home

How to Achieve "Never Again" On Torture

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 11:53:36 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Paul Krugman:

[T]he only way we can regain our moral compass, not just for the sake of our position in the world, but for the sake of our own national conscience, is to investigate how that happened, and, if necessary, to prosecute those responsible. . . [T]he fact is that officials in the Bush administration instituted torture as a policy, misled the nation into a war they wanted to fight and, probably, tortured people in the attempt to extract “confessions” that would justify that war. And during the march to war, most of the political and media establishment looked the other way.

[More...]

. . . Sorry, but what we really should do for the sake of the country is have investigations both of torture and of the march to war. These investigations should, where appropriate, be followed by prosecutions — not out of vindictiveness, but because this is a nation of laws. We need to do this for the sake of our future. For this isn’t about looking backward, it’s about looking forward — because it’s about reclaiming America’s soul.

Yes it is. Speaking for me only

< An Inconvenient Truth: Harman Opposed Torture | Uighur Detainees May Be Released Inside U.S. >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    How to Achieve "Never Again" On Torture | 128 comments (128 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    not just speaking for you (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:08:34 PM EST


    This morning, I posted this comment (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:15:29 PM EST
    on one of the older threads:

    I think the mistake Obama is making is in thinking that he can just cut off the whole issue with one wave of the Super-Duper-Transformative-Hopey magic wand he seems to think he's holding.

    Sure, it's early days, but the photos are not going to be released until the end of May, so there's going to be, I believe, a steady drip-drip-drip of information that is going to get increasingly ugly, increasingly damning - and with each new revelation, Obama is going to look less and less like a leader, and more and more like some combination of a shill and an apologist.

    I think - and this is just my opinion - that those who were involved in facilitating a policy of torture need to be held accountable, regardless of what their party affiliation is.  Facilitating torture is not just bad if you're a Republican, it's bad if you are a human being, and I think the choice not to pursue this to wherever it eventually leads is just wrong.  Flat-out wrong.  

    It's all well and good for Obama to ban the use of "harsh interrogation techniques," but as long as Obama refuses to deal with the genesis of Bush's policy, and as long as he refuses to ferret out the truth of how it happened and who was involved and what their roles were, he is, in effect, allowing it all to stand, and I think the chances are good that what happened under Bush could easily happen in succeeding administrations - as easy as the stroke of a pen.

    Obama may think that releasing the memos and pictures is just about making sure people know how evil the Republicans are, but I think he underestimates the ability of the people to understand that it is never enough just to identify evil - when you take a that's-all-in-the-past approach, you allow people to deny that it ever happened.  

    If Democrats were involved, they should be held accountable ,too; to avoid investigations in order to shield them - and by extension Republicans all the way to Bush - reduces a significant human rights issue to a petty, partisan issue.  How on earth do we have any credibility on global human rights issues, how do we demand that other governments hold their people accountable when we aren't even willing to hold our own people accountable?

    No, I don't know what kind of game Obama is playing here, but the games need to stop.

    I'd like to think there really are more of us who get it than those who don't.

    I agree and Paul Krugman, once (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:35:37 PM EST
    again, speaks truth to power as well.  You've said it all and so I won't repeat, but I will say that Obama looks more unsure and like the inexperienced leader I thought he was. He gingerly picks the low hanging fruit and waits tentatively for the response from the crowds. Of course he looks so cool and collected that many are not yet noticing. It is after all an idol loving nation we populate.  Maybe by May more will see his hesitancy or by then he may have found his sense of outrage.

    [ Parent ]
    Broken system (5.00 / 9) (#42)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:58:21 PM EST
    I agree with both you Anne and Greenwald here:

    The inability of so many people (both Republicans and Obama-loyal Democrats) to view the need for prosecutions independent of political considerations is a potent sign of how sick our political culture has become.  The need for criminal investigations is motivated by one simple, consummately apolitical fact:  serious and brutal crimes were committed at the highest levels of the government, ones that left a trail of many victims.  A country that purports to live under the rule of law has no choice but to treat its most powerful members who commit serious crimes exactly the same as ordinary citizens who do so.  That has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats.

    This is not about politics.

    [ Parent ]

    "Purports to live (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 03:23:56 PM EST
    under the rule of law" is key here.

    Is there a rule of law when Bernake is pressuring financial institutions not to make otherwise required disclosures to shareholders?

    [ Parent ]

    serious and brutal crimes? (1.00 / 3) (#87)
    by capitalistfloridaboy on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 04:48:56 PM EST
    That's a bit of a stretch; water boarding is not torture.....it does not hurt them, just cares them silly and who cares about that? You do? The information they retrieved saved American lives. I'm fine with that. Prosecute who and for what? They (Bush and company) did what they had to do to keep future attacks away from the USA.....and it worked. Will you still want to prosecute if Nancy P. knew about the water boarding as well? She did........  

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting viewpoint (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 04:55:28 PM EST
    Here is a picture of a US soldier participating in the waterboarding of a POW in Vietnam.  Just so you know - not to dispute that you're the final authority on the definition of torture or anything - we court-martialed him for it.  One of our own soldiers, doing it in order to interrogate an enemy!  I bet he wishes he had you for a judge, but I guess the Army was a bunch of wimpy liberals in those days.

    [ Parent ]
    waterboarding is torture (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 04:55:30 PM EST
    that is stated in more than one international agreement we have signed.  we prosecuted people for waterboarding our soldiers during the Korean war.
    and in fact I have seen no evidence it saved anyone from anything.


    [ Parent ]
    If evidence suggests Nancy P is guilty, ... (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by cymro on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 07:33:04 PM EST
    ... or may be guilty, of any crime then the best way to establish her guilt or innocence is to prosecute her. And the same applies to anyone in high office who is part of a chain of command that authorizes the commission of any crime by others who depend on their decisions and directions. That's what it means to be a country of laws.

    [ Parent ]
    Surely you will be willing to pay reparations to (none / 0) (#106)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 10:37:42 PM EST
    the Japanese and Germans wer jailed and executed, right? Since it wasn't torture, as viewed from the calm perspective of being a country now using those "techiques formerly known as torture"?

    Sheesh.

    [ Parent ]

    If Nancy Pelosi (none / 0) (#108)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 11:25:34 PM EST
    or any other elected or appointed government official is guilty then he/she must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    No exceptions.

    [ Parent ]

    "The game" ... (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:04:00 PM EST
    ... is probably not unlike that which enabled the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in which President Johnson privately but pointedly urged the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. to create a groundswell of public indignation against Jim Crow: "Force me to do the right thing."

    I think President Obama has made a strategic decision to await the critical mass of support to build for investigation and potential prosecution, which will both split and neutralize the GOP politically, and thus isolate the Bushies and the right-wing from general public opinion. And when he does set those events into motion to take them downt, it will be decisive.

