So let me get this straight here.

[Occam Bandage]

Today Obama announced that the pro-transparency forces within his administration had won the battle. Despite the CIA's fierce protests, he would be releasing documents showing in detail the torture in which the agency engaged. These memos will certainly badly damage both the morale and the credibility of the CIA, but Obama has made a principled stand in favor of transparency.

And, of course, as is the case with all things that one would expect DU to be happy about, this latest victory for transparency has sent DU into frothy conniptions of rage.

Why? Well, you already know: because the specific CIA agents who were told by their superior officers that what they were doing was not torture, and who appealed to the Justice department and were then told that what they were doing was not torture, are not going to be prosecuted for carrying out orders that the United States Department of Justice specifically and explicitly found lawful, but which the current administration has found unlawful. The problem is not that Obama has excused the people who ordered torture or that Obama has excused the people who concocted the legal justifications for torture, but that Obama will not attempt to imprison for torture the people who were told through every channel available to them that their actions were not torture.

Just to make this absolutely clear: DU is angry that Obama is not directing the Department of Justice to prosecute and imprison people for believing the explicit statements of the Department of Justice.

And this is apparently comparable to Obama embracing the justifications by high-ranking Nazis for the Holocaust, which is why people are angry upon learning that Obama has released the memos in exactly the same format that people were strongly and angrily demanding last night.

Awesome.

[leftstreet]

1. I can't find the link to that Scottish lady singing that song

:D

[Patsy Stone]

11. ...

:spray:

[Richardo]

69. !!

:rofl:

[debunkthelies]

102. Go To

You Tube and type in Susan Boyle in the search a lot of videos of her. She's awesome.

[classof56]

110. Just listened to her recording of "Cry Me a River". Wowser!

Rivals Julie London's IMHO.

[geek tragedy]

2. Summary:

Some people spend their lives looking for an excuse to complain.

That's what the ignore list is for.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

90. You're on a roll this week.

Keep it comin', geek! Keep it comin'!!

[MADem]

3. Yep. Boggles the mind. No matter what he does, he's going to catch shit for it. NT

[Richd506]

94. It seems like there's an anti Obama cult as well as a pro Obama cult

[MADem]

100. The former are a bit more obnoxious than the latter, though.

It's not too hard to ignore "Oooooh, look at the puppy, aren't the kids cute, doesn't Michelle look like Jackie (no, she doesn't)... isn't Barack .... DREAMY?" posts... those are just gaggy. You roll your eyes and proceed.

The other team, though--a few of those can be simply vicious--the ones that are so absurdly OTT because Obama hasn't given some whiney nitwit everything they dreamed of, and particularly when they get mad about things he never even said he'd do, like "get out of Afghanistan--he PROMISED!!" Why no, he didn't...he promised quite the opposite. Those posts are plain idiotic. Whining for the sake of whining. Look at me, I MATTER, and I want to get everyone all excited and arguing!!! That might as well be the subject line, because that's what the idea is.

The guy has been in the job for three months. He's done a lot. He's not perfect, he wasn't even my first choice, but I can see the glass as at least half full (maybe sixty two percent full). The constant carping over minor shit that's blown up as though it is major gets tiresome. I never realized there were so many dumb people in the world, actually--or perhaps these few aren't all that dumb--they could well be from the right side of the field, coming here to, as Ricky Gervais says, indulge in a bit of "'avin' a laugh."

[mmonk]

4. So if someone commits a crime in your neighborhood, if the police

just show the details of the crime publicly and don't arrest them, that will be all that is required?

[Pirate Smile]

7. You are missing a critical piece. It would be something the police told them was legal and then

the police directed them to do it as part of their job.

[Occam Bandage]

12. That is absolutely correct. I cannot imagine anyone approving of a situation in which

the police command a person to do something perhaps illegal, the person asks the police if it is legal, the police department says "yes," the person asks the local courts and is told it is legal, the person does it...and then a new police commissioner shows up, claims it isn't legal after all, and then throws the person in jail.

[Pirate Smile]

16. That doesn't even deal with the practical realities that the police commissioner would need people

in the same position as the person they told to do the legal then illegal act to work with the police commissioner to keep the town safe. (That part of the analogy doesn't work out very well - but Obama still needs the intelligence community and CIA doing their jobs)

[truedelphi]

30. The problem for me is that I don't care about pro-transperency as much as

I care about pro-morality.

Torture is wrong. Period. It might be different if we did not have the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremberg Trial as a litmus test for these items.

And beyond morality, as McCain was fond of talking about, is the fact that if we get to torture someone else's troops, then how in god's name can we ask that our troops not be tortured?

[Occam Bandage]

32. Indeed torture is wrong, and nobody has ever doubted or denied that, at any level.

That isn't what's in question here.

[truedelphi]

36. You say, further down,

Except we're not talking about the people who are at fault here.
The CIA agents were lied to by a corrupt President, a corrupt CIA director, and most of all a corrupt Justice department. They were led to believe that they were not engaging in torture by the DOJ. For the DOJ to then turn around the next election and say "whoops, we got that wrong, now we need to throw you in jail" would be absolutely bizarre.


So if there could be an illogical aND PERHAPS IMMORAL REASON TO not throw those who tortured other humans into jail, becuase after all, they were doing these things at the behest of someone else, then what good did it do us to hold the Nuiremberg trials? After all, many of those people were simple camp commandants and they were simply following orders.

But even if we should all agree that we need to not prosecture the lower level "employee", why in the world can we not go after the senior officials at Bush/Cheney HQ's. Including Bush and Cheney.

[Occam Bandage]

41. Who said we couldn't go after Bush and Cheney?

The comparison to Nuremberg is shoddy. The DOJ had specifically claimed that waterboarding was not torture.

[Mojorabbit]

52. Every child in school

is taught about world war 2 and the geneva convention. No adult CIA member did this without knowing that it was really illegal no matter what the lawyers were saying. They knew they stood a chance of being prosecuted for this. A small chance but they knew it.

[truedelphi]

98. Plus for some of these people, they could always change jobs. After all,

It's not like Bush could send them to the front lines to fight in the Battle of Leningrad.

So many of these people had clear choices. As someone who personally knows of at least one Pentagon official who could not stomach the Bush immorality and inefficiency, and who resigned, I have not got that much patience for people who could have left their jobs and gone somewhere else.

Clearly I am not talking about the "grunts" who make their paltry $ 1300 a month, but people higher up in the chain of command.

[ArcticFox]

107. Seconded

You make good points. But doesn't military law require a soldier to disobey an unlawful order? In fact, didn't the Bush conspirators convict some grunts at Abu Gharib for following the Bush conspirators' unlawful orders?

[truedelphi]

109. Wow! That is an excellent point. You say:

In fact, didn't the Bush conspirators convict some grunts at Abu Gharib for following the Bush conspirators' unlawful orders?

Hadn't thought of that.

[defendandprotect]

134. Except you are ignorning the fact that torture has always been illegal ---

Granted we can hold hearings and find out if our soldiers have been reverse-
engineered to brainwash that knowledge from them, but certainly older military
officials know that soldiers should know about the Geneva Accord and army rules.

And, there is also the precedent of Nuremberg trials.

Now, if you want to say that soldiers were tricked by corrupt officials -- fine.
Let's look into that!

