Please explain to me why I should not be upset at the decision not to prosecute war criminals

[Stinky The Clown]

Guys who torture are war criminals.

Guys who order torture are war criminals

Guys who construct legal covers for torturers are war criminals

Guys who are medical professionals and who observe torture without interfering are war criminals.

Some (if not all) of these "guys" have been given what amounts to immunity from prosecution. because they were simply following orders. Like Adolph Eichmann claimed. Like so many defendants at Nuremberg claimed.

Can anyone defend this position and can anyone explain to me why I am wrong to be upset by it?





Note: "Guys" as used here should be construed as non gender specific

[Solly Mack]

1. Can't.

Sorry

[PeaceNikki]

2. Read Feingold's statement

"The president has stated that it is not his administration's intention to prosecute those who acted reasonably and relied in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice. As I understand it, his decision does not mean that anyone who engaged in activities that the Department had not approved, those who gave improper legal advice or those who authorized the program could not be prosecuted. The details made public in these memos paint a horrifying picture and reveal how the Bush administration's lawyers and top officials were complicit in torture. The so-called enhanced interrogation program was a violation of our core principles as a nation and those responsible should be held accountable."

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/russ_feingolds_reaction.php

The torturers themselves are protected by the law. The people who advised them that their actions were within the rule of law are not.

[Fire1]

8. Can't be any clearer than that! Anybody who doesn't

understand that is being deliberately obtuse. Then again, to some there is no such thing as 'the big picture' or rules of law. Law is not ruled by emotion and some folks just don't get it.

[rcrush]

32. Well if Bush's DOJ said it was ok to rape and murder CHILDREN then its ok.

They were just following orders after all.

[Stinky The Clown]

37. Consider this

The CIA hires highly intelligent, clear thinking, independent people as field agents.

Please don't tell me they were only following orders and had no sense that they were committing war crimes.

Don't tell me that.




Now ... for what it is worth, I really don' care tht much if these guys get prosecuted or not. In fact, I prefer they NOT get prosecuted because if they did, then it is very possible the country could be placated at that level and the GonzoRats could continue to breathe free people's air.



But don't tell em the CIA guys are just innocents who were following orders.

[PeaceNikki]

39. The issue at hand is that the people in the field are not prosecutable.

As DUer eyesroll says here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8349135&mesg_id=8349471

...this wasn't "I was just following orders."

This was "I was told it was legal from the very people whose job it is to enforce these things."

That has been a defense in criminal law for decades--"mistake of law." You're not allowed to claim ignorance of the law as a defense to a crime, but if someone in the government whose job it is to get the law right tells you something it's OK, and you acted accordingly, you cannot be held liable for it later.

[Echo In Light]

3. Guys who all work for the same Big Club don't make serious trouble for fellow members

[cali]

11. so why did he release those very daming documents?

You do realize that he could have made another decision here, right?

The order of the day here seems to be simplistic good/evil, black/white.

[Echo In Light]

14. There must be a pretense of, an illusion of, a self-correcting system

[DURHAM D]

20. We have already had the self-correcting show trial.

Remember Lynndie England?

Nothing here - move along. :sarcasm:

Why oh why is it always the women...?

[cali]

30. oh for pity's sake. dogmatic belief is not a persuasive argument. nt

[Bluerthanblue]

26. word

simple but critical truth.

[Stinky The Clown]

38. No that's not the order of the day and you're avoiding the issue.

There's a great deal more nuance involved.

But that's okay ........ you see as you wish.

Please enjoy the rest of your day.

[cliffordu]

4. Look up 'how to boil a frog'

And you'll see the president's whole M.O.


He keeps saying he's going to let people slide and then releases more damning documents.

If he had no intention of prosecuting, we would never see these documents.

[WeDidIt]

5. If I was polled today on Obama's job approval

I would have to answer that I do not approve.

Sad, but true.

[polysciguy420]

6. you gotta' understand a few things...