    While you and I clearly support prosecution, public opinion is not quite there yet, because most people are still trying to grasp what has happened here. If we can push poll numbers supporting legal action against the Bushies to 65-70%, that will give the administration cover to act against them without much fear of political blowback from middle America, which right now won't support anything that resembles even vaguely a political vendetta. The last thing we need is to move prematurely out of emotion, and enable the GOP to successfully play the trump card of persecuted victims.

    Aloha.

    [ Parent ]

    I was with you until I got to this line: (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:21:42 PM EST
    If we can push poll numbers supporting legal action against the Bushies to 65-70%,

    And pretty much what followed.  

    If people insist on making this about politics and not principles, it either won't go anywhere, or wherever it goes will have no legitimacy - and that, I fear, is why there is such an effort to frame this in strictly political terms.

    Listen, I am not so naive that I think that whatever effort is undertaken will not be without political elements - we can't control the media, after all, and they are, for the most part, so wrong on this I'm pretty sure they will end up looking like the fools they are.

    The effort should not be "bi" partisan, but "non" partisan.  How do you do that?  Leave politicians out of it.  Make them go sit in the corner until it is their turn to testify.  Tell them anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law.

    And make sure they know that no one is safe by virtue of whether there is an (R) or a (D) after their name.  Commit to truth for once - I think a lot of them don't know anymore what that is or what it means, and if they want to represent us, it's time they demonstrated that they are willing to stake their precious careers on it - or face the consequences.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, yeah. Now we're a nation of polls--not laws or (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 10:39:24 PM EST
    principles. Way cool.

    Not in my name, dood.

    [ Parent ]

    The rise in poll numbers ... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:41:31 AM EST
    ... in support of investigation and prosecution of war crimes will come as more people learn about and come to grips with what has been done in our country's name. That's not going to happen on its own accord. We have to work to bring that about through a sustained effort at political engagement.

    Now, maybe you don't like politics because it can be messy and nasty, but sustained engagement in the art of practical politics is the way our democratic system of government is designed to work. Sometimes, it's not enough to just be right on principle; you have to get out there, mix it up, and make your case to convince others that yours is the correct position to take on a given issue. So get off your high horse.

    Further, the concept of nonpartisanship exists only in an intellectual vacuum. In the reality-based world, only universally accepted facts can be considered nonpartisan (and I think "universal" is a better term than "nonpartisan", anyway). So long as people hold unique and respective points of view, and are further willing to express their opinions and take sides, there's going to be partisanship. That's simply human nature, and while you can sometimes be succesful in getting others to occasionally rise above their own initial instincts, you're certainly not going to change that in perpetuity. If you think otherwise, then you are being hopelessly and / or foolishly naive.

    Practical politics requires not only one's active engagement with others, but also a willingness on one's part to seek them out on their turf when necessary in order to do so. If you're just going to stand there upon your bedrock of principles with your arms folded, uncompromising in your insistence that everyone else come around to you and your viewpoint, then I'm afraid you're probably going to find yourself bereft of much in the way of human company, and almost completely ineffectual at affecting real change in our society.

    Aloha.

    [ Parent ]

    The "game" (none / 0) (#52)
    by huzzlewhat on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:23:41 PM EST
    I really hope you're right. This is what I've been thinking of as the best-case scenario. I'm deeply skeptical, though.

    [ Parent ]
    It's good to be skeptical. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 05:15:19 AM EST
    Healthy skepticism is the foundation of political engagement. Just don't let it be so deep that it becomes a self-paralyzing cynicism. What I noted in my original post above won't come to pass unless we work to make it happen. It's up to us to see that it does.

    [ Parent ]
    What were the poll (none / 0) (#98)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 06:57:25 PM EST
    numbers for impeaching Nixon before and after the Watergate hearings?

    [ Parent ]
    A lot higher after than before. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 05:05:31 AM EST
    Even then, it was only after the so-called "smoking gun" was found within the court-ordered release of the White House tapes in July 1974, i.e., evidence of Richard Nixon's active complicity in the conspiracy to obstruct justice, which finally convinced a sufficient number of Republicans on Capitol Hill and in public opinion -- not a majority of GOPers by any means, but nevertheless a fairly significant amount of them -- to break ranks, abandon the president and support his removal from office.

    And remember, a successful impeachment requires only a simple majority, 50% + 1. Conviction and subsequent removal from office requires a minimum two-thirds supermajority, or at least 67%, not any different from the desired poll numbers I noted in my original post.

    [ Parent ]

    I have to disagree on this one (none / 0) (#110)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 11:40:19 PM EST
    This is one of those times and issues that must go forward whether or not initially or ever supported by the public.

    An investigation by an independent commission would likely bring public opinion around but even if opinion failed to reach a strong level of support this investigation must take place.

    Waiting for public opinion on this issue, IMO, is every bit as immoral as ignoring the matter altogether.

    Similar arguments were used to oppose impeachment and failure to impeach was a serious mistake.

    Delaying action until there is no political risk it seems to me is yet another symptom of our moral degeneration and general decline as a nation.

    [ Parent ]

    As I also noted above (#118): (none / 0) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 05:20:01 AM EST
    "[S]uccessful impeachment requires only a simple majority, 50% + 1. Conviction and subsequent removal from office requires a minimum two-thirds supermajority, or at least 67%, not any different from the desired poll numbers I noted in my original post."


    [ Parent ]
    But (none / 0) (#125)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 01:28:24 PM EST
    it was never really necessary to convict.

    Bringing the incredible level of malfeasance out in the open would itself have been a cleansing experience.

    There's also no telling what would have happened in the Senate after White House perfidy had been exposed for all the world to see.

    I suspect that many Republicans would have dug in anyway and conviction wouldn't have been possible, but, such resistence would have proven fatal to the GOP.  Perhaps no worse than has already happened at the national level, but, the state and local level, I feel, would been devastating, a seriously tainted brand.

    [ Parent ]

    I can't disagree with anything you stated. (3.50 / 2) (#94)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 05:32:47 PM EST
    Even if I could, I wouldn't, because you hit all the pertinent points.  However, I have a concern that government will come to a halt once the "hearings" begin.  On hold will be;
    1.  fixing the economy
    2.  stablizing financial institutions
    3.  affordable and accessable healthcare
    4.  energy independence and conservation
    5.  education reform
    6.  etc....
    We witnessed the paralysis of government during the "hearings" that occurred during another president's tenure (i.e., Monica).  
    While I would like to see each and every SOB who had a hand in torture, and the run to attack Iraq, have to address his/her actions (and on this I am quite Bipartisan), is there some way we can put this off until we fix/address what is already on the heavy agenda?

    [ Parent ]
    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#111)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 11:47:15 PM EST
    but Krugman can explain this far better than I can.

    [ Parent ]
    These (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 06:37:51 AM EST
    things may or may not happen whether anything is done on torture or not.