Meanwhile, we still have to deal with the corrupt officials.

However, a gold star to Obama for releasing the memos.

[MadBadger]

139. True, but what constitutes torture was different in the Bush administration

[defendandprotect]

154. No . . they attempted to corrupt the Geneva Accords, the Constitution and Military laws .. .

but they are all anti-TORTURE .... !!!

Constitution . . . "no cruel or unusual punishment" ---

Now tell me again there isn't such a thing as personal conscience ---

tell me that if someone ordered you to slice someone's penis with a razor

blade or pull their nails out that you'd do it?

And how about even under Bush's Nuremberg Laws? Would you have believed them?

The Founders recognized and wrote about CONSPIRACY between presidents and vice presidents ....

I doubt they failed to consider conspiracy between them and their hired underlings ---

although they still can call themselves lawyers and judges!!!

They should be impeached and/or disbarred!!!

[proud2BlibKansan]

155. So it's okay to torture children?

Is that what you are saying? Because the powers that be said it was okay?

[defendandprotect]

158. So you're saying these are things you'd do . . . ?

because a lawyer or judge had OK'd these things on a piece of paper?

[silverojo]

21. Who cares if they were directed to do it?

No sane person would obey such orders. If someone ordered them to kill their own children, would they have done that, too?

[Occam Bandage]

23. I might well say "no sane person would join the CIA." That's meaningless.

The question is whether they had ample reason to come to the conclusion that their actions were unlawful. People cannot be expected to pore through case law and then construct an infallible opinion when it comes to the legality of their actions, especially when (as in this case) there has never been any specific decision made. They simply rely on lawful authority to inform them whether an action is lawful or not. The Federal government would absolutely fall apart if people could not rely on the decisions of the Department of Justice as to the legality of specific acts.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

93. Forget that you would lose your job.

I know what your response to that would be.

Imagine if your employer was known for its clandestine activities and could cause you and your family irreparable harm and having no recourse whatsoever to stop it. They might or might not actually do it, but you know that they could.

If you can do that, then maybe you'd have an idea what it would be like to disobey orders from the CIA. You might risk your job and your career for morality, but would you risk yours and your family's lives?

If you still honestly would, you're a better person than 99% of the world.

[kas125]

45. That critical piece being slamming people's heads against

walls and putting them into coffins with scorpions? Yeah, sure, they should have ignored their OWN judgment and everything they've ever been taught about right and wrong and done those things just because someone told them it was okay.

[jberryhill]

66. The Law doesn't do "right and wrong" or "personal judgments"

The law does the law.

It is a poor guide to personal morality.

[defendandprotect]

136. Exactly . . . and it's exactly what the military wants . . . robots surrendering conscience...!!!

They want kids too young, or too inexperienced, or so thoroughly brainwashed

that "right or wrong" doesn't even occur to them! Simply kill, murder, torture!!!

These older military officials who certainly know better -- who know the Geneva

Accords and know the Nuremberg trials -- and know that "just following orders" was

rejected by the US after WWII -- should be on trial!

[tblue37]

137. kas125, you wrote:

"putting them into coffins with scorpions? "

I have not seen that info. Where did you find it? Wow, if that is true it is almost more horrifying than anything else I have read!

[jberryhill]

64. Almost, but not quite

It would require the *prosecutor* to tell you it is legal. The prosecutor formally issuing you that opinion - not ordering you to do it, either.

[moodforaday]

81. Still not a defense

that will keep you out of jail. If a police officer tells you you can shoot anyone entering your property without your permission, I don't think it will be much help to you if the actual law in your state says you can't.

[Occam Bandage]

8. Except we're not talking about the people who are at fault here.

The CIA agents were lied to by a corrupt President, a corrupt CIA director, and most of all a corrupt Justice department. They were led to believe that they were not engaging in torture by the DOJ. For the DOJ to then turn around the next election and say "whoops, we got that wrong, now we need to throw you in jail" would be absolutely bizarre.

[kas125]

47. Do you really expect people to believe that they didn't KNOW

they were torturing people against ALL laws of civilized people? If you believe that, you're more delusional than they are!

[jberryhill]

68. The laws of the civilized people of the United States

...state that you are entitled to rely upon the formal opinion of the DoJ as to what the DoJ will and will not consider illegal for the purpose of prosecuting you.

That is what the law of the civilized people of this country says.

[high density]

74. You need to read the memos

The law is in those memos. Whether or not we agree with that Buscho interpretation doesn't matter. Holder can't retroactively change what these memos said.

[Raineyb]

180. The law is not those memos

Those memos are a perversion of the law. And even these disgusting interpretations are unconstitutional.

Regards

[katty]

112. exactly, unless one is so,so far gone-a person does know

the difference when they see torture or engage in torture themselves.

[HughMoran]

9. In the fantasy world of silly hypothetical arguments, yes

Your continuing and never-ending snarkasm is not helping.

[mkultra]

128. its called ex post facto you fucking moron

Its in our constitution

Article I, section 10, clause 1
Article I, section 9, clause 3

[kid a]

5. you got it!

:crazy:

[rockymountaindem]

6. I watched an amazing Frontline video about the Office of Legal Council

which is the body of legal beagles in question here. Apparently the power they can wield in the executive branch is really second to none. They can even tell the President to stop doing things. The video was about the wiretapping controversy, but I think the same goes here. If the CIA people involved were told by the OLC that certain practices were legal, I understand why they would have believed they were fully legal. That is why they did not believe they were obeying an illegal order... from what I got out of Frontline, if the OLC says it's legal, everybody seems to operate on that assumption. Therefore, the CIA agents believed they were shielded.

Now, President Obama has apparently not ruled out prosecuting those at the OLC who told the CIA this was legal when it in fact may not have been. I agree that those are the people who are really responsible for this problem. I'm going to withhold judgment to see if/how that pans out. And good on the White House for making good on its promises of transparency.

[Shanti Mama]

63. Exactly. Give him time. He's aiming high.

[defendandprotect]

138. Certainly everyone at the CIA wasn't born yesterday and knows TORTURE is illegal . . .

despite what any court may tell them in their alliance with a corrupt administration!

And second to none, is personal conscience -- a sense of humanity.

If all else fails . . . "Do unto others . . . "

You'd have to tell me that our courts, lawyers, president and all of CIA were below

the age of reason before I'd believe anything like that!!!

In fact if you read the response to the administration by one of the lawyers, it's

saying, "I'll custom make the torture you want to do legal for you!"


PS: See Rachel Maddow on this tonight re Federal Judge Jay Bybee authored one of the

torture memos.... How about impeachment of this judge?

[empyreanisles]

10. K&R, my friend

[Clio the Leo]

13. Yay! more kicks for the folks who get it!!!! NT

[katandmoon]

14. There is no way these CIA torturers didn't KNOW it was torture. They did it ANYWAY. NO legal

"justification" is enough to cover their asses for torturing human beings under their control.

[Occam Bandage]

17. They knew it was waterboarding.

The question was whether waterboarding amounts to torture. They were told by the Department of Justice that it specifically and emphatically was not--which is not to say that it was not painful (as they were all well aware), but rather that it was the opinion of the DOJ that it did not cause lasting harm and so was legal. The new administration disagrees with this, as do a great number of people, including you and I. However, I don't believe it's fair for a government agency to prosecute people for following the rules explicitly set by that very same government agency.

