The people criticizing Obama and Holder are at least five chess moves behind them

[scheming daemons]

...and maybe some IQ points as well.


Obama needs to antagonize the low and mid-level CIA staffers like he needs a hole in the head.



...and I picked my metaphor carefully.

[knowbody0]

1. you think like I do.

[countingbluecars]

2. I think you are right. n/t

[vaberella]

3. If you're single, male, between the ages of 28-36, with a FICO score above 750...Marry Me?!

:rofl: I always love your posts.

[scheming daemons]

5. Male, 42, married, with 780 FICO.... 2 for 4....

;-)

[TTUBatfan2008]

10. Woah, you're old!

:P

For some reason based on your posts I always thought you were younger like myself (I'm 23). At any rate, seems as though you're "young at heart" and I suppose that's the important thing. :)

[scheming daemons]

12. 42 is OLD????? F*** YOU!

;-)

[TTUBatfan2008]

15. Yes, you are what I call an OG...

old geezer...

:rofl:

(don't worry though, I'll get there soon enough...the first 23 years has flown right on by!)

[vaberella]

22. My issue is really the married. I'm lenient on the age. My mum and dad had 15 years gap.

18 years ain't nothing but a number. Darn...married. Now I have to go to confession for fantasizing. ~sigh~

[TTUBatfan2008]

4. Bingo...

I've been saying it all night. Don't fuck with the CIA. They are one of the behind the scenes power brokers in this country along with the bankers and military industrial complex.

[rug]

6. Absolving torture to evade assassination is brilliant chess?

Screwy point.

[scheming daemons]

9. Sorry.. he's not absolving torture

Interrogators were told by their bosses (the administration) that waterboarding was legal.

You go after the administration folks who determined the policy, not after the grunts that carried it out.


And I'm not saying the CIA staffers would commit assassination.... but they might not work quite as hard to prevent it.

[rug]

20. No, I believe I stated your post correctly.

[dflprincess]

23. "I was only following orders" didn't work at Nuremberg

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

The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl", literally "order is order") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named.

Before the end of World War II, the Allies suspected such a defense might be employed, and issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which specifically stated that this was not a valid defense against charges of war crimes.

Thus, under Nuremberg Principle IV, "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes, although it might influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty. Nuremberg Principle IV states:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

The United States military adjusted the Uniform Code of Military Justice after World War II. They included a rule nullifying this defense, essentially stating that American military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders. This defense is still used often, however, reasoning that an unlawful order presents a dilemma from which there is no legal escape. One who refuses an unlawful order will still probably be jailed for refusing orders (and in some countries probably killed and then his superior officer will simply carry out the order for him or order another soldier to do it), and one who accepts one will probably be jailed for committing unlawful acts, in a Catch-22 dilemma.

All US military personnel are supposed to receive annual training in the Law of Armed Conflict, which delineates lawful and unlawful behaviors during armed conflicts, and is derived from the Geneva Conventions, a subset of international law. This training is designed to ensure that US military personnel are familiar with their military, ethical and legal obligations during wartime but proof of military personnel receiving this training is difficult to substantiate and is often not received.

[scheming daemons]

28. Administration lawyers deemed waterboarding as LAWFUL according to Geneva

The operatives, according to the highest lawyers in the land, were NOT in violation of the Geneva Conventions and weren't breaking the law.

That's what makes it different than Nuremberg.

Read your last paragraph again. The determination was made, by those at the TOP of the executive branch, that waterboarding was not an "unlawful behavior".


The people that made that determination are the criminals here.

[Political Heretic]

40. Following and illegal order isn't a defense.

Simply saying something is legal when it isn't doesn't absolve one from guilt. Nuremberg taught us that.

[dflprincess]

49. Exaclty. (eom)

[leveymg]

55. Karl Schmidt - the state makes the law, whatever the state orders is legal

Your defense that "the highest lawyers in the land" said it was legal doesn't hold water. Karl Schmidt, Nazi Germany's chief judge, said the same thing. It wasn't true then, and it isn't now.

Torture is torture. No reasonable person would believe otherwise. These guys are guilty as sin.