    And frankly, I wouldnt mind several things on your list failing like the Geither plan.

    The GOP is going to try to stop anything Obama does. Having hearings on torture isnt going to change that.


    [ Parent ]

    We have a Democrat in the White House. (none / 0) (#123)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 10:54:42 AM EST
    We have a Democratically controlled Congress.  In fact, we have a Clinton-esque president.  Shy a couple votes, a reality the first Clinton presidency lacked, we are positioned to get everything we have wanted since the original Clinton.  I couldn't be happier.  I got my second "Clinton presidency", even though it took me until Nov. 3 to decide to vote for this incarnation.  
    Seems to me we as party participants need to understand this.  Seems to me Obama (i.e., Clinton, redux) does understand.  What are the priorities?

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 12:19:38 PM EST
    I would be happy too but so far I haven't seen what you're seeing. I'm seeing a continuation of Busheconomics. No attempt to balance a budget. On healthcare he's caving already. I agree that it is an opportunity but Obama isn't using it.

    [ Parent ]
    HUH? (none / 0) (#126)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 01:36:38 PM EST
    Balance the budget?  Now?  Hooverism!  Healthcare?  Please pay attention:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/24/obama-repeatedly-reminded_n_191207.html

    "Obama also offered payback for that goose egg (...referring to a lack of Republican support for his stimulus...).  A major overhaul of the health care system, he told the Republican leadership, would be done using a legislative process known as reconciliation, meaning that the GOP won't be able to filibuster it.

    [ Parent ]

    He's (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 05:17:58 AM EST
    caving on healthcare on the details not "healthcare" reform. Probably all that's going to happen is he'll open up the Fed Employees Plan to the public.

    [ Parent ]
    True meaning of the PPUS (none / 0) (#14)
    by Spamlet on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:49:39 PM EST
    The "Democrat" Party is the GOP's beeyatch. Feel the love.

    If Democrats were involved, they should be held accountable ,too; to avoid investigations in order to shield them - and by extension Republicans all the way to Bush - reduces a significant human rights issue to a petty, partisan issue.


    [ Parent ]
    The more they say that, (none / 0) (#25)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:14:37 PM EST
    the less I believe that the Democrats hands were all that dirty.  But that doesn't mean I can't conceive of that possibility - just that the more they say it - the more I disbelieve it.  If they had evidence of the Democrats involvement, I find it hard to believe that they would not have released it at this point.

    [ Parent ]
    I think Anne may have identified the quid pro quo (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Spamlet on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:50:30 PM EST
    to avoid investigations in order to shield them - and by extension Republicans all the way to Bush

    And recall that some of the same Obama-backing Dems who might have been complicit with Bushco torture didn't hesitate during the primaries to alienate large numbers of loyal, longtime Democratic voters. Brave new party, no?

    [ Parent ]

    Honestly, I am not going to discount (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:18:03 PM EST
    the possibility that some Democrats were deep into this, but my antennae go up when Republicans march out with talking points with no evidence to back up their accusations.

    I do think that it is as possible that many Democrats are easily duped chumps and that they believe that they will be able to gain help in passing their agenda by not going after Republicans.  Of course, that won't happen.  But it is sadly very likely that a lot of them buy into that bs.  Fools.

    [ Parent ]

    I have felt almost grieving (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:24:45 PM EST
    after realizing that torture took place in an attempt to extract some sort of confessions that would or could justify Iraq.  The torturing took place after the suspects provided actionable accurate intelligence using "old fashioned" interrogation techniques.  It frightens the hell out of me.  Cheney and company had been in power before, what happened then that caused them to believe disgusting horrible inhumane abuse was theirs to use for whatever they chose to use it for consequence free?  

    Which is why I agree wholeheartedly (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:45:04 PM EST
    with Krugman that this should not just be about torture as a discrete and isolated situation, but as part of a much larger picture which includes the march to war.

    From what I have been reading, it seems to me that there was intense pressure to obtain evidence to justify the invasion - remember that the month-of-183-waterboardings of Mohammed was March, 2003 - we invaded Iraq on the 19th.

    Says a lot about what kind of case they had for war, doesn't it, that from early 2002 into well into 2003, there was this coordinated effort to devise and rationalize and implement a policy of torture.  

    With the pictures due to come out in a month, it's only going to get worse, and look worse and feel worse.

    Why can't anyone do the right thing anymore - when did that just get to be too hard to do?

    [ Parent ]

    Problem with march to war theory (none / 0) (#17)
    by bocajeff on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:53:33 PM EST
    If torture can extract false confessions, and they were tortured in an effort to prove a link between Iraq and 9/11, then why wasn't one made?

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know that we do not (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:17:25 PM EST
    know that one wasn't made.  Those false confessions would have more likely been used for a small audience - one like Congress.  We still don't know what was in the Intelligence Committee briefings; and we do not know that the Republican-only members' briefings (remember those?) entailed.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you remember the crap Cheney got away (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 04:33:41 PM EST
    with declaring during the ramping up of Desert Storm?  That b.s. about Iraqi tanks sitting on the Saudi border waiting for their orders to invade and there were satellite photos to prove it?  Later on when verification was sought it was discovered to be a big fat total lie with satellite photos to prove that nothing was there. But nobody focused on it overly much back then after Stormin Norman stormed in, booted Iraq out of Kuwait, and then the whole U.S. military did a victory dance home.  I think about how Cheney got away with that gianormous lie from hell that he used to ramp up his shouts for war, and then compare that to what went down here, and how eventually the press did start asking hard questions.  

    [ Parent ]
    Because torture generally (none / 0) (#95)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 05:37:33 PM EST
    does not work.  See breaking news from Washington Post that Military questioned legality and effectiveness of interrogation techniques early on.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure that the tortured... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Romberry on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 10:21:04 PM EST
    ...gave them what they wanted. The problem is that what they gave them had to be checked out...and it didn't...so they had to torture them again...and check it out...and when what they got didn't check out...they tortured them again...and 181 (or 81) times later...well...you get the idea.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, exactly (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by otherlisa on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:01:02 PM EST
    They tortured people to justify an illegal and unjust war.

    The depths of perfidy here...I can't even articulate it. But we need to keep hammering on this point.

    They tortured people to justify an illegal and unjust war.

    [ Parent ]

    When Cheney (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 11:55:43 PM EST
    and company were in power before they weren't in a position to set policy from the highest position.

    I believe that Cheney has always been a moral degenerate.  In the past he just didn't have the power.

    My problem is how a Dick Cheney slips through the cracks and ends up in a position of great power.

    [ Parent ]

    Bildeberg/NWO (none / 0) (#127)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 01:50:05 PM EST
    that's the only explanation I can come up with...