[rhett o rick]

88. I disagree completely. These torturers knew what amounts to torture without some

half assed interpretation from Gonzon on the back of an envelope. I would like to see these people in front of a jury explaining how they thought Gonzo explained that near drowning is not torture, or that repeatedly slamming someones head into a wall or hanging people from ceilings, is not torture. These people that can do that are not normal people, they can't be. To put people in a tiny box and add insects and listen to them scream isn't normal.

And what about those that died at the hands of these torturers? Were the torturers following orders or not? Was death allowed? Apparently. And how about the torture of children?

These torturers knew full well what they were doing was wrong. Sorry, just following orders doesn't cut it.

[defendandprotect]

140. In fact, didn't Judge Jay Bybee confirm that it could produce "imminent death" ... but go ahead,

anyway---!!!

I think we're seeing the same foot dragging and denial we saw when the TORTURE was
first revealed to us and so many failed to acknowlege it as torture!

Later they had to do so . . . but again, what they can deny, they will!

[cali]

15. excellent, excellent piece. k&fuckin'r

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. Speaking for myself, I am pleased by the document release

And I do not think the Obama administration has endorsed the Nuremberg defense. (And feel quite strongly that nobody should ever be prosecuted to make a point, and since these folks couldn't be convicted of anything...)

But a lot of the usual suspects who would offer a knee-jerk defense if Obama nuked Disneyland have, in fact, been embracing the Nuremberg defense on its face as an ethical construct. (As opposed to a practical feature of reliance on official legal opinion in US law.)

And if Obama reverses himself tomorrow I'm sure those same posters will all devote their lives to fighting the terribly unjust prosecutions they didn't know they were even against until this afternoon.

(I assume you know this is not a back-handed reference to your OP which is perfectly reasonable though, IMO, somewhat misdirected. The venom doesn't always come from thin air. I am not kidding about the defense of the Nuremberg defense on its own terms.)

[jberryhill]

42. "mbracing the Nuremberg defense on its face as an ethical construct"

But is that surprising?

Demanding an arbitrary level of moral development from a group of several thousand strangers is a tad much.

But do keep sharing, eh?

[grantcart]

19. Well they are angry about that and the fact that with in the first 100 days nobody is in jail yet.

Of course the main point is that everyone in the world now knows the facts of what happened and that this government is committed to make sure that it could never happen again is of no interest.

He is remaking this government at a break neck speed. I never expected he would cover so much ground this fast.

[Muttocracy]

20. Ron Reagan had an interesting theory on the radio this afternoon

that it might be very smart not to go after the lower-level folks if that will encourage them to testify against higher officials later.

What I didn't like was Obama's phrasing of "This is a time for reflection, not retribution." I figure justice is somewhere in the middle of those two.

[Occam Bandage]

22. Even setting aside testimony against higher-ranking officials,

the CIA is a necessary organization. If Obama were to prosecute the lowest rungs for following orders on reliance of both the CIA and the Department of Justice, he would certainly spark an enormous backlash across the entire agency. Would you choose to work for an employer that might decide to imprison you for following its own rules whenever it changes its mind about what is and is not an acceptable business practice?

[Muttocracy]

24. I don't know - I take this as going far beyond a "business practice"

as the consequences are more severe, and to me anyone allowed to work for the CIA or Justice should have passed the not-a-psychopath test and should have enough moral sense to realize torture is torture. I'm wary of the "just following orders" defense, and our military has provisions of not committing war crimes even as lower-level soldiers, don't they?

[Occam Bandage]

26. Torture isn't a black-and-white thing.

Soldiers are supposed to disobey unlawful orders, yes. There is a clear difference between "shoot that unarmed woman" and "do not shoot that unarmed woman."

But in cases like interrogations, there aren't natural lines provided by nature or the conscience. There are dozens and dozens of potential interrogation techniques. Some, such as dismemberment, are obviously torture. Some, such as bright lights, are obviously not torture. And most fall in between somewhere. Waterboarding is famous because it seems to fall more or less between the two--many see it as torture, and some others do not. It does not cause permanent injury (anyone at risk of being captured, such as fighter pilots, is waterboarded as part of their training), but it is psychologically terrifying. On the other hand, manipulating a person's psyche to the point of breaking it is the very intent of interrogation. And on the other hand, some acts are excessively traumatizing to the point where the infliction of trauma seems to be the primary result. Sorting through this is not something that is so easy to do that one could expect that everyone who is not a psychopath would come up with the exact same list of what interrogation methods are torture and which are not.

To decide what is and what isn't torture, then, the DOJ had its teams of legal experts analyze and draw up definitions: clear, black-and-white guidelines as to what precisely was legal and what precisely was not. One of the methods in particular, waterboarding, was found to be legal. The new President has declared that it is not legal after all. Prosecuting CIA agents for accepting the DOJ's analysis seems a bit unfair to me.

[Muttocracy]

29. I imagine in modern combat (Iraq, Afghanistan) the military isn't black and white either

will the woman or the old man call the people who will shoot at the soldiers? Did they put out IEDs? I watched part of a Frontline documentary or something like that set in Afghanistan and it was very blurry who was on what side.

I haven't followed this closely, but I thought there was a prior U.S. determination that waterboarding was torture - maybe after WW II?

I hope at least there is a thorough investigation of how the DOJ came to conclusions that seem pretty far out of the gray zone to most people.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

34. I don't know why bright lights is obviously not torture

How bright? For how long?

Part of what troubles me about this whole business is that dismantling a personality isn't considered torture. A lot of the stuff people find comical is, to me, much more menacing than a slap in the face.

If the choice is between slapping someone versus manipulating their brain chemistry (externally) with the goal of convincing them their God has renounced them and time is running backward the second seems far more sinister.

My parents slapped me sometimes. They never locked me for months naked in a cold bright lit room with blaring music for the express purpose of rendering me insane.

I would hope a court would take custody of a child more readily for the later than the former. No?

[Occam Bandage]

39. *shrug* Then replace "bright lights" with "a slap to the face" in my previous paragraph.

As for your body text? Interrogation is sinister thoroughly and deliberately. The very point is to induce a person to provide information against their will. I'm not going to weigh in on whether I find interrogation itself to be unacceptable.

[onenote]

57. You just proved the OP's point.

Maybe shining bright lights in someone's face can be torture if its done for a certain period of time. But not torture if done for less time. So how is the person directed to engage in the interrogation supposed to know. If he's told shining a light for 10 seconds is okay but anything more is wrong, but then a later administration comes along and says the maximum should be 5 seconds, should the interrogator be prosecuted?

[defendandprotect]

141. Right... I was listening . .. wasn't he suggesting that IMMUNITY could succeed in bringing out . .

testimony about how this came down the chain of authority and the names of the higher

ups responsible?

[tkmorris]

25. I have a bit more respect for the CIA than that

Those agents aren't dumb. They know that waterboarding didn't just appear in 2002, it has a long history of use and has always been held to be illegal. A US soldier was in fact court martialed for doing it in Vietnam IIRC. I suspect they knew pretty much the same thing we did; a practice long illegal was now being declared legal using dubious logic by an overly politicized DOJ at the behest of the White House. Nothing about the practice had actually changed, the White House simply declared the rules were different now. Further, it doesn't end with waterboarding. I have a hard time imagining a field agent being able to keep a straight face while reading instructions for the proper (and legal) method for bouncing a prisoners head off a wall.

