted in a military court and that is somewhat different than a civilian court. Also the media circus surrounding that case made it unique. I still don't think a jury would convict a CIA operative for water boarding an Al Qaeda member. If they pulled their toenails out, drilled holes in their arms and legs with a DeWalt or drug them behind a Pick up truck for a couple of miles it might be different. I just don't think most people are too disturbed by water boarding and sleep deprivation.

[RiJiD-W1LL]

Aren't Lawyers supposed to interpret the law not write it. ethically and morally they committed a crime that caused pain on People PERIOD. they were in jail and posed no threat to anyone I don't give a shit what they knew if you torture someone no matter how subtle the abuse (these tactics were anything but subtle) they will tell you what you want to hear and many of those who were captured were innocent.

those lawyers and army personnel who were involved should be subject to the same torture for the same amount of time and then let us know if what they did was torture.

I know for a fact that just being imprisoned is torture especially for 7 years but I understand the detention not the Abuse.

[Liberty Star]

I'm pretty sure they were all convicted in a military court and that is somewhat different than a civilian court. Also the media circus surrounding that case made it unique. I still don't think a jury would convict a CIA operative for water boarding an Al Qaeda member. If they pulled their toenails out, drilled holes in their arms and legs with a DeWalt or drug them behind a Pick up truck for a couple of miles it might be different. I just don't think most people are too disturbed by water boarding and sleep deprivation.


This discussion title is about Bush's top aides implicated in Senate report today, you seem to be arguing about tangential and selective cases. Let me rephrase my point to clarify it.

If it is evident that Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz and other Bush top aides had ok'd "enhanced techniques" like the ones used at Abu Ghraib as the Senate report today suggests ( enhanced techniques for which some low ranking personnel went to prison) , no jury in American will convict Bush aides?

[ChickenHawk]

Aren't Lawyers supposed to interpret the law not write it. ethically and morally they committed a crime that caused pain on People PERIOD. they were in jail and posed no threat to anyone I don't give a shit what they knew if you torture someone no matter how subtle the abuse (these tactics were anything but subtle) they will tell you what you want to hear and many of those who were captured were innocent.

those lawyers and army personnel who were involved should be subject to the same torture for the same amount of time and then let us know if what they did was torture.

I know for a fact that just being imprisoned is torture especially for 7 years but I understand the detention not the Abuse.

So what is torture? Why is torture "no matter how subtle" not okay unless it's 7 years of prison? Is making someone sleep on a foam pad instead of a king size mattress torture? Is making someone sweat under a hot light while you question them torture? Why is some torture okay and other torture not okay? You can't treat every prisoner like a king but you cant pull their finger nails out either. Somewhere there is a line you cannot cross and everyone seams to have a slightly different opinion where that line is.

[ChickenHawk]

If it is evident that Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz and other Bush top aides had ok'd "enhanced techniques" like the ones used at Abu Ghraib as the Senate report today implies ( enhanced techniques for which some low ranking personnel went to prison) , no jury in American will convict Bush aides?


It's possible but I don't think it would happen. The Abu Ghraib case is odd because it seems that it's not really about torture. More like just general humiliation and abuse. There may have been some incidents that could be considered torture but not the most publicized ones. Also, the prisoner abuse didn't seem to really have any intelligence value. It wasn't like they were trying to get information out of these guys by making naked pyramids. I doubt Rumsfeld called up Abu Ghraib and said "hey why don't you parade these guys around naked and laugh at them. It will be fun". It seems it was more like a tolerance of general mistreatment from the top down. Clearly a terrible injustice was done, but I doubt anything will ever be done about it.

[Athan]

I doubt it. That would require obama to actually have some testicles.

[thasre]

I'm of the opinion that if this legal advice in these memos informing the Bush administration proves to be what our judicial system considers torture, and the Bush administration is believed to have used this legal advice to justify micromanagement of "interrogation techniques" that can be classified as torture, then it's Bush HIMSELF and other members of his cabinet that should be indicted and tried as criminals. A lawyer can't be held responsible for giving bad advice, and Bush can't use ignorance as a defence.