    [ Parent ]
    Excellent, Mr. Krugman. (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:40:38 PM EST
    He omitted the silliest rationale for not investigating/prosecuting.  Hey, if the Dems do that to the GOP, the GOP will turn around and do the same thing to the Dems.  

    I sure agree. That 'rationale' is really silly, (none / 0) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:59:17 PM EST
    if not delusional.  If some  Democrats think that not proceeding against alleged crimes by Republicans will some how shield them in future, they are really delirious.  It may well be, in my view, that before long some enterprising winger, Rush maybe, will be calling for Obama's impeachment for knowingly and complicitly allowing culpable torturers and their ringleaders to escape accountability.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:01:38 PM EST
    Republicans will prosecute Dems when given a chance, no matter what, with the entrenched media elite cheering them on. Didn't the 90's prove that?

    [ Parent ]
    Most War Crimes trials (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:17:28 PM EST
    are by the victors over the vanquished.  This is true going back to the trial of the Commandant of Andersonville by the Union forces.

    Same with Nuremberg.

    There has been very little prosecution of one's own war criminals....Here we are talking about high officials in the U.S. government.  If it were to happen, it would be history making.

    I would be delighted to see Cheney convicted of War Crimes.  He deserves it.  But I have a hard time imagining it happening...

    Unusual mix of commenters. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 05:10:15 PM EST
    Reminds me of the primaries somehow.

    Meanwhile, Helen Thomas isn't letting Mr. Gibbs off the hook re investigation.  See Huff Post transcript.

    How to Achieve "Never Again" On Torture (1.00 / 2) (#79)
    by capitalistfloridaboy on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 04:15:40 PM EST
    New to the site.....

    I still really don't understand why the left is so up in arms about waterboading. The bad guys are not hurt, only scared silly...who really cares? I don't think it comes close to what most would consider torture. Pulling out finger nails, electric shock...that's torture. Even if you don't like it, fact remains that the information gotten from those techniques stopped future attacks and saved American lives. I'm an independent and although most all of you all hate Bush, from my prospective he did a good job taking the fight to the bad guys and we were never attacked again in the eight years he was president.  Hope we will be able to say the same about Obama as his lack of any kind of leadership experience at any level makes me a little nervous to say the least. :o)

    Scared silly huh? (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 05:15:20 PM EST
    Who really cares?  I care.  My husband says that he cares because when you go to war the other side is always flat out wrong and people start dying.  If you want to literally talk about the eating nails side of why we don't torture, on the battlefield my husband claims that your only hope you have of maybe your own captured not being tortured is if you don't torture theirs.  Of course the other side could always choose to torture your captured soldier brothers or sisters, but if you don't want to lose that small tiny thread of inspiring some compassion for your own captured you never ever torture your captured enemy.

    [ Parent ]
    you may not consider it torture (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 05:21:50 PM EST
    but the geneva conventions do.  our government did until the Bush administration.  read some of the comments up thread.

    also, is it not true that there were deaths at some of those prisons?  do we know if any of those were the result of waterboarding?

    you said:

    "I don't think it comes close to what most would consider torture."

    in fact everyone in the civilized world considers waterboarding torture.  google it.

    [ Parent ]

    It is my understanding (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by lentinel on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 07:25:24 PM EST
    that when the Japanese did this to our soldiers during WW2, we considered it torture.

    [ Parent ]
    America may not have been attacked (none / 0) (#109)
    by of1000Kings on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 11:37:44 PM EST
    but thousands of great Americans still died on Bush's watch...but I guess they don't count since they died in another country...

    it's a sort of 3/5ths rule I guess...an American citizen killed outside the country is only worth 3/5ths of an American killed here...

    [ Parent ]

    Based on what Krugman said (none / 0) (#2)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:15:16 PM EST
    is to investigate how that happened, and, if necessary, to prosecute those responsible. . . [T]he fact is that officials in the Bush administration instituted torture as a policy, misled the nation into a war they wanted to fight and, probably, tortured people in the attempt to extract "confessions" that would justify that war. And during the march to war, most of the political and media establishment looked the other way.

    What is there to investigate? We all know what happened.

    Frankly other than the small universe that represents blogs, and the MSM who always has to find the flavor of the day to write about I hear no public outcry about investigations or prosecutions. I rather doubt the public has a stomach for that - especially during these difficult times. I believe peoples priorities are in a much different place than the blogs and the chattering class MSM.

    Beside why go though all the gyrations of investigating what we already know (Rice was the first)and take our focus off other things to MAYBE end up with legal prosecutions which would lead to guaranteed pardons from Obama? It would all be so counter productive.

    Politically for the Democrats to have their face seen as putting their focus on investigations instead of things that really matter in peoples material lives would be suicide. A sure loss in 2010.

    The fallacy is (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:19:12 PM EST
    that "knowing" by news accounts is not the same as knowing by the dent of sworn testimony before a government body.

    Nor do we know how this all came about.

    your premise is fallacious imo.

    [ Parent ]

    News accounts? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:38:35 PM EST
    And what is the news reporting? The official release of classified documents! Classified documents that not a single GOP'er including Cheney is denying the validity of.

    So what we have been reading in the news accounts is the same thing we would be seeing in the courts. What we have been reading in the news accounts is the same thing that people like Jeralyn have in their personal possession because it is now public information. And those documents tell us every thing we have to know.

    You don't know how this all came about? Have your read about Rice yet? Because that tells you right there how. It's in the NYT.

    There is nothing fallacious about what I said. Including the political implications that you didn't address.

    [ Parent ]

    You're missing the point (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Lacey on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:49:59 PM EST
    This is bigger than politics. This is about whether those in the highest levels of government and the military are subject to the same laws as everyone else. But this also about the credibility of the United States. How can the American government lecture ANY country on human rights abuses when it has tortured suspected terrorists. People seem to forget that these people were suspected terrorists. Basically, the government said 'you're a terrorist, we're going to lock you up, tell no one, allow you know counsel and torture you until we hear what we want to hear.' If that does not scare people than I don't know what will. This is not a cancer, this is a knife into the soul of the United States claims to stand for. To ignore it, or to allow simple news reports to be the only thing to discuss it, is unacceptable.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't disagree (none / 0) (#21)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:59:59 PM EST
    with the premise of your post. I am just looking at what Obama has already dog whistled and the pardons he is likely to issue if it got to that point. When he issues pardons that takes the entire exercise and makes a circus out of it in the end. Why go there?

    I also look at the political implications of it in 2010 and 2012. Too many here smell blood in the water and want to feast without looking at the waters ahead that feasting would lead to.

    Hey if prosecutions, with or without pardons, are more important to you than insuring victory in 2010 and 2012 then I think you need to rethink your priorities. Right now most everyone here is will to take their eye off the ball. The public who is trying to make ends meet is not in concurrence with you.

    [ Parent ]

    what makes you think (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by CST on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:37:01 PM EST
    that this issue will lose us elections or other important ground?