No sir, they knew. I think most of us in such circumstances would have refused to carry out those orders no matter WHERE they originated, knowing full well it meant at the least forfeiture of our career, but I cannot say I am surprised some did not.

Having said all of that, I don't think pursuing prosecutions against those field agents accomplishes anything at all really. In fact, I don't think we could get any convictions, given the level of reassurance they were given that they had legal cover. Any attempt to prosecute in the current environment would be highly controversial, and would likely piss away whatever advantage Democrats have in the court of public opinion right now. I think the best we can hope for is that details continue to be released about what was done and more importantly who issued the orders to do it. If we can find information and expose it to suggest that the DOJ etc. were requested to find a legal argument to allow torture, rather than arriving at the conclusion independently, we might have some ammunition to go after those at the top. Even then it isn't good politically until the majority of the public demands that they do it, otherwise it looks like a witch hunt. I am hoping that is the reason for releasing the information in the first place, in the hopes that it will anger people enough to force Obama to do what he cannot do without their backing.

As for the agents themselves I suggest that while we not pursue legal action against them, nonetheless their careers should be over. They do not have the proper temperament or moral grounding for the positions they hold.

[Muttocracy]

31. well said

:thumbsup:

[defendandprotect]

142. Precisely . . . who would think anyone in CIA was that unknowing, that naive . . . ????

[Political Heretic]

27. No, not quite.

DU (and of course its not DU, its the opinion of some) is angry because of the statement that follows the announcement that the DOJ would not prosecute CIA persons:

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

Some feel that this statement, fits a pattern of statements that seem to indicate this administration is not interested in holding anyone accountable for the crimes committed by the executive branch - war crimes, by the way, and certainly crimes against the letter and spirit of the law.

[Occam Bandage]

28. That's meaningless fluff.

One might interpret that just as easily as meaning "Obama says that he won't ever prosecute anyone for any crimes of any sort committed by anyone anywhere ever." Politicians say feel-good shit in grand, sweeping terms all the time.

[Political Heretic]

33. Well I hope so.

:shrug:

[whatchamacallit]

183. What?

They are clear statements of intent, not to pursue prosecutions. What audience would "feel good" about such a position? If they don't mean it it's better to say nothing at all.

[amborin]

35. why don't folks do a little legal research on torture indictments and trials?

there's a huge scholarly lit on this

and the main conclusions seem to be that war crimes trials---and torture kind of fits under this rubric---don't act as deterrents....

pol pot was not deterred by the Nuremberg trials, e.g.....

and they don't really serve as retribution, since nothing is enough to compensate....

and they don't lead to reestablishing the rule of law or appropriate legal norms.....

so....



the bottom line is: people need to study up more before issuing the condemnations

[Muttocracy]

40. is there a difference within vs among countries?

I mean that looking within Germany over time vs. looking at Germany vs. southeast Asia might be different? I dunno.

[dorkulon]

91. Nothing is enough to compensate, so do nothing?

That makes sense.

[scheming daemons]

37. Occam... BRILLIANT summary... you hit the nail right on the f-ing head

...

[cliffordu]

38. And as far as the planners of the torture, he lets a little more evidence out

every couple of weeks or so....turning up the heat....


Just like boiling frogs.

[Egnever]

43. Passion seems to win out over logic here every time lately

Its starting to freak me out.

[Jersey Noir]

44. I for one welcome the change!

I am happy Obama released the information. I am not upset that charges are not being brought against those who engaged in torture. This is because they were under orders. I would rather see Obama go after those who issued the orders from the very top *cough* BUSH *cough*

[Egnever]

49. Welcome to DU!

It may even be that he is releasing this info to help spain build its case against the bush thugs.

[Jersey Noir]

61. Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome Egnever.
Yes, Obama could be building a bigger case for Spain. He may also just be bringing the all the facts to life, so that we ourselves can make the case against the true culprits. We have 4 years to get this right, I don't understand why everyone wants to rush and risk fucking everything up!

[EFerrari]

46. Are you f#cking kidding me?

Who needs to be told that slicing a penis with a razor blade is torture or is not torture?

I hope you have some kind of therapist that can unwrap you when you turn yourself into a pretzel in this way.

[Egnever]

48. I am starting to think you have lost your marbles

There was another thread where it was explained to you quite clearly what is legally at work here yet you choose to ignore that and just keep throwing insults.

Aren't you cool on your high horse with no regard whatsoever for the actual laws of this country.

You don't want rule of law you want rule by vigilante

[EFerrari]

50. Torture is illegal. That isn't my high or low horse.

That's the law.

[Egnever]

51. sorry its not that clear cut

no matter how much you wish it was in your simple world. What constitutes torture is defined by the folks in charge, unfortunately the geneva convention and yes the Constitution were both ambiguous enough to allow wiggle room.

Hopefully that will change but as it stands now I say again you have no interest in what the law actually is only the rage you want to take out on someone.

This is the law


http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html...

§ 18.02 Reasonable-Reliance Doctrine (Entrapment by Estoppel)



Under both the common law and Model Penal Code, a person is excused for committing a criminal offense if he reasonably relies on an official statement of the law, later determined to be erroneous, obtained from a person or public body with responsibility for the interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law defining the offense.


"Official Statement" – For a statement of the law to be "official," it must be contained in:


1.) a statute later declared to be invalid;
2.) a judicial decision of the highest court in the jurisdiction, later determined to be erroneous; or
3.) an official, but erroneous, interpretation of the law, secured from a public officer in charge of its interpretation, administration, or enforcement, such as the Attorney General of the state or, in the case of federal law, of the United States.


Even if a person obtains an interpretation of the law from a proper source, that interpretation must come in an "official" manner, not an offhand or informal manner. For example, a person may rely on an official "opinion letter" from the state Attorney General, formally interpreting the statute in question.


If you want a case citation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment#Entrapment_by_e...

As described in United States v. Howell, 37 F.3d 1197, 1204 (1994), the defense "applies when, acting with actual or apparent authority, a government official affirmatively assures the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant reasonably believes that official."

It is a form of entrapment because first the DoJ says "it's legal", and then you get indicted by the DoJ for doing what the DoJ told you was legal.

[Spazito]

62. It has been rather fascinating to read some of the posts...

demanding, in effect, President Obama and his administration, ignore the law, as iterated in your post, and prosecute anyway. There is a sad irony, imo, in that they do not see they are demanding that which was condemned, and rightly so, when the Bush administration did it.

There also seems to be no recognition that the law, again as iterated in your post does not apply to those who deemed the illegal acts to be legal and assured, in this case, the CIA officers their acts were legal.

[EFerrari]

96. You do know, right, that those memos were produced four months

after CIA had already been torturing prisoners?

But, fine. You want to leap to justify torture, be my guest.

[mix]

122. KUBARK

look into it

[jberryhill]

72. SO IS ENTRAPMENT!

You pick what laws you want.

You want the prosecutor to say "Hey, pal, it's okay to do X" and then throw your ass in jail for doing X.

The ends don't justify the means. That's the larger point here. You want to throw out a rule of law to preserve some other rule of law.