After all, isn't a legal principle in this country just that? That "ignorance is no defence"? If a lawyer told me I'm allowed to steal someone's car, I can still be prosecuted for stealing the car (and I believe the lawyer can't be). Why should that be any different for a President? If he received bad legal advice and used it to commit war crimes, it's still HIS FAULT for committing the war crimes. Frankly, I think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and probably John Ashcroft should all be tried for what they did regarding torture.

War crimes are war crimes, even if the President commits them, and torture is a war crime.

[Liberty Star]

It's possible but I don't think it would happen. The Abu Ghraib case is odd because it seems that it's not really about torture. More like just general humiliation and abuse. There may have been some incidents that could be considered torture but not the most publicized ones. Also, the prisoner abuse didn't seem to really have any intelligence value. It wasn't like they were trying to get information out of these guys by making naked pyramids. I doubt Rumsfeld called up Abu Ghraib and said "hey why don't you parade these guys around naked and laugh at them. It will be fun". It seems it was more like a tolerance of general mistreatment from the top down. Clearly a terrible injustice was done, but I doubt anything will ever be done about it.

We can disagree on the chances of their prosecution, I think it's more likley today than it was last week. But it's not going to be easy to deal with this mess either way.

You may not have been reading the latest news reports:



Torture techniques endorsed by the Bush administration

Bush administration gave the go ahead to several methods of interrogation
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 April 2009 18.58 BST

Nudity: "Nudity is used to induce psychological discomfort and because it allows interrogators to reward *detainees instantly with clothing for co-operation ... Because the ambient air temperatures are kept above 68F, the technique is at most mildly physically uncomfortable and poses no threat to the detainee's health."

An example, if Bush top aides were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques like nude pyramids, fake electric shocks, unmuzzled dogs, stress positions to gain more information about their roles IF they were prosecuted, that will not be considered "torture" by you?

We come from different worlds then.

[ChickenHawk]

War crimes are war crimes, even if the President commits them, and torture is a war crime.

The only problem with that is that you have to find the law that was broken. What law of war was actually broken? I haven't heard a solid argument for this.

[thasre]

I doubt Rumsfeld called up Abu Ghraib and said "hey why don't you parade these guys around naked and laugh at them. It will be fun". It seems it was more like a tolerance of general mistreatment from the top down. Clearly a terrible injustice was done, but I doubt anything will ever be done about it.

It's my understanding that the situation WAS that people like Rumsfeld did JUST that... "micro-manage" is the expression I once came across in terms of their handling of torture issues.

Look at this report from a year ago:

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/waroniraq/82054//%22history_will_not_judge_this_kindly/%22_--_torture_was_approved_at_highest_levels_of_bush_ad min/

The title of the article comes from a statement John Ashcroft is alleged to have made during a meeting in which they - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, and Powell (and Ashcroft) - discussed, at length and in detail, torture methods that were to be used. It's sickening. And what's most sickening is that it was John Friggin' Ashcroft, and only him, of all people, who expressed even the faintest moral concern.

[Indy4Chng]

It is my understanding that the supreme court did not determine these devices torture till much after the fact and what they were doing was ok'd by congress in 2002. In addition how can you prosecute people for giving advice (even if it's bad advice). This to me is no different then prosecuting the AIG execs after the fact. Bad public policy is not a crime. Tell me exactly what law they broke that they should be punished for.

[ChickenHawk]

An example, if Bush top aides were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques like nude pyramids, fake electric shocks, unmuzzled dogs, stress positions to gain more information about their roles IF they were prosecuted, that will not be considered "torture" by you?

We come from different worlds then.

Sure I would consider it to be a form of torture. If they were captured on a battlefield by the enemy I would expect they would probably be treated that way. I would not expect the enemy to prosecute their own people for treating them that way though.