    You think people will be so mad about prosecuting torture that they will kick out the Dems?

    I have a higher regard for the American people than you do apparently.  If we wanted to keep on with Bush - era policies, than we would've elected a republican the last time.

    What are you afraid of, specifically?

    [ Parent ]

    What's that saying again . . .? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:46:01 PM EST
    Oh, yeah "It's the economy, stupid." That's what the next elections will hinge on. If the economy isn't on the right track . . . .

    [ Parent ]
    yup (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:51:15 PM EST
    it's not gonna be about "they went after those guys who tortured"  "we must kick them out"

    now, I think the 2010 mid-terms will be about the whether people think progress is being made rather than if it's fixed, but by 2012 things better be looking good.

    [ Parent ]

    Catchy campaign direction there (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:05:57 PM EST
    not.

    People need to be getting back to work, and feel like they can breathe again . . . . saying "glimmers of hope" or "a little bit of progress has been made" ain't gonna cut it. The Dems really need to make Main St important at some point soon. I think the banksters will sink them faster than torture.

    This argument that doing the right thing will lose elections is frankly pretty sick.

    [ Parent ]

    very sick (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by CST on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:30:09 PM EST
    especially with regards to something that is so black/white like torture.

    I can't believe we're actually having this conversation in 2009.

    [ Parent ]

    Like I said upthread (none / 0) (#99)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 07:06:09 PM EST
    Politically for the Democrats to have their face seen as putting their focus on investigations instead of things that really matter in peoples material lives would be suicide. A sure loss in 2010.

    You can also read Chitowndenny's post above as he bullet pointed it. 12-18 months or more of investigations that may or may not lead to convictions which would lead to pardons or slap on the hand commutations would be a waste and totally kill any other agenda, like the economy, the democrats would have.

    [ Parent ]

    So (none / 0) (#113)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 12:15:50 AM EST
    do you think that everyone in the administration will somehow be involved in the investigations, that they'll simply toss aside their assignments and become derelict in their duties because of an investigatiion into a subject they weren't involved with.

    An earlier commenter, it may have been you, made a comparison with the Clinton White House and Monica Lewinsky.  That really doesn't apply.  This White House would not be the target of a torture investigation.

    The distraction argument is unimformed and just plain ridiculous.

    [ Parent ]

    Based on your logic (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:24:32 PM EST
    Why have any hearings or investigations about anything at all?

    [ Parent ]
    That is a rather wide net you cast there (none / 0) (#12)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:44:57 PM EST
    I don't see how you can credibly attribute that wide a net to me.

    My premise is that you do investigate important matters that take an investigation to know about. That is not the case with torture. We know what happened and how it happened. The only thing left that some people want is prosecution. I don't think Holder will do that. And if he did I would bet on pardons from Obama. So what is the point? It would just end up being a political circus that would likely coast us in 2010. Are you willing to lose political ground just because you are pissed at BushCo?

    [ Parent ]

    You sound so sure of yourself, (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    based on 4 memos and a SASC report, that we know all there is to know.

    Amazing.

    I would venture to guess that if we knew the totality of what transpired over the last 8 years, we might have to all be on medication to be able to handle the horror of it all.

    You can close the door on this, but it won't stop it from festering, and it won't stop it from happening again.

    [ Parent ]

    I am sure of myself in that (none / 0) (#26)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:16:25 PM EST
    I don't have to know every creepy little detail of what happened to know what happened. Nor do I think it is wise for the entire nation to be on medications to be able to handle the horror of it all. You on the other hand seem to want to know every creepy little detail.

    We know what happened contrary to people who say we don't. The NYT Rice article laid it out pretty well. At this point the question is to prosecute or not to prosecute. I think Obama has made it pretty clear that he or Holder is not going to prosecute anyone.

    And if the press puts him in a political position that he has to prosecute a sacrificial lambs here or there he will either pardon them or commute their sentence. Meanwhile it sucks the air out of everything else that people here say that is important to them. They seem willing to toss aside that which they have said was important to them because there is blood in the water with Bush's name on it. Well guess what? Bush will never be prosecuted. Are possible sacrificial lambs worth tossing other important issues aside? Are they worth sabotaging two upcoming elections?

    I would suggest that people think about that.

    [ Parent ]

    I suggest that you think (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 12:23:16 AM EST
    about the fact that the only distraction of such an investigation would be media coverage.  

    Action on other matters can go forward.  This White House would not be a target of such an investigation and would not need to be distracted.

    As far as Republican cooperation in Congress regarding other legislation, I have to say that is a major joke.  They haven't cooperated anyway so what makes anyone think that they'll suddenly turn around.

    Your argument is ridiculous.

    [ Parent ]

    Selling your soul 101 (3.66 / 3) (#36)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:47:24 PM EST
    Catch 22 said:

    I don't have to know every creepy little detail of what happened to know what happened. Nor do I think it is wise for the entire nation to be on medications to be able to handle the horror of it all. You on the other hand seem to want to know every creepy little detail.

    It's not that I need to know every creepy little detail, it's that I want all the creeps identified - no more hiding for these people; if they believe so strongly in torture, let them stand in front of the whole world so we can all see who they are.

    We know what happened contrary to people who say we don't.
     
    There is no way, based on a NYT article, that you could possibly have the whole story; I want to hear the story from the participants, not newspaper and TV reporters picking through what they know and deciding what to share and what to hold back.

    The NYT Rice article laid it out pretty well. At this point the question is to prosecute or not to prosecute. I think Obama has made it pretty clear that he or Holder is not going to prosecute anyone.  

    No, the question at this stage is not to prosecute or not to prosecute; the question is, how can you make the best decision without all of the information?
    And if the press puts him in a political position that he has to prosecute a sacrificial lambs here or there he will either pardon them or commute their sentence.
     
    The press is not going to put him in that position, because I believe the press has gotten their marching orders from the WH and will be working overtime to frame this in strictly political terms.  They will do that because it's much easier to dismiss the issue when it is framed that way.  I seriously do not know why people can't see that - they do it all the time.  
    Meanwhile it sucks the air out of everything else that people here say that is important to them.

    If Obama has such poor leadership skills that he cannot focus on a legislative and policy agenda because there is an investigation going on, those poor skills are going to translate into more of a mess than a success, regardless of what else is going on.  
    They seem willing to toss aside that which they have said was important to them because there is blood in the water with Bush's name on it.
     
    I happen to think that Obama is likely to make a complete mess of the things I care the most about, so if he's not capable of doing it right, I might actually prefer to have him be distracted.  
    Well guess what? Bush will never be prosecuted. Are possible sacrificial lambs worth tossing other important issues aside? Are they worth sabotaging two upcoming elections?
     
    If there is any sabotaging going on, it is self-inflicted; I, for one, am fed up with voting for people who can't do what the people want and can't stand up for anything, caving on issue after issue.  
    I would suggest that people think about that.