[PeaceNikki]

76. Thank you.

It's not rocket surgery, ffs.

[EFerrari]

97. The means do matter. What neither you nor I considered yesterday

is, as Scott Horton reminded this morning, those memos didn't exist when CIA started torturing. So, CIA didn't have the legal cover they are now claiming at the time.

[jberryhill]

131. What I've mentioned repeatedly

is that chronology, scope and other considerations matter.

The administration's statement has been they will not prosecute in cases of good faith reliance.

Clearly, the Obama administration's statement excludes situations in which the behavior was not done in good faith reliance on an OLC opinion.

[EFerrari]

165. How does one torture in good faith? n/t

[jberryhill]

171. Once more with feeling

One doesn't torture in good faith.

One who is not a lawyer relies on a legal opinion of what is supposed to be the nations top law enforcement authority, stating that an action is legal, and relies on that legal opinion to perform that action.

The "good faith" is about whether someone honestly relied on the legal opinion.

The ACLU has said the same thing - there are a number of factors which bear on the viability of the entrapment by estoppel offence.

Let me ask you this... You arrive at an event somewhere and you are looking for a place to park your car. The police officer in charge of controlling traffic for the event waves you over to a parking spot and says, "It's okay to park your car here."

You say, "Oh, okay, I didn't think I could park over there", and park your car where he said you could park it.

As you walk away from your car, you see that cop pull out his citation book and start writing you a parking ticket.

That's what we are talking about here - the DoJ prosecuting people for doing something the DoJ said was legal.

Is that fair?

I know... I know... Maybe I don't belong here, but I'm one of those old fashioned "liberals" who is always on about so-called "rights" of people who've been accused of crimes...

[cali]

54. you're the one that needs a therapist

or something. And you need to understand that something this major doesn't happen instantly. very, very all American "I want it now. I want it the way I demand".

[Hell Hath No Fury]

71. I feel like I have walked through the looking glass here --

The excuses, the justifications, the tortured legal reasonings -- it is mindblowing. :wow:

All because the President is a man with a "D" after his name.

Shameful, truly shameful. :cry:

[noiretextatique]

86. it's predictable, like the freepers who supported bush, inc

regardless of the crimes it committed. true believers are all the same.

[PeaceNikki]

87. Absolute horseshit.

Obama is right not to attempt to prosecute the field personnel. They weren't just following orders, they went to the DoJ for clarification. If DoJ tells you that you are within the letter of the law, you can't be prosecuted for what they told you was legal. That's entrapment. The people who ought be prosecuted are the ones who proclaimed illegal acts to be legal.

[jberryhill]

172. You silly liberal - we are talking about criminals here - don't go on about defenses

Criminals have no defenses - haven't you heard?

[EFerrari]

106. Creepy, isn't it? Obama did well to release those memos.

And now he can do better. The real malefactors at the moment are not in the Executive branch but in Congress. The Torture Congress needs to get off its @ss and do something about this.

[biopowertoday]

118. Obama cut them off at the pass by providing lawyers for their

their defense--should anyone in Congress go after them.

[EFerrari]

125. That will blow up on his administration. This isn't going away. n/t

[biopowertoday]

164. I do not think this issue is going away either as much

as the WH wants to bury it and 'go forward"

[mix]

120. yes it is, astonishing...

n/t

[Egnever]

175. No all because the law matters

Stop being a tool, No one is saying that torture shouldnt be prosecuted. What I am saying is it would be damn near impossible for the US to prosecute the specific people Obama mentioned.

Stop playing ignorant either you want to follow the rule of law or you dont. You cant pick and chose the laws you want to follow and theres a ton of precedent that says these guys walk. Your outrage not withstanding.

Send em to the hague and you wouldnt hear a peep from me. The US because of shrubs DOJ would have little or no chance of getting convictions and would waste a huge amount of money were they to try.

Try to remember Obama is a lawyer as well and understands the law. Even if you dont. His statement was carefully worded.Try to stepo back from the uniformed outrage and look at the reality of the legal situation. Just cause you are mad doesnt mean you get to change the rules.

[defendandprotect]

143. Who?

I would presume it's those who denied that we were torturing in the first place ---

despite all the evidence to the contrary!

A lot of denial even here at DU!

[HamdenRice]

53. You're correct. Most people don't understand the effect of a "legal opinion"

I wrote about the effect of Justice opinions here yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8347886&mesg_id=8347886

[mix]

124. Do you understand that legal justification was given

after the torture began?

[defendandprotect]

144. Great point . . . and also very like the wiretapping having begun 7 months before 9/11--!!!

[defendandprotect]

145. Do you think anyone in Germany thought that the Nuremberg Laws were legal?

This is a big game of pretend going on here --

and we're supposed to believe that Judges can make up down and down up?

No -- torture has always been illegal -- !!!

[Kdillard]

55. Nail on head. K and rec.

[jewishlibrl]

56. CAT: "An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification"

Article 2 of the Convention Against Torture:

An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

[jberryhill]

60. That's not what's going on here, but thanks for playing

The DoJ opinion was not an order, and is not being invoked as an order from an official justifying the torture.

Maybe you want to live in a system where the DoJ can say to you one day "X is legal" and then the next day the DoJ will indict you for X.

Most people recognize that as entrapment, when they care about the law instead of results.

[alcibiades_mystery]

67. They are not relying on an order...that's why they went to the Justice Department

:shrug:

If they were simply following orders, they would not have sought clarification from Justice.

[defendandprotect]

146. That's also the lesson of the Nurember Trials . . . which

Obama has ignored.

And any Judge or lawyer who has conspired with the administration should be

impeached and/or disbarred!

[jefferson_dem]

58. Why do you hate 'Merca...

Just wonderin'.

[Jennicut]

59. Of course the lower level CIA agents were torturing but it was declared legal by the Justice Dept.

Prosecute those at the top, the underlings carried out the orders they did not set this in motion. This is not equivalent to the top Nazi officers. This is similar to Abu Ghraib where the military officers were prosecuted and NO ONE at the top got anything done to them. So those kids are in jail now. It seems so stupid and pointless when those really responsible got nothing.

[EFerrari]

114. There was no legal cover at all for months.

Memos came AFTER the torture, not the other way around.

[alcibiades_mystery]

65. They were supposed to *know*, through basic human understanding,

and contra any explicit advice given them by the United States Department of Justice, that their actions were illegal, despite the explicit statements of the United States Department of Justice to the contrary. Because that's how laws work, see? Even if the highest body for determining the legality of various actions states that they are legal, you still fall back on your basic understanding of legality! So they all should have resigned immediately!

Ignoring clear statements as to legality, and falling back on basic human understanding, by the way, is now referred to as "rule of law." Just for clarification. The rule of law is now defined as the rule of basic feeling.

:sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

147. No . . . the military is supposed to be trained in our nation's laws --

and military laws -- all of which say, TORTURE IS ILLEGAL!!!


And, just a reminder that our Constitution says . . . "no cruel or unusual punishment" . . .

[Richardo]

70. Occam Bandage, you always cease to amaze me

Thanks for another common-sense, factually accurate post. :patriot:

[shagsak]

73. It's like having mom tell you to have a cookie

then when dad gets home he is upset that you had the cookie and thinks it was wrong of you to eat it.