What happened at Abu Ghraib was not good but I don't consider it the kind of thing people should go to prison for. If those things had been done to prisioners of war or someone arrested in the US on criminal charges that would be a different story.

[Liberty Star]

In addition how can you prosecute people for giving advice (even if it's bad advice). This to me is no different then prosecuting the AIG execs after the fact. Bad public policy is not a crime. Tell me exactly what law they broke that they should be punished for.

Now this just an example and a very radical one to make a point, so don't assume that Bush is being compared to Hitler.
Which law had Hitler's aides broken when they were prosecuted by US few decades ago?

[thasre]

The only problem with that is that you have to find the law that was broken. What law of war was actually broken? I haven't heard a solid argument for this.

These are US laws on torture:

(from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html)

As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

__________________________________________________ _________

The clause about "whoever outside the US" renders it a little problematic, but the fact that the Bush Administration was conspiring within the US to commit the act of torture outside the country seems to cover it from my perspective. There are also international laws against this sort of thing, including treaties to which we are parties and are bound legally to follow. I don't know how they try these sorts of international crimes, but I don't think it matters because it seems clear to me that our own laws were broken.

[ChickenHawk]

Now this just an example and a very radical one to make a point, so don't assume that Bush is being compared to Hitler.
Which law had Hitler's aides broken when they were prosecuted by US few decades ago?

That is why "war crimes" are so stupid. A war crime is essentially just all the stuff the loser did that the winner didn't like. War is about destroying the enemy using any means necessary. Adding "crimes" to the equation just detracts from the seriousness of it all.

[ChickenHawk]

These are US laws on torture:

US law and "war crimes" are different. There may well have been violations of US law but I don't think there were any war crimes.

[thasre]

That is why "war crimes" are so stupid. A war crime is essentially just all the stuff the loser did that the winner didn't like. War is about destroying the enemy using any means necessary. Adding "crimes" to the equation just detracts from the seriousness of it all.

War crimes are not a stupid policy. I've posted our own law on torture, which I think was clearly violated. But even if that weren't our law, there are still crimes that are committed that are not even REMOTELY necessary to the causes of a war. "By any means necessary" is not something I remember from just war theory. It would be a war crime, for example, to occupy a city and then go in and rape all the women... rape would be a crime anyway, but it becomes a war crime when it's done by soldiers representing a government and ostensibly under the government's direction during a time of war. How can you be so dense as to not realize something like that?

There are all sorts of atrocities that should NEVER be committed during a war. Internment camps designed to remove "undesirable" civilian populations (like Japanese Americans in WWII) come to mind. Attacking hospitals is another one. If you really think such things don't constitute war crimes, you're really not worth continuing to engage in debate with. You'd have to have a mind in order for me to change it.

[thasre]

§ 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
(d) Common Article 3 Violations.—
(1) Prohibited conduct.— In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control. [...]
__________________________________________________ ___

Again, from the same site, a section on US law regarding war crimes, which include provisions recognizing international law. Don't tell me what Bush & co. did doesn't fall under these laws.

[ChickenHawk]

War crimes are not a stupid policy. I've posted our own law on torture, which I think was clearly violated. But even if that weren't our law, there are still crimes that are committed that are not even REMOTELY necessary to the causes of a war. "By any means necessary" is not something I remember from just war theory. It would be a war crime, for example, to occupy a city and then go in and rape all the women... rape would be a crime anyway, but it becomes a war crime when it's done by soldiers representing a government and ostensibly under the government's direction during a time of war. How can you be so dense as to not realize something like that?

There are all sorts of atrocities that should NEVER be committed during a war. Internment camps designed to remove "undesirable" civilian populations (like Japanese Americans in WWII) come to mind. Attacking hospitals is another one. If you really think such things don't constitute war crimes, you're really not worth continuing to engage in debate with. You'd have to have a mind in order for me to change it.