    Thanks for the how-to on selling one's soul, but I think I will have to pass.


    [ Parent ]
    My Soul Is Just Fine Thank You (1.57 / 7) (#66)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 03:03:54 PM EST
    We already know who the main creeps are. You should read more and complain less. Reading gives you the information you seek.

    The participants! Again read more. The released classified information says a lot. Obviously like Jeralyn and myself you have not taken the time to read what is in the public domain. You say you want info but the info that is there you are too lazy to read. Talk is cheap. Trying reading

    How can you make the best decision without all of the information? I think Obama and Holder have all the information already. They have made their decision. How many times and how many ways do you have to be told that by them and others? What you want is a circus. You want a show. You want something with which you can come on here and complain about everyday for months on end because that is what you like to do.

    So go on and complain and see what it gets you.

    You skipped my full comment on 2010 and 2012. I'm glad I got through to partially you, but not completley. Unfortunately in your case Pavlov was correct about the phenomenon of temperament, classical conditioning and involuntary reflex actions.

    [ Parent ]

    Anne is a respected longtime commenter here (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 03:19:06 PM EST
    and you've been here since April 3.

    I sometimes agree with some of what you say, but your tone often bl0ws.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 03:32:25 PM EST
    He's been here a lot longer than that, it's just that he's been banned under any number of prior nicks.  Always with the same schtick about how he's no more insulting than anyone else yet he's the only one who gets singled out for punishment.

    [ Parent ]
    I suggest you stop (none / 0) (#76)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 03:54:55 PM EST
    with the personal lies about people. Slimming someone is trolling and a bannable offense. One more time and I will report you. I can dig up a bunch of troll comments you have made to me and other posters here that are pure personal assaults and nothing more starting with the last comment you made.  I warned you before and you even admitted the error of your ways. That will be my exhibit #2. One more time!

    [ Parent ]
    This comment is a classic example of trolling (1.00 / 1) (#103)
    by cymro on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 07:57:48 PM EST
    With any luck, an administrator will delete it, along with most of the others that are focused on you, rather than on the topic of this thread. And warn you to stop stirring, or risk being banned.

    [ Parent ]
    Please feel free (none / 0) (#88)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 04:48:59 PM EST
    to make more empty threats.  It's kind of like SERE training blog style.

    I actually find it quite bizarre that when you come back with a new nick after being banned, you consistently deny that it's you ("I'm totally new here! I've just been lurking for a while! How dare you insinuate!").  It truly does make me wonder if you're kind of nuts.

    [ Parent ]

    With all due respect (none / 0) (#77)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 04:04:01 PM EST
    I don't see in the rules here where seniority has anymore privileges than other poster.

    When someone says I am selling out my soul I take that as an insult. I imagine you would too. I didn't  mention that insult to her. I let it go. On blogs you have to have some thick skin at times.

    Anne says I insulted her. I don't consider telling her to read what is available an insult. I consider that a service. The best poster is an informed poster and it is obvious that she had not read the documents available.

    Thanks for reading.

    [ Parent ]

    I was not implying (none / 0) (#78)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 04:12:00 PM EST
    that seniority does or does not have special privileges. I was pointing out that your tone with Anne puts you greatly at odds with how she is seen by most other commenters here and makes you sound like a buffoon. Which is not to say that you actually are one.

    [ Parent ]
    IMO seniority does have its privileges (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 04:17:19 PM EST
    here.  Not referring to Anne, whose comments I find interesting.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm curious (none / 0) (#85)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 04:45:34 PM EST
    Just what those privileges would be?

    [ Parent ]
    Of course not (none / 0) (#84)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 04:43:17 PM EST
    Anne is a respected longtime commenter here and you've been here since April 3.

    You just said that because that entire statement meant nothing to you! Are you kidding me?!!!

    Look man I'm all tuned into this favorite posters and clique stuff on blogs. I let others play those high school games. I just stick to posting what I think and know from experience it makes some others think. I'm not your typical 'Me Too' poster.

    And yeah "...makes you sound like a buffoon. Which is not to say that you actually are one." Of course not. Nice way to insult me and then say you are not insulting me. LOL LOL Very funny. I file that away in the buffoon file.

    And of course her insult to me which I mentioned to you goes uncommented on by you - as if I wouldn't notice. Like I said high school cliques.

    [ Parent ]

    Good god (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Spamlet on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 04:47:59 PM EST
    Don't you have anything to do?

    [ Parent ]
    Was that a self-posed question? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 06:31:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Just so you know, the "1" (4.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 03:07:45 PM EST
    rating is for the insults that appear from one end of your comment to the other.

    That's the kind of commenting that gets people banned.

    [ Parent ]

    Just so you know , the "1" (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 03:18:07 PM EST
    is for your previous comment of me selling my soul. That was an out and out troll remark.

    That's the kind of commenting that gets people banned. And you offered yours with no provocation on my part. People who live in glass houses and all that...

    [ Parent ]

    Two things: (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 03:53:30 PM EST
    (1) I never said you had sold your soul - reading comprehension is your friend.

    (1) TL Comment policy says:

    New commenters, i.e, those registered for 30 days or less, may not post more than 10 comments in a 24 hour period.

    I think that means you are over the limit.

    [ Parent ]

    You said: (none / 0) (#82)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 04:24:03 PM EST
    Thanks for the how-to on selling one's soul, but I think I will have to pass.

    You can't get anymore of a direct insinuation than that, that I sold my soul. I consider my soul a pretty sacred thing and that you would mention it like you did I find terribly insulting. It is an attack on my religious beliefs. Pleas don't do that again or I will report you.

    As for your childish blog police behavior I will let your behavior in being a blog police speak for itself.

    As for my so called insults to you I did nothing more than say you should read more. That is not an insult. People post links here all the time for people to read and further educate themselves. The information is there if you want to read it.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh. for the love of God... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 06:16:01 PM EST
    You presented the choice: prosecution and maybe conviction of some meaningless sacrificial lambs v. "getting what we want."

    For me - ME - that trade-off is (a) not one I am willing to make and (b) equates to a recipe for selling one's soul; you obviously see it as something else - pragmatism, perhaps - I'm glad that works for you, but it doesn't work for ME.

    According to you, I should "read more and complain less;" interesting that you have missed my comments recounting what is in the SARC Report and my comments about what is in the memos.

    You said I was "too lazy" to read the info that was there.  Not only wrong, again, but a direct instance of name-calling.  You apparently find our news media well-qualified to tell us what is really going on; I think - and this is an opinion I am not alone in having - that the media have repeatedly shown us that they are not.  I prefer to get my information from sources that are as direct as possible, and not filtered through news divisions with an agenda, or reporters who would rather keep their access to the powerful than keep the powerful honest.

