What I don't understand about the whole torture debate.

[Exilednight]

I keep seeing posts from people who are pissed off that President Obama stated that he will not prosecute CIA agents who used torture as a method of interrogation.

President Obama stated that he has not ruled out the possibility of prosecuting those that wrote the torture memos.

Now stop and think about what you are complaining about.

We were all upset about Abu Ghrab, and we were really pissed off that it was nothing but low ranking soldiers who were prosecuted and convicted. What good did that do us?

I would much rather see Yoo and Gonzo prosecuted and convicted instead of some CIA agent who we never heard of.

Prosecuting from the bottom up has never accomplished anything, but taking out the brains makes the next person in charge take pause before issuing an illegal order.

So here's our choices, capture a minnow, or spear a whale.

[MadBadger]

1. In my opinion, I dont think the Obama administration is going to prosecute anybody.

though I must say if there are no prosecutions, that wouldnt phase me much because I never expected there to be any.

[Skittles]

2. correct

[polichick]

3. imo people are upset because, between the president's "looking forward" lingo and...

...comments by people like Rahm, it's unclear (maybe even unlikely in some minds) that justice will be served.

[Laelth]

4. It doesn't look like Obama intends to spear the whale, either.

That, I think, is why many people are upset.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Exilednight]

5. He has stated that it is still a possibility, and I have no reason to doubt that.............

I would love to see Gonzo and Yoo get what they deserve, and hopefully we will. On the other side of the coin we also need to believe that the Justice Department will do what is right. If there's enough evidence, then I think Holder will prosecute them, and if there isn't - then they probably won't.

But before we start feigning outrage, let's wait and see what happens.

[Laelth]

6. "Feigning Outrage?"

You don't really believe that, do you?

:dem:

-Laelth

[Seldona]

7. I have to disagree with your framing of our choices.

Catching the whales does NOT preclude the catching of the minnows, to stay with your metaphor.

It isn't a deal breaker for me. This isn't the first time I have disagreed with a politician, nor will it be the last.

But based on the information publicly available, clear evidence exists of institutionalized torture. That is a pretty profound set of events involving thousands of knowing participants over the years. To ignore those that listened to or caused the screams, or the doctors that helped formulate this evil, to name but a few, even if you get the 'big fish,' is morally reprehensible to me.

Besides, what is the true cost of actually holding everyone involved accountable? Does it out-weight inaction for those that perpetrated these crimes? I keep looking, but I just haven't seen logical explanations for either question. 'Look ahead' we are told.

Perhaps it was just so pervasive we would cripple our intelligence gathering capabilities if everyone involved were held legally liable? If so, that is an even sadder state of affairs imo.

[leftstreet]

8. +1

"If so, that is an even sadder state of affairs"

Exactly.

[LooseWilly]

13. Attempts at explanation seem lacking.

Vague references to the "morale" of the intelligence services being of concern are made. Suggestions seem to be interpolated that it's part of an attempt at "reaching out" to the intelligence services, so to speak.

I can't help but think that it's a political choice in order to not alienate the jingoists of the center-right who are otherwise offended by Republican incompetence of late...

Maybe Obama's waiting for a politically opportune moment to make his move... or maybe he's trying to "do a deal" with the Right and let their boy W, and his Sith Lord Cheney, off the hook in exchange for... I have no idea how to complete that thought. The idea becomes worse and worse as I type...

[Hissyspit]

9. Rahm Emmanuel today:

What about those who devised the policy, I asked? "Yeah, but those who devised the policy, he believes that they were, should not be prosecuted either," Emanuel said.

Obama: "This is a time for reflection, not retribution."

People are upset that apparently no one is going to be held accountable.

People are upset that Obama framed accountability as "retribution."

There were many here who felt the "minnows" did need to be prosecuted but that it was hypocritical to ONLY hold them accountable.

To hold no one accountable is to set a horrible precedent.

There is also a real concern with whether Obama has a legal right to do this.

[lebkuchen]

12. This reminds me of Oradour sur Glane in France

The Waffen SS and some Alsacian conscripts moved into this town and killed everyone...642 people, then burned the place down.

Here's what happened nearly 10 years later:

Bordeaux 1953
From January to February 1953 a total of 21 men were tried by the French courts at Bordeaux for their part in the massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane, they were all members of the Der Führer regiment of Das Reich Division who had survived the war. None of them were officers; the highest rank was that of Sergeant. Of the 21 men, 14 of them came from the French province of Alsace, which had been taken over by the Germans following the French surrender in 1940. In the eyes of the Germans, these men had been German, in the eyes of the French; they were close to being traitors. Members of the Resistance said that they should have refused to take part in the massacre, that they should have helped their fellow countrymen escape and that they were even more guilty than the Germans. The lawyers defending the Alsatians said that with one exception they had been conscripted into the SS, that they had no choice but to obey and if they had refused they would have been shot.

What made the trial unusual is that 13 of the Alsatians had been at liberty before the trial started, one of them had in fact become a police inspector since the end of the war. Another had won the Croix de Guerre, France's highest military medal for valour after the end of the war, whilst fighting with the French army in Indo-China (present day Vietnam). The German defendants had been in prisoner-of-war camps since the end of the war in 1945.

The people of the province of Alsace wanted all the men freed at once whilst the people living in the Oradour area wanted them all executed at once. Obviously not everyone was going to like the verdicts when they were announced.

The trial took place in an atmosphere of bad temper within France and at the end, just two of the defendants were sentenced to death, the rest to prison for between 8 to 12 years. The verdicts produced an uproar in all parts of France, some thought they were much to lenient, others that they were much too harsh. Protests and demonstrations were held in the province of Alsace to assist in gaining the release of their men folk. In the event all 21 men were released quite soon after the trial had ended.

http://www.oradour.info/ruined/summary.htm#Bordeaux_1953


This treatment of inhumane behavior is as certain as death and taxes. Nevertheless, Obama can expect much fewer grassroots dollars as a result. But what the hey. He'll get all he wants from the corporations, just like presidents past. Middle/lower middle class aren't needed. They only serve the purpose of being innocent dupes to be ravaged against by those in charge.

BTW, the town still stands, as a memorial, if you're ever in the region. I suppose the torture memos, or at least those that Cheney didn't destroy, can be our memorial. Where do we display them, with photographs? The Smithsonian?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

11. Prosecuting from the bottom, up is standard practice

and usually how you move oup the food chain.

[chknltl]

14. "We were all upset ....nothing but low ranking soldiers who were prosecuted..."

"We were all upset about Abu Ghrab, and we were really pissed off that it was nothing but low ranking soldiers who were prosecuted and convicted"

Those prosecutions were done under the bush administration. It seems to me that the reason we were upset is not so much that the minor crooks were caught and punished, our upset was over the fact that the major crooks didn't, (and under bush, weren't likely to), suffer the same fate!

It appears that we agree in that the big crooks need their day in court.

Perhaps you might consider it this way: The small fry, (those who followed orders like the good Nazis they truly were and through whatever luck of fate didn't get thrown under the bus by bushco), do they truly deserve a pass now?

[endarkenment]

15. false dichotomy

we do not have to choose between prosecuting minnows and whales. Everyone involved, top to bottom, needs to be held accountable. The actual choice that seems to have been made here is to prosecute NOBODY, so even your dilemma is imaginary.