You can't blame the soldier, you can only blame the general that gives them their orders. In this case, the general happenes to be the ex-president of the United States who authorized "inhumane" interrogation practices, however as commander-in-cheif, during a wartime situation the argument can be made he has the legitimate authority to do so if the need arises. As a result of this authorization by the then president of the united states any acts committed by his subordinates during his tenure must be regarded as legal, because at the time they were authorized. You can't apply laws retroactively is basically what it boils down to. Imagine if the next president after Obama decides that somehow certain officials under the Obama adminstration may have broken the law although under the Obama adminstartion their acts were perfectly legal. It just doesn't add up. The best thing for Obama to do in this situation is to change the policy and move on. Prosecutions aren't needed.

[ima_sinnic]

9. but "I was only following orders" was thrown out at Nuremberg (nt)

[Fire1]

10. Apparently not.

[polysciguy420]

17. indeed it shouldn't have been thrown out

it's illogical to punish a surbordinate for following what they've been told. Because if they don't follow what they've been told they'll be punished! It's like they can't win for losing...In this case, the subordinates were following orders authorized by the then president of the United States, the ultimate authority in the land in regards to military matters.

[atreides1]

24. Illegal orders don't need to be followed

The President, even as C-I-C cannot just decide that the Geneva Conventions or the the Laws of Land Warfare no longer apply. The conventions are the law of the land, because it is a treaty ratified by the US Senate.

What was missing on the part of the uniform services was the courage to say no, when they received an illegal order.

And if you missed it, a US Army Sergeant was just convicted of murder, by the way part of his defense, he was doing what he had been told to do.

I guess if he or any of his men had questioned the order, 4 Iraqi men would probably still be alive today, instead of having their bodies found floating in the Tigris River. And the sergeant and his men wouldn't be going to prison for a long time!



These are the ultimate authority in regards to military matters in a wartime situation:

The Manuals of Courts Martial, the Geneva Conventions, The U.S. Army's Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare.

[ensho]

28. kick

nt

[judy]

15. From what I understand though,

The point is that the acts committed under Bush were not legal. Even under the Bush administration. I think this is the very point that these memos being released makes...

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Bullshit. Illegal is illegal.

"When the president does it, it is not illegal" is the same bullshit that Nixon tried to pull, and the people Bush put around him came from that same school - and it has ALWAYS been wrong.

The Commander in Chief, during wartime, has NO authority to break the law. He is the chief executive, not the chief lawmaker - he follows the law like everybody else.

Enjoy your stay.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. E-3 and bellow, you got a point

E-4 and above, no

See Nuremberg...

Oh and any Officer is not above the law

[Stinky The Clown]

40. You gotta understand a few things ......

Nuremberg - 1945-6

Jeruselem - April 1961

"I was just following orders" was rent asunder as a legal defense in these sorts of matters.

Perspective helps.

[PeaceNikki]

42. They weren't "just following orders"! They went to DoJ for clarification.

[Bluerthanblue]

7. no one should ever be told how they are supposed to feel- it's

how you deal with your feelings that matters.

I HATE the thought that people won't be held accountable. It makes me angrier than i can say-

But for me, when I look at everything that is swirling around Obama, all the messes, the murmuring, grumbling, discontent, chaos and confusion- the mounting Limbaugh fueled hate... I guess I have to give him room to pick which battles he feels he can really make progress in, and focus his energy and attention on them.

It IS important to remember what a fucked up mess this country is in apart from all the injustices and crimes that were committed over the last 8 yrs.

Also, don't discount the posibility that in the future, more information could possibly come to light that would give Obama the legitimate right to reconsider the decision not to prosecute the doers.


We are getting bombarded by urgent issues- I cannot imagine anyone doing a 'perfect' job- or even one that could satisfy all my preferences.

:shrug:

You have every right to be outraged- I'm outraged as well. I'm trying to keep mine focused on what was done, and how to keep it from happening in the future, at least for now. for what that's worth-

:hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Common human decency dictates that you should be outraged and disgusted.

Hell, if we heard that dogs were being treated as badly as these human being were, this board would be full of outrage and demanding retribution.

[Supersedeas]

34. those appointed to prosecute the defendants in US v. Alstoetter must be scatching their heads

Bybee is now a federal judge.

[judy]

13. Can't explain...

Plus 2 things here:

1 - I was listening to Gene Burns last night, and he who is usually of a fair level of intelligence was defending waterboarding as a means of "obtaining information leading to terrorists". This is the proof of how far we've gone into unreality: states torture not to obtain good information leading to crimes, but in order to make people admit to things they haven't done so they can protect the real culprits.
Information obtained under torture is not admitted in Courts in the US. Why would it be valid elsewhere?