Should he:

A) spank the shit out of you until you vomit the cookie up
B) give you a slap on the wrist and ground you for a month
C) Do nothing since you technically had permission from the proper authority to eat said cookie.

Sounds like a no brainer.

[Bjorn Against]

121. So are you comparing torture to eating a cookie? If so that is a horrible analogy.

[shagsak]

159. really?

One person gives you an order. You follow it. Someone else comes along and tells you that the first order was wrong.

Who is at fault? You or the person who gave the original order?

Maybe you should just go get a cookie.

[Bjorn Against]

167. Taking an order to eat a cookie does not exactly rise to the level of taking an order to torture.

And to answer your question both people are at fault, read about the Nuremberg Trials "just following orders" is no excuse for committing human rights violations. How anyone could compare torture to eating a cookie just boggles my mind, seriously that analogy is absolutely disgusting.

[shagsak]

168. If everyone who is taking orders questions those orders

you lose the chain of command. In military terminology, you lose the integrity of entire organization - the chain of command is the glue that holds your military together. That is why not following orders has dire consequences during war time (court marshall, convictions, prison time, etc.).

Are you seriously comparing the torture of known criminals responsible for initiating war on US soil (which granted, is a violation of the geneva convention and therefore against the rules of war) in order to acquire information that could save lives, to the needless and sensless slaughter and genecide of the Jews, and the subsequent trials (they were tortured, killed by the thousands for doing nothing but being Jewish in order to "cleanse" the population) of the evil do-ers. And you're charging that my "cookie" analogy was disgusting?

Your passion appears to be in the right place, convict those who have done wrong. But you refuse to look at what the military system entails. Going after the douchebags who committed the acts is a waste of time. If they were not ordered and allowed to do it, they wouldn't have. Other, more important individuals need to be brought to justice. Convict the decision makers, the people in charge and the people who were not only permitting this type of behavior but ordering it.

[Bjorn Against]

170. First you need to get your facts straight. The people being tortured NEVER attacked the US.

Just because Bush says these people were plotting against America does not make it so, and it is common knowledge that torture is NOT effective at getting evidence that could save lives. You watch too much 24 if you think torture is effective, because all historical evidence proves that it is not. Nuremberg set a legal principle that continues to this day, and it can be applied wherever there are grave violations of human rights it is not and was never meant to be limited only to Nazi Germany.

[jberryhill]

173. The point is - the orders WERE questioned....

...and those questions were answered by the DoJ legal memos under discussion.

The question at that point then becomes whether the person is entitled to rely on the official answer they received from the DoJ about legality.

Those that actually relied in good faith on such opinions have a defense.

[defendandprotect]

148. It's a no brainer re cookies . . . it's ignoring reality re torture . . .

You have the Geneva Accords -- are you saying that the children running our CIA
just weren't up on it?

Are you saying that the military officials had no idea of Geneva Accords nor
Nuremberg trials rejection of "just carrying out orders" . . . ???

And, no lawyer, no Judge, no one in CIA or anywhere ever heard that our Constitution
bars "cruel and unusual punishment" . . . ?????

[shagsak]

160. not at all

The people who were making the decisions should definitely be held accountable. But how far down would you like to prosecute? Do you hold everyone involved, top to bottom, and let them burn?

If that's the case, I'm pretty sure there were plenty of attacks on civilians in Iraq where the soldiers were following orders and oblivious to what they were actually doing. Should they be prosecuted for those deeds as well? Or are we limiting the scope to torture?

I assume working for the CIA would be similar to the military (I obviously don't know for sure) in that you follow orders or you don't have a job - or worse. Since I don't have all the facts all I can do is speculate. I could be wrong.

[defendandprotect]

162. Oh, we're "burning" them if we prosecute them? I didn't know that .. .

will it be "burning at the stake" or a barbeque?

No one was making "decisions" --- people were corrupting our government, our courts and

our laws -- including our Constitution.

Let's hold hearings and find out what the experiences of the underlings were --

Have our young soldiers - often now criminals themselves -- not received education in

the Geneva Accords and military rules barring torture? If so, who made that decision?

In Iraq, our soldiers are frequently shooting Iraqis "on sight" --- including children.

What kind of education does it take to recognize that's wrong?

What military official wouldn't understand that no matter who told them to do it, giving

orders to their troops that's it's OK to cut a prisoner's penis with a razor would not be

legal no matter who is telling you to do it?!

Yes -- the military would like to totally get rid of personal conscience and turn everyone

into robots. However, that's why we have the Geneva Accords. And military regulations

against torture. And the precedents set at Nuremberg Trials where the US REJECTED any

concept of "just following orders."

As far as the CIA is concerned, unless they're 12 year olds, I also doubt that they'd receive

instructions like this and not completely understand it's wrong!

And, you can always ask yourself the question . . . would you have cut someone's penis with

a razor blade? Would you have participated in waterboarding? Would you have sicced dogs

on naked prisoners?

If you're answer is "No" ... congratulations, you're smarter than any CIA member?

[shagsak]

163. lol

Burn would be a metaphor for prosecute - but you knew that.

Yes, people were making decisions to torture. Otherwise, they would have made the decision not to. It's either or and it isn't rocket science. People make the decision to break the law all the time.

I appreciate the detail you've gone into that specifies the criminal acts that were done to make your point. However I still havent seen anything that shows the chain of command in how these acts were carried out. If you want to prosecute the guy who sliced the dudes penis, understood. What I want to know is how and by who's tongue was that order commanded. I want that guy, and his boss, and his boss. I wouldn't settle for the little guy on the totem pole, I want the fucking foundation.

When you go after drug dealers you don't settle for the user. You use the user to get his dealer. Then you use that dealer to get the supplier. It sounds like we want the same things, except you want them all to "burn", I just want to roast the big dogs.

[defendandprotect]

169. I thought "burn" was an intended exaggeration . . .

and I think you know that --

Yes, people were making decisions to torture. Otherwise, they would have made the decision not to. It's either or and it isn't rocket science. People make the decision to break the law all the time.

The Geneva Accords of which we are a party, indicate the decision was made long ago - not to torture.

The right-wing have, literally, have make a "decision" to suspend our Constitution.

That's what Ollie North was working on.

Will that also be something you'll accept?

Or something you'll expect our CIA and soldiers to accept?

However I still havent seen anything that shows the chain of command in how these acts were carried out.

What? As far as I recall, Bush has acknowledged Okaying torture ---
And these memos seem to make that still clearer.

All of those higher ups responsible should be held responsible.

And anyone else who did any of this torture -- with the whole thing thoroughly
explored by Congress. Whether a higher up or a lesser in the military, the nation
has to know exactly what happened and corrective measures need to be taken.

Needless to say, any judge or lawyer who took part in undermining the Geneva Accords or
Military laws should also be prosecuted -- disbarred/impeached.

I don't know where you got the idea that I ever suggested that only those who took orders
should be prosecuted?

And, it is exactly why those who can tell us what happened should be given immunity,
if necessary.

The first part of this is investigations to get the full story.


Again -- this wasn't decision making -- it was an attempt to corrupt our laws.

And that includes our Constitution which also bans "cruel and unusual punishment."