The fact that the current Administration won't, as a matter of policy, go after the "knuckle-draggers" who actually carried out the orders may be smart, but it isn't founded in law as we traditionally understand it. It's based in politics and power. It takes the concept of discretion to a place where neither Telsen nor Dworkin would recognize it.

If, indeed, they go after those who gave the orders will also be about politics and power. But, that would show intelligence if not integrity.

[Supersedeas]

31. so now CIA staffers would conspire to allow the assassination of a sitting President

the bosses gave the interrogators guidelines

Interrogators may wall detainees one or up to thirty times -- was there the potential for abuse even under the abusive guidelines -- absolutely.

But, if uncovering abuse means assassination or worse...a lower IQ...well, maybe we are a Nation of Cowards....low IQ Cowards.

[scheming daemons]

36. It's not like they haven't done so before

[Dawgs]

7. Thank you. I tried writing the same thing, but failed.

I'm glad I found your post.

:hi:

[glowing]

8. If you are ever detained and facing toture, I'm sure the last thing you'd be thinking of

is Chess.. Life is not chess. This whole world is getting just a little too crazy.. The wingnuts are protesting taxes, when they got a tax break. We throw money at big banks, and more people lose their homes. up is down, down is up.. and if they tell you we must play chess while the world burns with injustice, I guess its ok.

[scheming daemons]

11. If I were detained and facing torture, I'd want the BIG FISH to fry...

...not the low level staffer who was told it was legal.

[Duer 157099]

17. Me, I'd rather the little fish not do the torture in the first place

because he was afraid of doing the wrong thing and having to account for it.

I'd know that there's zero chance of the big fish actually getting his hands dirty by torturing me himself.

[scheming daemons]

25. The administration lawyers deemed waterboarding to be legal

The criminals here are the administration. Not those who were told to proceed because what they were doing was LEGAL and NOT TORTURE (according to the executive branch - the ones that actually EXECUTE the laws).

[Political Heretic]

42. They could deem rape legal too and guess what it still wouldn't be

and the people raping people would still be subject to prosecution, and their claim "I was just following orders, some lawyers told me this was legal" wouldn't matter a damn.

[Me.]

45. Exactly

Saying the sky is green doesn't make it so. They knew what they were doing was wrong which is why they destroyed the tapes and records and lawyered up.

[dflprincess]

27. I think if you (or anyone) were detained and facing torture

you might want the big fish to fry once you were free and the ordeal were over but when it was happening you'd be focused on those carrying out the torture. I imagine you would hate them with every fiber of your being and want them punished as well.

[katandmoon]

13. So they get a free pass for breaking the law because Obama's AFRAID of 'em?

That really says a lot about Obama.

[scheming daemons]

18. Um.... no.

Antagonizing low level interrogators for doing something that White House lawyers told them was LEGAL serves no purpose but to antagonize the very people who are on the front-lines in PROTECTING the United States and her interests - including the Administration itself.

They wouldn't commit assassination.... but having the CIA in turmoil internally means that they wouldn't be able to do a very good job of preventing it.

[TTUBatfan2008]

30. "They wouldn't commit assassination..."

Yes they would. They've done it before.

[Duer 157099]

14. Your post burns with irony

on the one hand you imply that the "low and mid-level CIA staffers" are not the real target, and on the other, you seem to suggest that they are the ones who hold the power to do something truly awful.

They're too small to be held accountable for their deeds, but too big to piss off?

Is that it?

[scheming daemons]

21. Nope... that's not it

They are the folks that are the eyes and ears PROTECTING the United States and her interests..... one of those interests is foreign threats to the POTUS.


Throwing that organization into turmoil leaves America's interests....including the POTUS.... in danger.

[Duer 157099]

26. I suggest to you that if indeed throwing them into turmoil is involved

then you have to admit that they have been in that position at least once in the past -- when the torture was actually occurring.

Or do you suppose that the prospect of being held to account for their actions is more provocative than actually conducting torture?

I suppose that the agency was in a deep state of turmoil when those memos were being sought, and written. And yet they somehow managed to (we suppose, at least) do their jobs of protecting the US (and interests).

Unless you mean they would *deliberately* do or not do something.