2 - Obama, on the comment on releasing the memos, has forgotten the Nuremberg judgment: "Just following orders" is not a valid defense as people always have a choice. Besides, of course, at Nuremberg those who gave the orders were also prosecuted.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. 'Just following orders' is not a defense, but it is a valid extenuation.

And that was also upheld at Nuremberg. Failure to follow orders, particularly in those circumstances, could have cost those defendents their lives, and accordingly most of the lower ranks that committed the actual abuses were dealt with much more leniently that the upper ranks who ordered the abuses.

If Lynddie England got three years, Rumsfeld should get 30.

[ima_sinnic]

16. apparently if someone tells you rape is "legal" and orders you to do it, it's okay

The idea that they were "only following orders" implies that having a soul and knowing that something is absolutely wrong is irrelevant and you are just a robot carrying out orders. I guess that's how it's supposed to work. or something.

By the way, wasn't it the repugs who were whining about the surge of "moral relativism" in this country not too many years ago?

[ensho]

29. kick

nt

[gratuitous]

18. You shouldn't be upset

Just check your humanity credentials at the door. It's the big motherfuckin' pile over there: You can see some of the names on the other credentials: Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, England.

There! All better now?

Of course, if you decide that you are still a part of humanity, then "upset" is probably the least you should feel.

[lamp_shade]

21. I have a feeling that nothing I (or anybody) can say will un-upset you.

Just a hunch.

[Stinky The Clown]

41. Are you upset?

Or are you okay with this?

This is not a rhetorical question. In light of your reply to me, I'd really like to know.

[lamp_shade]

46. I apologize for being snarky and there is no excuse for it.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

25. You SHOULD be upset, period.

We are seeing war crimes being excused.

Sometimes right and wrong are absolutely clear cut -- this is one of those times.

[DearAbby]

27. I am upset as well

I plan to write to the White House, a letter, and respectfully ask the President to do the right thing. I will take the time to write it out, envelope and stamped letter.

President Obama has said he would listen to us. I hope my letter will not be the only letter. We, as citizens, have to be the leaders in this situation. We have to show in numbers, we demand justice.

At least my letter will be proof to the future, I spoke out.

[lamp_shade]

31. Yes, write a letter. I'm certain President Obama has absolutely no idea what's being

discussed outside the Whitehouse.

[DearAbby]

45. WE ARE THE CHANGE WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR

Go ahead and belittle my effort to be involved. I just feel badly for your cynicism. I also wonder why you are here? Why bother?

[ima_sinnic]

33. I have been writing and rewriting for days, about this as well as habeas corpus

and unconstitutional, illegal wiretapping, but keep ripping it up because I cannot keep it calm sounding. I'm just too angry--not threatening, but sort of "mad" (angry mad, not crazy mad). After spilling my anger into each of those letters, I feel a little better for a while.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Potential reasons why somebody shouldn't be upset:

1. You voted for Bush and had no problem when he actually did it.

2. You're not having a coronary over the Spanish attorney general not wanting to prosecute.

3. You realize that prosecuting to low level wonks while the high level bastards go unpunished would be an unjustice.

4. You're patient, and realize that arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.

[Stinky The Clown]

43. Thanks for that unreasoned, stick-in-the-eye answer

And then people - like you, as I recall - wonder why there's discord on DU.

You made an ASSUMPTION about my attitude toward this when you read the OP. However, on rereading the OP, even you in all your intellectual glory would have to admit there's no hint of my attitude. Just a short (sound bite sized) listing of why I am upset.

But you go ahead ... poke sticks in people's eyes.

:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. You asked, I answered. Don't get mad at me.

Funny how you thought I was talking about you anyways.

[conscious evolution]

36. I'll try

Because amerika is the greatest country on Earth and we can do whatever the fuck we want todo and if you dont like it leave you commie pinko hippy freak.







The way freeptards say shit like that with a straight face just blows my mind.

[earth mom]

47. As far as I'm concerned, people around here are not upset enough.

I'm sick of the excuses.

How many more years of this crap before people finally get that allowing * & Co off scot-free is the worst mistake that Obama could ever make?