[dolo amber]

75. If I could recommend this thread 1000 times I would

THANK. YOU. :patriot:

[Peacetrain]

77. Excellent points

[appal_jack]

78. K&R!

Occam sums this up nicely. The Obama admin. deserves huge credit for releasing basically unredacted documents. The light of day on these doc's will help to prevent any instances of future torture. Credit should be given: this is real hopeful change.

Those who are calling for prosecutions of CIA officers and agents do not get it. A good leader DOES NOT ask his 'troops' (defined loosely) to take the fall for the misdeeds of those at the top. Prosecutions of CIA officers and agents at this time would decimate the US intelligence infrastructure, while leaving the real criminals (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, etc.) out of reach. This would not do us any good as a nation.

People need to be held accountable for this un-Constitutional and un-American torture, but those people responsible are the ones who orchestrated illegal policy, not those who were under orders to implement it.

-app

[EstimatedProphet]

79. Very well put

[sam kane]

80. War Crimes. Don't care if their Mommy said it was okay. nt.

nt.

[ItNerd4life]

82. Excellent points and well said! nt

[Phx_Dem]

83. Simply awesome.

Nice post btw.

[mwei924]

84. Honestly, this place will always find something to bitch about...

People just don't care unless all of their demands are met-- if that's what you want, run for President yourself cause no candidate is going to share all your views.

[defendandprotect]

149. Yeah . . . and TORTURE is such a meaningless, pitiful little thing to get upset about---!!!

Are you for real?

[PeaceNikki]

85. This thread needs to be kicked.

[shawn703]

89. What is the definition of torture?

A lot of people are assuming the CIA involved in this torture knew what they were doing was torture. I had no idea what waterboarding was when I started to hear about it, and the media at the time made it sound like "simulated drowning with no real harm actually coming to the prisoner". I would bet a good chunk of the US population took that answer at face value and went with it and honestly believed waterboarding wasn't torture. If a CIA agent was told to pour water on someone's face and was told the only thing it does is make them believe they are drowning when really they will be fine, maybe they would honestly believe - especially if everyone was telling them it was legal - that there was nothing wrong with what they were doing? I saw the videos of what waterboarding was, and it looked like torture to me, but I'm also a liberal-minded civilian with probably a lower tolerance for what I would consider abnormal. Career CIA officials might have a different opinion.

[winyanstaz]

92. well fine,...let the little guys go that thought they were obeying the laws..

even though if you or I did it..to jail we would go.
If you or I broke the law through ignorance we would be prosecuted...ignorance of the law is no excuse is what we are told.
However he needs to prosecute the people that lied and said it was legal and especially the ones that ordered the torture in the first place.

[islandgirl808]

95. the stanford prison experiment

the whole issue involving the CIA sort of reminds me of the stanford prison experiment by zimbardo...human nature can certainly be ugly :( .

[Hissyspit]

99. Apparently a Violation of Geneva Conventions?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5478524

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, the one about the President upholding treaties, of which the Geneva Conventions the U.S. is a signatory:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Geneva Conventions, Article 2:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

"Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed , or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts."


As WeDidIt has pointed out, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was intended to circumvent the Geneva Conventions and give the Bush Administration cover.

[truedelphi]

104. I'm gonna quote Jonathan Turley as my last words for today on this

Subject

Turley - "It's Not Retribution to Enforce Criminal Laws"

[Blue_Roses]

101. You have to be one of the most

reasonable people here. I look forward to your posts:D Thank-you!

[Political Tiger]

111. Indeed! n/t

[EFerrari]

115. What seems reasonable to you about rationalizing torture?

I must be missing something pretty big here.

[defendandprotect]

150. Because when our corrupt government tortures, we intend to bury it--???

[democrank]

103. I honestly never thought I`d live to see the day

when DUers would type excuses for why we shouldn`t prosecute a torturer.

Torturers didn`t know you couldn`t lock a person in a box with stinging insects. They were told is was okay to wrap a towel around a guy`s neck and use it to fling him against a wall. They thought it was lawful to hang people from ceiling chains for two, three days at a time or cut up penises with razors. Are you kidding me? A frigging brand new police cadet viewing the interrogation of a suspected child killer through one-way glass would know that wiring up someone`s genitals for electric shock was way beyond the pale.

Last week I wrote something here about my iron-clad position on torture. I said that I had witnessed it first-hand, which I have. Not in a military or foreign policy setting, but it was torture just the same. I`m willing to bet that most civilized people would know it when they saw it, with or without a memo.

Here`s my take....the torturers knew it was torture. The "legal opinions" were drawn to give cover, not research existing laws. I`ll bet anything that Bush/Cheney decided they would do what they wanted and ordered their people to find the legal justification.

I say ignore the next election and prosecute every last one of these barbarians.

[Bjorn Against]

123. Well said, it is a sad day for DU to see people here defending torture.

The Nuremberg trials made it very clear, "just following orders" is not a valid legal justification for grave human rights violations. The acts you describe are clearly acts of torture, and all those who engaged in such acts are responsible for their actions. It absolutely sickens me to see so many people defend torture on what at least used to be a progressive website.

[defendandprotect]

151. Do you remember the "excuses" when we first found out about the torture --- ????

How many were in denial?

How many refused to equate it with anything but a few "bad apples" . . .
and that in reality it wasn't even torture!!!???

[CreekDog]

105. Half of DU is only angry at the other half of DU that isn't as angry

got it? that's the way it works around here with certain opinions.

:dilemma:

[Buzz Clik]

133. Now that pisses me off.

;)

[Mme. Defarge]

108. A Big K&R for

your voice of reason, and for ferreting out a terrific underused word -- conniptions!

[Adelante]

113. Well said

:thumbsup:

[Moochy]

116. Hyperbole is your speciality

Always bitching about DU.

[Soylent Brice]

117. yeah, but who do you think will be kicked off American Idol next?

[mix]

119. There is no excuse for not knowing that those techniques were torture.

If you watch the documentary in the link below, you will realize that the CIA has long engaged in these practices. The KUBARK torture manual, dusted off for the war on terror, was written in the early sixties.

The CIA tortures, this is a well established fact.
http://hnn.us/articles/32497.html

It is simply implausible that CIA operatives did not think that what they were doing was torture, regardless of the DofJ's legal advice.

The CIA insisted on a "golden legal shield," which was granted in fact after the torture began.

Obama is wrong on this. If low level people won't be held accountable, neither will the higher ups.

[ZeitGuy]

126. K&R, and here's why...

While I understand the impatience and outrage, I'm giving this time to see how this all shakes down before I get my knickers in a twist.

From what I've seen of Obama and his style of ju-jitsu, this is more likely a smokescreen so other channels can be explored in going after those who lied to these agents to get them to torture in the first place. Or, a rope-a-dope maneuver to buy some time while other, bigger priorities are addressed in his quest to un-f#ck this country from the effects of these past eight years.

In any case, folks might consider allowing themselves to breathe. He's not going get this all done overnight.

[mkultra]

127. You got it, and your a lockstepper for having such reasoned support of Obama.

In order to be considered thoughtful, you must be emotionally outraged by this in some manner. Otherwise your a member of the unwashed goosestepping masses.

[ms liberty]

129. Very well said. My compliments and thanks! K&R n/t

[uberblonde]

130. I wish I could find comfort in this utter horse hockey.

Why are U.S. soldiers prosecuted for war crimes they were encouraged to perform by their superiors - but not CIA agents?