[Metta]

16. Who's in charge? Fear and intimidation or the rule of law? What countries come to mind?

He needs to take people off the streets if he's been threatened. But he's rewarding bad behavior instead. Happy karma.

[Cha]

19. It figures..maybe

more.

[depakid]

24. Hardly. The pattern of behavior at DOJ extends well beyond this specific instance

[bigjohn16]

29. Those low level CIA staffers are torturers.

If they tortured people they need to be prosecuted. Fear of assassination is not a good reason for him to ignore the rule of law. It goes far beyond President Obama, it's about the future of America and our standing in the world.

[scheming daemons]

33. Not

Not according to the law, as it was interpreted to them by the lawyers representing the executive branch.

The low level CIA staffers were not "breaking the law", if the highest law enforcement official in the land was assuring them that it was not illegal.


Policemen "get off" all the time on charges when it can be shown that they were following approved procedure.


This is the same thing.

[bigjohn16]

38. It wasn't the law. It was a perverted interpretation

of the law. I was just following orders is not a viable defense no matter the situation. If what they were doing can be proven to rise to the level of torture then the individual agents broke the law. If a person can say "I was just following orders," then why not "I didn't know it was against the law?" Torture is against the law according to TITLE 18,PART I,CHAPTER 113C of the U.S. Code. Just because someone says it's legal doesn't make it true and if there is a chance it's not they have to be investigated not given a free pass.

Corrupt police procedures is a whole different conversation.

[scheming daemons]

41. "I was told by the Attorney General of the U.S. that it was legal" *IS* a valid defense

...in American law.


As to this:

"Torture is against the law according to TITLE 18,PART I,CHAPTER 113C of the U.S. Code."


The highest lawyer in the country, the Attorney General, told them that waterboarding was NOT torture. So that part of the U.S. Code was not operable.

[bigjohn16]

46. Can you give precedent for that defense?

It was not the law it was an interpretation of the law. If no wrong doing took place then the CIA agents will be found innocent but there needs to be an investigation.

[brentspeak]

48. Do you get paid to spam DU with your apologist crap?

[scheming daemons]

51. Do you get paid to pretend you're a Democrat but work to undermine this President?

[brentspeak]

52. I don't carry anyone's water, Myron.

Now answer the question.

[Political Heretic]

32. If you're going to call people stupid, you should at least get their concerns straight first.

Obama saying the DOJ would not prosecute people following orders in torture is only upsetting because if this statement:

"nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."

That statement certainly seems to imply that there won't be prosecutions for anyone, on a serious criminal investigation. Now, the statement doesn't say that, and inferences can be wrong. The my interpretation of the statement could be incorrect. But it certainly is worrying. It's certainly not what I want to hear from my president. I want to hear "we will place the rule of law and the principles of our constitution front and center, and go wherever defending those principles takes us. If prosecutions are warranted there will be prosecutions."

[scheming daemons]

35. Holder's statement seemed to indicate that the higher level folks are not immune

to prosecution.

[Political Heretic]

39. I certainly hope so. But I'm deeply troubled that the president KEEPS saying we shouldn't look back

He's said this over and over again, and it just seems strange to me to be saying that and then jump to criminal prosecutions... which is what needs to happen.

[GeorgeGist]

34. The Nuremberg Defense is not a chess move, and ...

I don't believe you need my 143 IQ to see that history already rejected that bullshit.

[scheming daemons]

37. Nuremburg defense comparisons are bullshit

A. The Nuremburg defendants were not "low level"
B. The crimes they were convicted of WERE clearly unlawful based on the Geneva Conventions


In this case, based on the definitions and interpretations of the Geneva Conventions by the highest legal authority in the land at the time, the actions taken by the CIA were not unlawful.


The crime here is in the interpretations made by executive branch of the law.


The CIA interrogators, according to the highest authority they could ask at the time, were being told that waterboarding was not unlawful. To hold them accountable for performing a lawful act after being told it was lawful by the Dept of Justice lawyers, is assinine.



Now... holding those "higher ups" who determined that it was legal to account *IS* a valid goal.