"War crime" is generally a reference to international law. It is certainly possible that a soldier could commit a crime while fighting a war and be prosecuted by their own government. That is not what I was referring to.

Japanese internment was actually not a crime. It was authorized by executive order and upheld by the supreme court. I'm not saying it was right, but it technically was not a crime.

[thasre]

"War crime" is generally a reference to international law. It is certainly possible that a soldier could commit a crime while fighting a war and be prosecuted by their own government. That is not what I was referring to.

Japanese internment was actually not a crime. It was authorized by executive order and upheld by the supreme court. I'm not saying it was right, but it technically was not a crime.

It's not strictly an issue of international law... I posted US law regarding war crimes. And I realize the Japanese internment wasn't illegal at the time, but if we were to do something similar under current law it would be... well, I'm not even entirely sure of that, so I'll say at the very least it *should* be.

[devil21]

I don't think that prosecuting a lawyer for giving an opinion, regardless of how wrong it is, is a good idea. It just makes it too easy to use the law to punish political enemies. The only people that should be prosecuted are people who actually broke the law.

You can sue a private attorney for legal malpractice. Attorneys aren't untouchable. If you get arrested for DWI and your attorney advises you to just not appear for court, he is an accessory simply because his legal advice tells you to break the law. This isn't really any different in principle. Just because an attorney writes a memo stating his "legal opinion" doesnt mean his opinion is correct, legal, or constitutional.

[Objectivist]

Interesting tidbit, Panetta worked for Clinton about the time Tenet did and Berger stole some documents that he shoved down his pants, why? Clinton was pulling off rendition and torture in 1995 and said to the person in charge that he didn't care what was done. Now Panetta who is a few sandwiches short of a picnic is CIA Director. Holder worked for Reno under Clinton and made much of this possible for Bush to engage in. Nice set up!

Will Holder be put on trial? How about anyone under Clinton?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/15/panetta-faces-rendition-queries/
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Will Holder be put on trial? How about anyone under Clinton?

Yea, that is the only thing that bothers me in this whole setup. How many of the assholes with (D) next to their names are gonna get taken down? My guess would be none, which really pisses me off. I don't like it when one 'side' gets to hypocritically get away with shit. Its like giving Obama a free pass for bad behaviour because Bush did it.

Personally, I want all these assholes taken down, Republican and Democrat. In a perfect world, it would be a cascade affect from the first prosecution that would bring them all down. I dearly hope they go after them and they squeal to high heaven.

[angelatc]

I don't think that prosecuting a lawyer for giving an opinion, regardless of how wrong it is, is a good idea. It just makes it too easy to use the law to punish political enemies. The only people that should be prosecuted are people who actually broke the law.

I agree. His license to practice can be reviewed though.

[paulitics]

It's possible but I don't think it would happen. The Abu Ghraib case is odd because it seems that it's not really about torture. More like just general humiliation and abuse. There may have been some incidents that could be considered torture but not the most publicized ones. Also, the prisoner abuse didn't seem to really have any intelligence value. It wasn't like they were trying to get information out of these guys by making naked pyramids. I doubt Rumsfeld called up Abu Ghraib and said "hey why don't you parade these guys around naked and laugh at them. It will be fun". It seems it was more like a tolerance of general mistreatment from the top down. Clearly a terrible injustice was done, but I doubt anything will ever be done about it.

Being forcd to commit unnatural sex acts with other men is torture. Being hosed down naked with ice cold water is torture. Naked pyramids are torture. I've heard of much worse that if I find the link I will post it. You can look at those Abu Graib pictures and actually say that is not torture? You must be watching too many grotesque horror movies that has desensitised you, if you are thinking hmmmmm......these pictures look like fraternity games gone bad. Either that or you listen to Rush because this is something I heard him say something absurd like that.

As far as why they did it? The techniques that were used had to be from the top down. Their purpose is purely speculative, but I can think of a few different reasons that I don't want to debate.