Why did the CIA leadership ask for legal clearance? Because they KNEW these actions were war crimes, and wanted CYA approval. They weren't waiting for the DoJ to clear their actions - they were waiting for a COVER STORY.

I don't know about you, but as an American, I'm sick of laws that apply to one group of people and not others. In fact, we fought a war of independence over this very issue. This is not Obama's call. He doesn't get to sweep this under the rug because it makes him or anyone else politically uncomfortable - this is supposed to be a nation of laws.

I didn't vote for a king.

[whatchamacallit]

184. Word

:applause:

[Buzz Clik]

132. O. Bandage -- you are dead to me. Well, you were dead to me a year ago.

Brilliant post. Truly.

DU is having trouble finding its collective ass with both hands fully in play. You've given them the coordinates ... I'm guessing it will remain lost.

[Vattel]

135. I hate to say it,

but the relevant federal laws against torture are really awful. U.S.C. 2340, for example, criminalizes torture that occurs outside of the United States, but many kinds of torture clearly do not qualify as "torture" within the meaning of the statute. In other respects 2340 is hopelessly vague, defining torture in terms of "severe" physical or mental pain, but failing to provide any guidelines for distinguishing "severe" from "not severe." Coupled with the Bush DOJ legal opinions, prosecution of those who relied on the legal advice of the DOJ for following that advice does seem questionable, although I would need to know more about the charge that the CIA requested legal cover from the Bush Administration for it's use of waterboarding, etc.

[jeanpalmer]

157. Could they be tried under some other statute?

A general assault statute? Violation of civil rights? When the police officers who assaulted Rodney King were acquitted in a state court trial for assault, the Feds tried them for violating his civil rights. And got a conviction. Wonder if there might be a number of ways to proceed.

[defendandprotect]

152. Sadly we've also seen Congress dragging its feet on TORTURE for years!!!

If Leahy had heard encouragment from the WH, it might have been done . . .
at least to the point of truth hearings beginning!

[Truth2Tell]

153. Occam Bandage was just following orders. nt

[jeanpalmer]

156. Even a sadistic CIA thug

getting a memo saying he could legally beat up people wouldn't believe it. He would know he was committing a crime. And I'm guessing a court of law would make that finding. Any belief that a memo from DOJ could authorize assault is unreasonable. So I think the position that "they had a memo, therefore they can't be prosecuted" is wrong. And Obama acknowledged as much by referring to "good faith reliance" on the DOJ opinion. There was no good faith reliance. It was bad faith from start to finish.

Obama just doesn't want to take on the CIA to that extent. It's a crying shame. I wonder if these brown shirts are still working for the government, did Obama say? Because they ought to be fired. They're criminals and have no business in the government. If they're still employed, there's a reason to be afraid of the government. Did Obama at least issue a reprimand to them? Maybe he can put a memo in their personnel files saying they were mean people.

Hopefully, Obama will go after the higher ups.

[jberryhill]

174. "Any belief that a memo from DOJ could authorize assault is unreasonable"

Sorry, but that is the law.

You buy into the Rule of Law or you don't.

Explain why United States v. Howell, 37 F.3d 1197, 1204 (1994) is bad law.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/37/37.F3d.1197.93-2139.93-1307.html

Entrapment by estoppel, grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, is a defense that is rarely available. In essence, it applies when, acting with actual or apparent authority, a government official affirmatively assures the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant reasonably believes that official. United States v. Austin, 915 F.2d 363, 366 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 977, 111 S.Ct. 1626, 113 L.Ed.2d 722 (1991). The Supreme Court first recognized this defense in Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423, 79 S.Ct. 1257, 3 L.Ed.2d 1344 (1959), in which the Court reversed state law contempt convictions of those who refused to answer questions because they relied on an erroneous statement by a state official that they were protected by the self-incrimination clause of the state constitution. The Court continued to apply the doctrine in Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 568-69, 85 S.Ct. 476, 482-83, 13 L.Ed.2d 487 (1965), in which the Court again reversed the defendants' state law convictions for picketing across from the courthouse because a responsible state official had permitted the picketing. The common thread in the caselaw applying the defense is an affirmative misrepresentation of the law by a government official, reasonable reliance, and action upon that misrepresentation by a defendant. When the defense is applicable, it prevents the government from punishing one who reasonably followed the misstatement of one of its own officials. To allow such punishment "would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State--convicting a citizen for exercising a privilege which the State clearly had told him was available to him." Raley, 360 U.S. at 438, 79 S.Ct. at 1266.

[Honeycombe8]

161. Excellent post. nt

[BlooInBloo]

166. Why would anybody expect otherwise of DUers?

[TankLV]

176. "Just Following Orders" is NO EXCUSE since the NAZI WAR CRIMES TRIALS

which WE initiated, ran, and judged...

"For the DOJ to then turn around the next election and say "whoops, we got that wrong, now we need to throw you in jail" would be absolutely bizarre."

THAT'S UTTER BULLSHIT!!!!

BECAUSE they asked around if it was OK, they INSTINCTIVELY KNEW ALREADY IT WAS WRONG!!!!

If you have to question if what you're doing is "wrong" IT'S WRONG!!!

Don't give us that bullshit that just because they asked and were told, all is hunky dorey...!!!

If I and many others was in that situation, I and many others would know it was TORTURE and I would have refused to do it!!!

What you TORTURE APOLOGISTS are trying to do is still exuse the inexcusable!!!

And I'm hardly an obama basher, quite the opposite - but on this decision, HE IS DEADLY WRONG!!!

[PeaceNikki]

177. Except that they weren't "just following orders"

they went to the DoJ for clarification. If DoJ tells you that you are within the letter of the law, you can't be prosecuted for what
they told you was legal. That's entrapment. The people who ought be prosecuted are the ones who proclaimed illegal acts to be legal.

[conscious evolution]

178. The DOJ clarifications

are still illegal orders and those that relied upon them as excuses are still legally liable for what they did according to the Nuremberg Principles.Specificly Principles 1,2 and 4.

[PeaceNikki]

179. Those principles relate to international law - not US law.

And the DoJ clarification ok'd it under US law.

They should not be prosecuted because they cannot be convicted - under US law that predated Bush and Obama by decades.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8349135&mesg_id=8351334

Under *US* law, the people in the field shouldn''t be found guilty.

And they would be tried under US law. It's unethical (meaning, could result in sanctions or disbarment) for a prosecutor to prosecute something he or she knows can't or shouldn't result in a conviction.

International law may well be different...but the United States Justice Department would be prosecuting American citizens who did something that the United States Justice Department said was OK. Aside from the facial absurdity of that, the Justice Department is limited to American law.

/cue the chorus of "Well, drag them to The Hague and let them hang there"

[conscious evolution]

181. What US law?

Treaties are US law according to the Constitution.

[jewishlibrl]

182. Rahm Emanuel's statements change everything

The OP made a point that was not entirely weak, because he implied that those who wrote the flawed laws should be prosecuted while those who followed orders should not.

But yesterday we learned through Rahm Emanuel that President Obama wants to prosecuted neither the officials nor the order-followers.

This new development, in my view, kills the point made in this thread.

[trudyco]

186. Yep.

[whatchamacallit]

185. I only know one thing

If anyone tortured a member of my family, no equivocal laws could protect them from me.