    And then, you compared me to Pavlov's dog - or at least I assume that was your intent in mentioning Pavlov's name.  Nice.

    As for being the "blog police," the comment policy is there for a reason, but I guess you were too busy to take note.  They aren't my rules, they are Jeralyn's.

    Thanks for playing.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (1.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 07:49:37 PM EST
    Sorry I went over your head. Anyone who would take what I said about Pavlov as just about dogs knows nothing of Pavlov or his very important and ground breaking research. One would have hoped that the words that followed Pavlov's name would have resonated with the reader but I guess I expect too much.

    Don't thank me for playing because I wasn't playing. Obviously you are from reading your last post.

    And I changed my mind. I want to to yell and complain as much as possible regarding torture and what you think will be done. That way when it doesn't happen you will have received a lesson in reality.

    [ Parent ]

    They don't want an investigation (none / 0) (#18)
    by bocajeff on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:55:02 PM EST
    They want convictions and punishment. The only way to get there is to have the investigations.

    [ Parent ]
    Well duh! (none / 0) (#22)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    No kidding. You think I don't know that?

    [ Parent ]
    I have this dream that I live in a country (none / 0) (#54)
    by of1000Kings on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:28:18 PM EST
    where not just the poor are punished for crimes...

    it is only a dream, though...

    [ Parent ]

    Jeez bocajeff (none / 0) (#115)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 12:26:54 AM EST
    how profound.

    I would suggest that if an investigation finds various people culpable then they should indeed be prosecuted.

    This is an issue that needs to be investigated come what may.

    [ Parent ]

    How should Drone Bombing Planes - The Kind that (none / 0) (#4)
    by TearDownThisWall on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:17:23 PM EST
    this administration is also utilizing- how should drones be investigated in the future?

    They were talking about this this morning on Morning Joe....and it seems to be a very relative point-
    How much investigating from one admin to the previous should take place?
    also- what is moral in times of "war"?

    Well, how about the Geneva Conventions (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Lacey on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:44:32 PM EST
    It's not as if there is not a legal framework to determine what is right and what is wrong during a time of war. the Geneva Conventions spell it out pretty clearly and nations have abided by most of those rules for some time. Besides, to ask what is moral in a time of war is a silly question anyways. There is nothing moral about war.
    This isn't about what is morally right, it's about the law and whether the actions of governments and individuals within government broke the law. All evidence very clearly states that yes, they did. And those who did so must be held accountable for it. Otherwise, every other law that is on the books is meaningless when it comes to the government.  

    [ Parent ]
    Upholding the law... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by mike in dc on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:51:44 PM EST
    ...and seeking justice shouldn't be a political decision.  "But we may lose seats" is akin to "but torture was effective", in my view.  Let the facts dribble out a few more weeks or months, until the public's attention is drawn to it sufficiently to register a real reaction.  Then let Holder appoint a special prosecutor.  18 months later we'll get the first wave of indictments.  I don't see any point in Obama pardoning anyone involved.  He can commute their sentences (ideally, to a year and a day, the minimum time for a felony offense) instead.  

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#116)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 12:29:18 AM EST
    Let's do this now.  DC calculations are what's gotten us into these messes.

    [ Parent ]
    There is nothing moral about war? (none / 0) (#20)
    by bocajeff on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:58:46 PM EST
    Now, who's being naive Kate.

    There are many "moral" reasons for going to war. I'm not saying that Iraq was moral. Just answering the philosophical question. Self defense is moral, isn't it? How about coming to the aid of family and friends?

    War, in certain circumstances, can be very moral.

    [ Parent ]

    The taking of a human life is never moral (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Lacey on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    Violence is not moral. Ever. It is selfish. It is one person determining their life, or the life of someone else, is more important than someone else's.
    As for being naive? Well, we've tried the war approach during the entire course of human history and seems that all we're left with is an increase in war and violence. It's doesn't seem to make much sense.
    So, if war is moral, than name one moral war in the entire history of the world.

    [ Parent ]
    Is it your opinion WWII was immoral (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:09:20 PM EST
    as to the Allies?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes it is (none / 0) (#29)
    by Lacey on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:18:02 PM EST
    The Allies fought only to preserve their society, their land and their own lives. They did so out of wholly selfish reasons. There was never protection for Jews, for Poles, for homosexuals, for anyone other than their own nationals. The Allies did not fight WW2 for any reason other than preserving themselves. And we often forget that the Allies did many horrible things to the German people, such as carpet bombing their cities on a scale the world have never seen. Or the fact the United States used two atomic bombs that killed innocent people for no other reason than it did not want to lose more soldiers.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CST on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:33:09 PM EST
    Even if you accept that framing, what exactly is wrong with this:

    "The Allies fought only to preserve their society, their land and their own lives."

    Heaven forbid they wanted to be in charge of their own lives and not have their families killed or be under a dictatorship.  Selfish indeed.

    FYI - I'm pretty sure most of us don't forget the atomic bombs.  Maybe the carpet bombings, but let's be frank, the German people for the most part understand that - and fought off the Russians pretty hard in Berlin (after they had already lost the war) so that they could get taken over by the western forces instead.

    Also, I just want to say that I do not accept this framing "there was never protection for Jews, for Poles, for homosexuals, for anyone other than their own nationals".  For many people that was true, but it varied pretty greatly by country.  The Danish for example managed to save 90% of their Jews despite being taken over by Nazis.  There were certainly many people on the allied side who didn't care about those things, but there were also those that did, and we cannot forget them either.

    [ Parent ]

    The problem with it (none / 0) (#48)
    by Lacey on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:06:35 PM EST
    Is that your life is no more important than someone elses life. And until people realize life is so precious that they will never take a life, even if it means sacrificing themselves and their family, than we will continue to have war.
    I still dispute the fact that WW2 was a moral war. There was much that could have, and should have, been done in the years and decade prior to fighting that would have prevented war from occuring.
    Of course the Germans wanted the West to take them over and not the Russians. The Russians were looking for payback because of the horrendous actions of the Nazis.
    And you are right, there were some very decent, brave people that did help Jews escape the Nazi horror. The problem is that the vast majority of the world didn't give a fig about the Jews before the war began.
     

    [ Parent ]
    that seems a little muddeled to me (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:14:25 PM EST
    yes its true the Jews were not helped my many people and in many cases when they should have been but you seem to be missing the point that the whole point of the third Reich was to take over the world.
    they were brutal fascists and would have loved nothing better than your take on war.  just hide and keep you morals in tact.  sometimes you have to resist brutality.  and more often than not brutality is the only thing they will understand.

    surely you are not suggesting people like the german fascists and more currently the Taliban should not be resisted by whatever means necessary.

    or are you?

    [ Parent ]

    The resitance should take the form of (none / 0) (#122)
    by Lacey on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 10:30:20 AM EST
    Non-co-operation. You simply do not co-operate with the occupiers.