There have been plenty of injuries and deaths in Gitmo. We have kidnapped hundreds if not thousands of people in the dark of night and sent them to othere countries to be tortured ordered by the CIA. There are books out there that docuement some of this, but keep in mind most everything truly horrible is declassified, therfore we only know the tip of the iceberg.

[nsellers]

If I were on a jury, I'd convict those constitution-breaking lawyers in a New York minute.


No way they will ever be prosecuted and even if they were they could never be convicted. Especially the lawyers. How on Earth can you even take seriously the idea of prosecuting someone for a legal opinion?

[shenlu54]

I think United States should be the model of the world in this case.

I have talked with many people about this issue,but no single person can believe that American have the guts to prosecute their former president.I think if US can do this unprecedented prosecution,many many ordinary Chinese's negative attitudes to this country will be changed.

[TastyWheat]

Lovely thought, but it won't happen. At best they may prosecute some middle-of-the-totem-poll scapegoat you've never heard of.

[acptulsa]

In the end, I can't help but think about the broken Obama promises, the sheer degree of business as usual in regards to wars and bailouts, and the trouble this administration is having selling the falsehood that they actually represent any real and substantive change compared to the previous eight years.

It all looks like distractions and false dichotomies to me. I have no hope that anything substantive will get done.

[klamath]

It has nothing to do with the lawyers, it has to do with the officials that ordered the torture. Just because a lawyer represents an obvious murder rapist doesn't make the lawyer the law breaker.
American laws were broken. Once a combatant is a prisoner of war he has certain protections of American and international law. Morally these people knew they were breaking the law, or they wouldn't have tried to work all sorts of legal loopholes to get around the laws.
Bush made the stupid ignorant members of a white trash National Guard unit take the fall for his policies.
How ever I do not trust the present government to handle a case against the Bush officials. Already it is reeking of a partisan witch-hunt in an attempt to destroy political opposition. I believe Obama, Clinton and most of the powerful congressional democrats were aware and approved those actions and would have been doing it themselves had they been in control of the presidency after 9/11. Clinton proved he would start bombing Iraq just for his own personal political survival. I believe it is still going on. This is a partisan cover to create the appearance that Obama stopped it and no one will bother to watch for these kind of crimes in his administration
I do not want my government torturing anyone in the name of my security. Anyone who believes this is necessary is a weak, slimy, cowering piece of human debris, who adds nothing but a contemptible presence to the human race.
I have been on air assault missions in Iraq to pick up insurgents and have seen full well how messed up intelligence is and how confused the battle field becomes. I don't want those people that can very well be totally innocent tortured after they become prisoners of war. If our Government can't even get WMD right how can I believe they can get anything else right.
Just because terrorists and many many other governments torture in far worse ways than us is no justifier.
I can understand heat of passion torture in the middle of a battle where troops think one of their own is being tortured and are desperate for information to save him or her. This does not mean I believe it is right but I can see the breakdown in logical moral reasoning. Systemic, institutionalized, premeditated torture is raising to the highest levels of evil.

[AuH20]

Yea, that is the only thing that bothers me in this whole setup. How many of the assholes with (D) next to their names are gonna get taken down? My guess would be none, which really pisses me off. I don't like it when one 'side' gets to hypocritically get away with shit. Its like giving Obama a free pass for bad behaviour because Bush did it.

Personally, I want all these assholes taken down, Republican and Democrat. In a perfect world, it would be a cascade affect from the first prosecution that would bring them all down. I dearly hope they go after them and they squeal to high heaven.

Pelosi may have to testify under oath. She knew what was going on.

[klamath]

"War crime" is generally a reference to international law. It is certainly possible that a soldier could commit a crime while fighting a war and be prosecuted by their own government. That is not what I was referring to.

Japanese internment was actually not a crime. It was authorized by executive order and upheld by the supreme court. I'm not saying it was right, but it technically was not a crime.
The internment was a crime, if it wasn't why did the government pay resitution to the victims is the '80's? Just because the US government got away from it in wartime does not make it not a crime.

[OptionsTrader]

No.

Bush=Obama=Traitor

[thasre]

In the end, I can't help but think about the broken Obama promises, the sheer degree of business as usual in regards to wars and bailouts, and the trouble this administration is having selling the falsehood that they actually represent any real and substantive change compared to the previous eight years.

It all looks like distractions and false dichotomies to me. I have no hope that anything substantive will get done.

This, unfortunately.

[Objectivist]

Yea, that is the only thing that bothers me in this whole setup. How many of the assholes with (D) next to their names are gonna get taken down? My guess would be none, which really pisses me off. I don't like it when one 'side' gets to hypocritically get away with shit. Its like giving Obama a free pass for bad behaviour because Bush did it.

Personally, I want all these assholes taken down, Republican and Democrat. In a perfect world, it would be a cascade affect from the first prosecution that would bring them all down. I dearly hope they go after them and they squeal to high heaven.

I'd agree with taking both sides out but waterboarding and smacking someone around isn't torture. Sticking a curling iron up their ass is torture.

[Liberty Star]

Interesting tidbit, Panetta worked for Clinton about the time Tenet did and Berger stole some documents that he shoved down his pants, why? Clinton was pulling off rendition and torture in 1995 and said to the person in charge that he didn't care what was done. Now Panetta who is a few sandwiches short of a picnic is CIA Director. Holder worked for Reno under Clinton and made much of this possible for Bush to engage in. Nice set up!

Will Holder be put on trial? How about anyone under Clinton?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/15/panetta-faces-rendition-queries/
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html

Good info on Clinton clan. Hypocrisy there wont be new.



I think United States should be the model of the world in this case.

I have talked with many people about this issue,but no single person can believe that American have the guts to prosecute their former president.I think if US can do this unprecedented prosecution,many many ordinary Chinese's negative attitudes to this country will be changed.


At present, we're far from being that model I think.




Lovely thought, but it won't happen. At best they may prosecute some middle-of-the-totem-poll scapegoat you've never heard of.


Likely but hopefully justice will be served regardless of culprits' positions on the totem poll.

[Liberty Star]

In the end, I can't help but think about the broken Obama promises, the sheer degree of business as usual in regards to wars and bailouts, and the trouble this administration is having selling the falsehood that they actually represent any real and substantive change compared to the previous eight years.

It all looks like distractions and false dichotomies to me. I have no hope that anything substantive will get done.

Your skepticism is not misplaced, but there may still be chance that public pressure will force Obama to do the right thing and hold people accountable.



It has nothing to do with the lawyers, it has to do with the officials that ordered the torture. Just because a lawyer represents an obvious murder rapist doesn't make the lawyer the law breaker.
American laws were broken. Once a combatant is a prisoner of war he has certain protections of American and international law. Morally these people knew they were breaking the law, or they wouldn't have tried to work all sorts of legal loopholes to get around the laws.
Bush made the stupid ignorant members of a white trash National Guard unit take the fall for his policies.

How ever I do not trust the present government to handle a case against the Bush officials. Already it is reeking of a partisan witch-hunt in an attempt to destroy political opposition. I believe Obama, Clinton and most of the powerful congressional democrats were aware and approved those actions and would have been doing it themselves had they been in control of the presidency after 9/11. Clinton proved he would start bombing Iraq just for his own personal political survival. I believe it is still going on. This is a partisan cover to create the appearance that Obama stopped it and no one will bother to watch for these kind of crimes in his administration

I do not want my government torturing anyone in the name of my security. Anyone who believes this is necessary is a weak, slimy, cowering piece of human debris, who adds nothing but a contemptible presence to the human race.
I have been on air assault missions in Iraq to pick up insurgents and have seen full well how messed up intelligence is and how confused the battle field becomes. I don't want those people that can very well be totally innocent tortured after they become a prisoners of war. If our Government can't even get WMD right how can I believe they can get anything else right.
Just because terrorists and many many other governments torture in far worse ways than us is no justifier.

I can understand heat of passion torture in the middle of a battle where troops think one of their own is being tortured and are desperate for information to save him or her. This does not mean I believe it is right but I can see the breakdown in logical moral reasoning. Systemic, institutionalized, premeditated torture is raising to the highest levels of evil.

I dont disagree with your view, well said. I had roped in "Bush lawyers" for general condemnation but real culprits would be top Bush aides who oversaw torture affairs.



No.

Bush=Obama=Traitor


Let's see how Obama handles this.

Off topic question, of Obama ignores rule of law here, could he be impeached?

[klamath]

I think United States should be the model of the world in this case.

I have talked with many people about this issue,but no single person can believe that American have the guts to prosecute their former president.I think if US can do this unprecedented prosecution,many many ordinary Chinese's negative attitudes to this country will be changed.
Actually when the chinese people hold their own govenment accountable for killing 60 million of their own and quite recently gunning down peaceful protesters at tianamen, I will care what the ordinary Chinese people think about America.

[AuH20]

Pelosi sounds believable!: ;):D

YouTube - Pelosi on Waterboarding (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT4zKLYbM3Y&feature=player_embedded)

[Objectivist]

YouTube - Why Pelosi won't impeach, because knew of the torture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w88NXHsgi08)

[thasre]

Watching the Pelosi video and the video about her makes me think that she was probably implicated in all this torture business as well... it makes you wonder how many people really WERE involved in all of this.

And it puts to end any question regarding whether or not prosecutions will be made: Nope. All of this torture business is just going to get pushed under the rug and they'll be sure to be more quiet about it in the future.

[paulitics]

Watching the Pelosi video and the video about her makes me think that she was probably implicated in all this torture business as well... it makes you wonder how many people really WERE involved in all of this.

And it puts to end any question regarding whether or not prosecutions will be made: Nope. All of this torture business is just going to get pushed under the rug and they'll be sure to be more quiet about it in the future.

There are so many people implicated from both sides, it will not go forward unless some other scandal happens that leads into this whole debacle which is possible.

[Liberty Star]

Good vidoes guys. This taints America's moral standing so badly that this will not come to end till Pelosi came claen and Obama moved to hold final deciders of torture policy accountable. This could potentially even lead to impeachments of Dems in office now at a later stage if they tried to obstruct rule of law here.

[sdczen]

If anyone goes to prison for these crimes, then they should include EVERYONE that knew about it and said nothing. Including all the Dems who were all for it in the beginning.

[Liberty Star]

If anyone goes to prison for these crimes, then they should include EVERYONE that knew about it and said nothing. Including all the Dems who were all for it in the beginning.

That might be a legally sound point. But starting point now should be the big fish final deciders and authors of these torture policies and not just few low ranking military personnel that Rumsfeld prosecuted during his time in office.

[Liberty Star]

Pelosi sounds believable!: ;):D

YouTube - Pelosi on Waterboarding (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT4zKLYbM3Y&feature=player_embedded)

Nope.

[Liberty Star]

Watching the Pelosi video and the video about her makes me think that she was probably implicated in all this torture business as well... it makes you wonder how many people really WERE involved in all of this.

And it puts to end any question regarding whether or not prosecutions will be made: Nope. All of this torture business is just going to get pushed under the rug and they'll be sure to be more quiet about it in the future.


I agree with the first part. Second part is probably also right but there is some chnace for proseuctions and disbarment of torture lawyers.

Some torture prosections have already taken place or are being processed and people sent to prison but they were mostly low level personnel (Caution: Some of the case details are disturbing):

http://www.supportmpscapegoats.com/puntable.html

[KoldKut]

...