[amborin]

44. it's not clear nuremberg defense issue is relevant here, and

these operatives may have willingly tortured....

but whether willingly or simply folowing orders, situation is different: there are huge practical consequences to investigating and prosecuting the cia operatives involved

[Elidor]

43. So much for the rule of law!

Stand back, Obama's playing chess!

[havocmom]

47. evidently, you don't play

mores the pity

[starroute]

50. Some interesting stuff from Wikipedia

It seems pretty clear that the Nuremberg Trials targeted top Nazi leaders and other members of the German elite who were in a position to give orders, and that their crimes were along the lines of waging aggressive war, mass murder, wiping out entire villages, using slave labor, abhorrent medical experiments, and so forth. The really big stuff.

I don't find anybody down at the bottom of the "only obeying orders" chain being accused -- and Chuck Yeager, no less, wrote after the war that Americans would have been as guilty along those lines as Germans.


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

The Nuremberg trials were a series of trials, or tribunals, most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of Nazi Germany after its defeat in World War II. . . .

The war crimes tribunal tried and punished personnel only from Axis countries. Accusations arose claiming victor's justice, since Allied war crimes could not be tried. . . .

However, General Chuck Yeager writes in his autobiography that some air corps missions were probably war crimes, (specifically, the 'shoot anything that moves' missions in the German countryside) but he, and other pilots, went on the missions in order to avoid court martial for disobeying orders. He also said he hoped the allies won the war, otherwise they might be tried for war crimes. . . .

The indictments were for:

1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3. War crimes
4. Crimes against humanity


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_Trial

The Doctors' Trial (officially United States of America v. Karl Brandt, et al.) was the first of 12 trials for war crimes that the United States authorities held in their occupation zone in Nuremberg, Germany after the end of World War II. . . .

The accused faced four charges:

1. Conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity as described in counts 2 and 3;
2. War crimes: performing medical experiments, without the subjects' consent, on prisoners of war and civilians of occupied countries, in the course of which experiments the defendants committed murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts. Also planning and performing the mass murder of prisoners of war and civilians of occupied countries, stigmatizated as aged, insane, incurably ill, deformed, and so on, by gas, lethal injections, and diverse other means in nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums during the Euthanasia Program and participating in the mass murder of concentration camp inmates.
3. Crimes against humanity: committing crimes described under count 2 also on German nationals.
4. Membership in a criminal organization, the SS.


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

In the Milch trial, former Field Marshal of the Luftwaffe Erhard Milch was accused of having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The indictment was presented on November 14, 1946. The charges against Milch were summarized by Michael A. Musmanno (one of the tribunal judges) as follows:

1. Erhard Milch is charged with having knowingly committed war crimes as principal and accessory in enterprises involving slave labor and having also willingly and knowingly participated in enterprises involving the use of prisoners of war in war operations contrary to international convention and the laws and customs of war.
2. The defendant is accused of having knowingly and willfully participated in enterprises involving fatal medical experiments upon subjects without their consent.
3. In the third count the defendant is charged with responsibility for slave labor and fatal medical experiments, in the same manner as indicated in the first two counts, except that here the alleged victims are declared to be German nationals and nationals of other countries.


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

The Hostages Trial (or, officially, The United States of America vs. Wilhelm List, et al.) was held from 8 July 1947 until 19 February 1948 and was the seventh of the twelve trials for war crimes the U.S. authorities held in their occupation zone in Germany in Nuremberg after the end of World War II. . . .

The accused faced four charges of having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity:

1. Mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Greece, Albania, and Yugoslavia by having ordered hostage taking and reprisal killings.
2. Plundering and wanton destruction of villages and towns in Greece, Albania, Yugoslavia, and Norway.
3. Murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war, and arbitrarily designating combatants as "partisans", denying them the status of prisoners of war, as well as their killing.
4. Murder, torture, deportation, and sending to concentration camps of Greek, Albanian, and Yugoslav civilians.

[mmonk]

53. I think it's we the people who have been check mated.

[lamp_shade]

54. It blows my mind how many people here can't see this. It just blows my mind.

[mwb970]

56. I used to think of DU as consisting of smart people.

Now I'm not so sure. First it was the Hillarybots, now it's the hate-Obama crowd. What kind of forum is this, anyway?