    [ Parent ]
    "Yes it is" (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:49:20 PM EST
    so
    you would have preferred the fascists win?

    [ Parent ]
    "The taking of a human life . . . (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:26:29 PM EST

    . . . life is never moral"

    hairspray
    you just gave this comment a 5.  correct me if I am wrong but didnt you also give someone a 5 the other day for arguing in favor of the death penalty.

    if I am mistaken I apologize.  if not please explain
    how that is possible.

    [ Parent ]

    Steinback's East of Eden (none / 0) (#56)
    by of1000Kings on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:33:13 PM EST
    has some great thoughts about what it does to a man to teach him from the day he is born that his Religion teaches him that killing another human is one of the greatest sins and then trying to retrain that same person to believe that killing a man is fair in certain circumstances...

    it's a tough issue...

    to be Christian or not to be Christian...

    [ Parent ]

    I am completely and consistently (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:36:46 PM EST
    against the death penalty and have been for years.
    that does not mean I think we should not have defended ourselves and our way of life by any means necessary in 1941 or 2009.

    [ Parent ]
    btw (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:37:44 PM EST
    in my case "christian" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

    [ Parent ]
    i find (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CST on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:40:59 PM EST
    it's a lot easier to reconcile "nuance" without religion.


    [ Parent ]
    I just find it interesting that so many persons (none / 0) (#63)
    by of1000Kings on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:44:37 PM EST
    in this 'Christian' country never ask themselves whether they answer to God or the President...many have chosen the President over God...

    I don't blame them, for I don't have any of the answers either, but the point is still there...

    Obviously, as a people and a country defending ourselves was the right thing to do (dispatching any conspiracy theories about Hitler/BushCo/ClintonCo/RockafellerCo) but as an individual each person has to ask themselves who they answer to above all....

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:50:19 PM EST
    in my case, I would like to think I would have signed up for WWII.  I would have been terrified but the cause was, in my opinion without question, justified and I would have gone.
    but I came of age in the Vietnam era.  a war I would never have fought.  as it happened I lucked out with a high lottery number but, as I told my family at the time, I would have done whatever was necessary but I would never have gone.
    and I feel the same about the second Iraq war.
    the first, not entirely sure.
     

    [ Parent ]
    ok (none / 0) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:34:43 PM EST
     That's not a position that's going to do it (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 03:37:15 PM EST
    for everyone. "It's not worth it" is a compelling secondary argument.

    I suppose I can see how a 5 rating of this (which was in response to my statement that there is no humane way to take a human life and this being a statement that we should make the monetary argument) is not necessarily inconsistent.

    if that was your point, I agree with you.
    whatever it takes.

    [ Parent ]

    that comment was for hairspray (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:53:55 PM EST
    and just in case you missed it
    I apologize

    [ Parent ]
    Morality is individually/ personally defined (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 09:48:30 PM EST
    Lawful is defined by society.  Your personal opinions don't single handedly create the accepted social norms or the laws being enforced.  I wish it were that easy to create reality out of my own opinions.

    [ Parent ]
    I Was asking More about President O's use of (none / 0) (#41)
    by TearDownThisWall on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:56:46 PM EST
    Drone bombing...where it is pretty near impossible to not kill civilians.
    In the ladder of morality....which rung is higher?
    The rung of torturing a handful of suspected "evil doers"?
    or
    indiscriminate drone bombings which have killed hundreds of civilians in Pakistan (with whom the USA is not at war)so far?
    Bottom line- If This admin goes after GW Admin for torture....the next admin, should have a green light then, to go after the Obama admin for drone bombing.

    [ Parent ]
    then so be it... (none / 0) (#57)
    by of1000Kings on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:34:11 PM EST
    it's called checks-and-balances...

    and we need it for a reason (because generally individual humans are too weak to make the right decision)

    [ Parent ]

    Oh that was all such bunk. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:23:43 PM EST
    That was the most ridiculous bunch of bunk I've seen in a long time.

    "But what is war?"  Gimme a break.

    This really isn't hard.  Once you've got a prisoner in a secured place, you're not on a battle field anymore.  The rules of engagement change and that is widely accepted.

    [ Parent ]

    I assume this been posted? (none / 0) (#9)
    by NJDem on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:40:20 PM EST
    "Obama Resisting Push for Interrogation Panel"

    If this back and forth BS can only be understood as some political game, then I don't understand the timing.  The release of the photos is, IMO, going to break this wound open again and be like salt to those of us who really care about this issue.  

    I mean, would the Abu Ghraib story, broken when support for the war was high, etc., have had the legs it did if not for those photos?  I just don't get it...      

    Obama = government by trial balloon (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:52:24 PM EST
    in my mind. These days anyway.

    There is something to be said for that, but it is somewhat annoying, to say the least.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm reading Gore Vidal's (none / 0) (#67)
    by Joelarama on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 03:06:14 PM EST
    "Lincoln" right now, and wow do I see the parallels some have been drawing between the "Great Emancipator" and Obama.  Although I think those who draw the parallels do not have Vidal's Lincoln in mind; they are talking about the legendary "honest Abe."

    Vidal's Lincoln and Obama both appear to be masters of passive aggressive governing.  The fluctuations and trial balloons are consistent with that.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama scewed up in releasing anything (none / 0) (#31)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:26:44 PM EST
    The advisers who suggested that he do that should be fired. Look at the mess it has got him in - or maybe not.

    Maybe this was a calculated distraction. Look at the blogs and the press and what they are talking about. It's not banks. Who knows? But having observed Obama and the people who are in the administration I can't dismiss the distraction theory. If it was a calculated distraction then they hit a grand slam!

    [ Parent ]

    don't think anyone here has forgotten about (none / 0) (#59)
    by of1000Kings on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:35:36 PM EST
    the traitors in the financial industry...even if the media has (not that the media is worth anything anyway)

    [ Parent ]
    Didn't say "forgotten" (none / 0) (#69)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 03:09:12 PM EST
    I said people were not talking about it.

    Classic politics says if you want people to quit talking about something then change the subject. Whether by design or not that theory seems to be right on the money in the case of the banks and this blog. LOL

    [ Parent ]

    I was reading about how this came about (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 04:18:20 PM EST
    Don't know if there is any truth to it but the account I read said that he invited a debate about whether or not the memos should be released.  After the debate he authorized their immediate release.  If this account is true, it seems to be another moment somewhat like the one that scribe described about the original reporting of Abu Ghraib....a mouse click away/a nod or shake of the head.  Would he take it back now?  Maybe, probably,.....but thank God he can't.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD (none / 0) (#74)
    by kmblue on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 03:39:14 PM EST
    I thought you were against prosecution?  
    What did I miss?  tks km blue

    How to Achieve "Never Again" On Torture | 128 comments (128 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment