Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/prosecute-torturers-and-their-bosses.html
323 comments
I'm still searching for a society in history that engages in torture against its opponents that doesn't eventually turn to torturing its own citizens. They will, of course, be labeled terrorists when that happens, but that time is coming.
When that story came out of Chicago a few years ago about a two decade history of torturing inmates to get them to confess to crimes, we asked how that could go on for so long. Well, apparently you can torture powerless people of color in Chicago without consequence. They were only torturing "bad" people, weren't they?
I get ill listening to the "arguments" for torture. "Well, it works." I want to drop my head into my hands. The efficiency expert's answer to moral questions. But what about a ticking bomb? Can't Jack Bauer put a bullet in a prisoner's knee to get him to talk? The Israeli's have the process down: They torture supposedly because of a ticking bomb, a time limit, whatever, but then they take a break for the Sabath. Gotta keep those priorities in mind.
If torture "worked", does that mean we have no limits? Just animals ripping the face off our prey?
I'm not very religious. What are Christians thinking when they allow this to happen? Has the iron law of Paul taken over from the Prince of Peace? If there is one piece of evidence that the US is a post-Christian country, this is it.
When that story came out of Chicago a few years ago about a two decade history of torturing inmates to get them to confess to crimes, we asked how that could go on for so long. Well, apparently you can torture powerless people of color in Chicago without consequence. They were only torturing "bad" people, weren't they?
I get ill listening to the "arguments" for torture. "Well, it works." I want to drop my head into my hands. The efficiency expert's answer to moral questions. But what about a ticking bomb? Can't Jack Bauer put a bullet in a prisoner's knee to get him to talk? The Israeli's have the process down: They torture supposedly because of a ticking bomb, a time limit, whatever, but then they take a break for the Sabath. Gotta keep those priorities in mind.
If torture "worked", does that mean we have no limits? Just animals ripping the face off our prey?
I'm not very religious. What are Christians thinking when they allow this to happen? Has the iron law of Paul taken over from the Prince of Peace? If there is one piece of evidence that the US is a post-Christian country, this is it.
If you want to see torture prosecutions, write a letter to your editor calling out your elected officials by name (source below). I did it, so can you!
How to get your senators' and representatives' attention on any issue without being a wealthy donor | Protip from a former Senate intern[1].
--------
An email to your senator or representative may result in a form letter response and a phone call to the office may amount to a tally mark on an administrative assistant's notepad. But, for any given policy concern, if you want to get their attention a letter to the editor in one of your state's 5-10 biggest newspapers that mentions them specifically BY NAME is the way to go. If your message is directed to your representative, pick a newspaper that is popular in your district.
That is the crucial thing to know--the rest of this post is an explanation of why I know this is true.
I know this because, when I interned in the D.C. office of a senator one summer, one of the duties I shared was preparing a document that was distributed internally both online and in paper format. This document was made every day and comprised world news articles, national news, state news, and any letters to the editor in the 5-10 largest newspapers within the state that mentioned the senator by name. I was often the person who put that document on his desk, and it was the first thing he read every morning after arriving to the office.
I began to suspect that this was standard operating procedure because several other senators' offices share the same printer in the basement of the Russell Senate Office building, and I saw other interns doing the exact same procedures that I was involved in.
Since the internship, I've conferred with other Senate and House employees past and present and determined that most--if not all--offices use essentially the same procedure.
--------
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1os8rz/how_to_get...
How to get your senators' and representatives' attention on any issue without being a wealthy donor | Protip from a former Senate intern[1].
--------
An email to your senator or representative may result in a form letter response and a phone call to the office may amount to a tally mark on an administrative assistant's notepad. But, for any given policy concern, if you want to get their attention a letter to the editor in one of your state's 5-10 biggest newspapers that mentions them specifically BY NAME is the way to go. If your message is directed to your representative, pick a newspaper that is popular in your district.
That is the crucial thing to know--the rest of this post is an explanation of why I know this is true.
I know this because, when I interned in the D.C. office of a senator one summer, one of the duties I shared was preparing a document that was distributed internally both online and in paper format. This document was made every day and comprised world news articles, national news, state news, and any letters to the editor in the 5-10 largest newspapers within the state that mentioned the senator by name. I was often the person who put that document on his desk, and it was the first thing he read every morning after arriving to the office.
I began to suspect that this was standard operating procedure because several other senators' offices share the same printer in the basement of the Russell Senate Office building, and I saw other interns doing the exact same procedures that I was involved in.
Since the internship, I've conferred with other Senate and House employees past and present and determined that most--if not all--offices use essentially the same procedure.
--------
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1os8rz/how_to_get...
Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses
And while we're at it, we should sanction those -- like the New York Times -- who enabled and shielded the torturers via a consistent editorial policy -- solidly in place for 12 years -- of never referring to the practice of torture by name, but instead employing that famous dystopian euphemism: "Harsh Interrogation Techniques."
And while we're at it, we should sanction those -- like the New York Times -- who enabled and shielded the torturers via a consistent editorial policy -- solidly in place for 12 years -- of never referring to the practice of torture by name, but instead employing that famous dystopian euphemism: "Harsh Interrogation Techniques."
I'm voting this up even though I think it's a horrendous idea. Here's why:
The problem isn't that there wasn't a crime: it certainly looks like there was. I am outraged by parts of what I've read. The problem was that the system sought to legally justify it. The problem is that we changed the system so that a good portion of people believe there was no crime. If somebody is told by the system that there is no crime, we can't then go backwards in time and declare there was one. History shows us that such legal application is always more destructive to society than the original incident.
An important concept to understand is "criminalizing politics". That's when politicians, who rotate through office and are expected to spend most of their lives as private citizens, make decisions that could be criminal but do not involve personal gain.
We elect people to make hard choices that involve results that could be construed in other contexts as criminal, especially with respect to foreign policy. We always have.
I do not like any of this, but it's very important to understand that the problems here are systemic. A different president and VP were just as likely to make the same choices. Want to go back and try people for Japanese interment? All the rendition done prior to 2000? Assassinations and coups overseas? Spying on MLK? Such an emotional attitude is understandable, but you just can't continue a government like that. If the system was acting as best as it could, and it screws up? You fix it. You don't get the firing squads out. That's banana republic territory.
So let's fix the system so it doesn't happen again. If we want somebody to hang, start a nice show trial. But since folks were acting in good faith (which is more important than "just doing their jobs"), pardon them and let's move on. There is no justice to be had here. We need to learn. This is not the time to let emotional outrage lead us into hurting each other needlessly.
The problem isn't that there wasn't a crime: it certainly looks like there was. I am outraged by parts of what I've read. The problem was that the system sought to legally justify it. The problem is that we changed the system so that a good portion of people believe there was no crime. If somebody is told by the system that there is no crime, we can't then go backwards in time and declare there was one. History shows us that such legal application is always more destructive to society than the original incident.
An important concept to understand is "criminalizing politics". That's when politicians, who rotate through office and are expected to spend most of their lives as private citizens, make decisions that could be criminal but do not involve personal gain.
We elect people to make hard choices that involve results that could be construed in other contexts as criminal, especially with respect to foreign policy. We always have.
I do not like any of this, but it's very important to understand that the problems here are systemic. A different president and VP were just as likely to make the same choices. Want to go back and try people for Japanese interment? All the rendition done prior to 2000? Assassinations and coups overseas? Spying on MLK? Such an emotional attitude is understandable, but you just can't continue a government like that. If the system was acting as best as it could, and it screws up? You fix it. You don't get the firing squads out. That's banana republic territory.
So let's fix the system so it doesn't happen again. If we want somebody to hang, start a nice show trial. But since folks were acting in good faith (which is more important than "just doing their jobs"), pardon them and let's move on. There is no justice to be had here. We need to learn. This is not the time to let emotional outrage lead us into hurting each other needlessly.
"Whoever fights with monsters must be careful lest he become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzsche
Based on their actions (which ultimately may have not yielded anything useful either) the torturers and their masters are monsters of the worst kind - state sanctioned.
So now why stop at just releasing the report? Take the next logical step & prosecute these sociopaths.
Based on their actions (which ultimately may have not yielded anything useful either) the torturers and their masters are monsters of the worst kind - state sanctioned.
So now why stop at just releasing the report? Take the next logical step & prosecute these sociopaths.
It would be an interesting bit of schadenfreude, if countries imposed some sort of sanctions against the US over harboring war criminals.
The State Department would probably release statements of insane hypocrisy given how they're perfectly fine preaching about human rights when OTHER countries violate them.
The State Department would probably release statements of insane hypocrisy given how they're perfectly fine preaching about human rights when OTHER countries violate them.
The very least that I expect out of this is for the International Criminal Court to convict them as war criminals. Whether those convicted will actually do any prison time is another issue. However, US will have to live with the shame for decades that it's harboring war criminals, and it may even impact its dealings with other countries in the future.
US will be in the history books as a country that not only allowed, but keeps condoning torture by refusing to punish the torturers. Brennan even implied that he's not ruling out the use of torture in the future.
Maybe eventually, some new US president will decide that it's time to prosecute and imprison them so US can have a "clean start" in its international relations.
US will be in the history books as a country that not only allowed, but keeps condoning torture by refusing to punish the torturers. Brennan even implied that he's not ruling out the use of torture in the future.
Maybe eventually, some new US president will decide that it's time to prosecute and imprison them so US can have a "clean start" in its international relations.
"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" - Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
For anyone doubting the claims you can go right to the Senate Committee's report: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/09/world/cia-tort...
Page 10 is the start of the findings and conclusions.
Page 10 is the start of the findings and conclusions.
They won't be prosecuted, of course. I ostracized those in my life who supported it. That may be the best anyone can do against it, given our 2-party oligopoly.
I guess this means we should throw all the Democrats under the bus who suddenly had amnesia about knowing anything about the techniques being used too?
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2014/12/feinsteins-duplicity-...
The report (embedded below) shows that the CIA briefed at least 68 members of Congress on the CIA interrogation program, including "enhanced interrogation techniques" (EITs) . It details the dates of all congressional briefings and in most cases, the members of Congress in attendance and the specific subjects discussed. Keep in mind though, that the topic for each one of these meetings was interrogation of prisoners.
For example in April 2002 both the House (HPSCI) and Senate (SSCI) committees on intelligence were briefed on the "Ongoing Interrogations of Abu Zubaydah, who was mentioned in the Feinstein report. According to the report, at this time EITs were referenced but there is no evidence they were discussed in detail. However later meetings not only discussed but gave examples of EITs being used, (but attendees weren't mentioned). Finally near the end of 2002 we see that the most Senior members of the House and Senate committees had meetings totally devoted to EITs.
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2014/12/feinsteins-duplicity-...
The report (embedded below) shows that the CIA briefed at least 68 members of Congress on the CIA interrogation program, including "enhanced interrogation techniques" (EITs) . It details the dates of all congressional briefings and in most cases, the members of Congress in attendance and the specific subjects discussed. Keep in mind though, that the topic for each one of these meetings was interrogation of prisoners.
For example in April 2002 both the House (HPSCI) and Senate (SSCI) committees on intelligence were briefed on the "Ongoing Interrogations of Abu Zubaydah, who was mentioned in the Feinstein report. According to the report, at this time EITs were referenced but there is no evidence they were discussed in detail. However later meetings not only discussed but gave examples of EITs being used, (but attendees weren't mentioned). Finally near the end of 2002 we see that the most Senior members of the House and Senate committees had meetings totally devoted to EITs.
>Since the day President Obama took office, he has failed to bring to justice anyone responsible for the torture of terrorism suspect.
This is such an important topic, that it is a shame it always has to be discussed in the political context (i.e. Obama failed to bring justice anyone from the Bush administration).
#1. Obama's administration continued using the Bush era Enhanced Interrogation Techniques; therefore, politically he could not pursue anyone from Bush's administration without subjecting his own administration to the same...including himself.
#2 From a legal standpoint anyone who actually engaged in these alleged acts of torture would have a legal defense, they relied on Government officials and attorneys who authorized/ordered them to perform these interrogations. Whether the officials/attorneys were right or wrong in their judgment, this is a lawful defense recorgnized by US criminal courts. See US v. Baker, 546 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
This is such an important topic, that it is a shame it always has to be discussed in the political context (i.e. Obama failed to bring justice anyone from the Bush administration).
#1. Obama's administration continued using the Bush era Enhanced Interrogation Techniques; therefore, politically he could not pursue anyone from Bush's administration without subjecting his own administration to the same...including himself.
#2 From a legal standpoint anyone who actually engaged in these alleged acts of torture would have a legal defense, they relied on Government officials and attorneys who authorized/ordered them to perform these interrogations. Whether the officials/attorneys were right or wrong in their judgment, this is a lawful defense recorgnized by US criminal courts. See US v. Baker, 546 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
Does anyone honestly believe that the current administration which has: 1) doubled down on the Bush admins attack on the Fourth Amendment; 2) attacked the 1st Amendment directly (something even Bush/Ashcroft didn't do..) and 3) run what is an arguably similar program in its moral and ethical ambiguity(Drone strikes) to the interrogation techniques; would even think about going after the previous administration!?!? Give me a break, that's beyond laughable.
This piece by the Times is about what you'd expect from an organization that has lost its grip on reality. What's worse is that people actually pay attention to the Times at this point. Sadly, what we lack in this country is an honest journalistic broker that can objectively communicate about the political realities we have in front of us and our shortcomings as a nation and an electorate.
Here's the thing, all of us that vote (and those that don't), are responsible for the mess in D.C.. The people that inhabit the beltway are simply taking advantage of our apathy and incompetence as an electorate..nothing more, nothing less...it's up to us, as the electorate, to purge our government of the latent corruption and decay that has come to permeate that town. Until we take up that charge in a meaningful way, we can't even have a discussion about topics such as this, it's just a waste of time..
This piece by the Times is about what you'd expect from an organization that has lost its grip on reality. What's worse is that people actually pay attention to the Times at this point. Sadly, what we lack in this country is an honest journalistic broker that can objectively communicate about the political realities we have in front of us and our shortcomings as a nation and an electorate.
Here's the thing, all of us that vote (and those that don't), are responsible for the mess in D.C.. The people that inhabit the beltway are simply taking advantage of our apathy and incompetence as an electorate..nothing more, nothing less...it's up to us, as the electorate, to purge our government of the latent corruption and decay that has come to permeate that town. Until we take up that charge in a meaningful way, we can't even have a discussion about topics such as this, it's just a waste of time..
Obama is a disgrace. The reason he was elected over Hillary was because he initially took a harder line against the war, the spying and the torture. At the end of the Bush administration the American people voted overwhelmingly to break from the recent past, and Obama inexplicably betrayed our democracy. And I have my doubts that it will ever fully recover.
This is the kind of self-prosecution that you can't trust the USG to pursue with the necessary zeal.
This is what the International Criminal Court at The Hague is for.
This is what the International Criminal Court at The Hague is for.
For all you liberals out there who want to go after Bush, don't forget that Obama has been killing people indiscriminately with drone strikes. Something tells me you'll be less likely to go after him, indicating the real source of your outrage.
The CIA report was written solely by Democrats with an ax to grind, and sought no information from an opposing side.
Go back and watch any 9/11 news video (as it happened) and put yourself in the shoes of those who struggled to find direction during that time. I personally don't think torture is a good decision, but those in power did it out of precaution to identify possible future acts.
When the next terrorist attack occurs, please think about the bullshit you wrote here.
The CIA report was written solely by Democrats with an ax to grind, and sought no information from an opposing side.
Go back and watch any 9/11 news video (as it happened) and put yourself in the shoes of those who struggled to find direction during that time. I personally don't think torture is a good decision, but those in power did it out of precaution to identify possible future acts.
When the next terrorist attack occurs, please think about the bullshit you wrote here.
Yes. Prosecute them, put them all in prison. If the US won't do that, the rest of the world has to oblige the moral and legal duty of prosecuting anyone involved in the torture of humans. That will restrict their travels wastly, right Dick?
I can't think of a worse idea than prosecuting Bush administration officials. Jailing the previous administration would set a terrible precedent, and would fatally undermine the stability of our government.
There are many people who are convinced, e.g., that abortion is murder and that politicians who enable it ought to be prosecuted. Or, more on topic, that Diane Feinstein is a traitor for making these torture memos public. They believe this with as much moral certitude as anyone here believes torture is a crime. It is only a matter of time before another right-wing president is in the White House, and when there is I don't want there to be a precedent for jailing one's political rivals.
There are many people who are convinced, e.g., that abortion is murder and that politicians who enable it ought to be prosecuted. Or, more on topic, that Diane Feinstein is a traitor for making these torture memos public. They believe this with as much moral certitude as anyone here believes torture is a crime. It is only a matter of time before another right-wing president is in the White House, and when there is I don't want there to be a precedent for jailing one's political rivals.
A few low level torturers were prosecuted and put in prisons. Their bosses had the political language to endorse and encourage torture while using language vague enough to escape prosecution.
"looking forward" (as the article attributes to being Obama's argument for not prosecuting) is something one does to forgive others. self-punishment is something one does to prove trust to others. The looking forward policy of the US was important in the construction of the Marshal Plan. But now is the time they need to show they are trustworthy arbitrators of any moral ground. If they fail to prosecute anyone for torture they set a horrible precedent but more importantly the lack of correction turns any future moral arguments into platitudes.
This article deserves juxtaposition with this scene from the Act of Killing:
http://youtu.be/tQhIRBxbchU?t=2m9s
"We need our gangsters to get things done" @BarackObama
This article deserves juxtaposition with this scene from the Act of Killing:
http://youtu.be/tQhIRBxbchU?t=2m9s
"We need our gangsters to get things done" @BarackObama
[deleted]
Vices News interview with the "Architect":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmNUi0itl-8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmNUi0itl-8
Prosecute and Confiscate their properties/wealth
question: how exactly do you prosecute the to bosses in a democracy? As the top bosses is the voters..So how will we prosecute the voters?
Sorry, I can not take any organization seriously that complains of "torture" while fully supporting the act of siphoning out an unborn child's brain.
I still find it interesting what the major news websites and channels choose to make front page headlines with or not. In the world I want to live in, there'd be a lot more daily hammering with (apparently factual statements) like: "US Gov Violates Geneva Convention on Torture" ever since the Senate CIA report came out. The US is signatory to that, ratified it by Congress, and indeed was one of its architects in the post-WW2 landscape. They repeatedly posture themselves as one of the Good Guy nations, the ultimate White Hat lawman. They have tortured and violated international law, to which they are signatory, on basic human rights and ethical behavior.
Shouldn't Europe be boycotting the US? They are not in a very good position to do so but maybe they should work on unraveling their dependencies.
My hope is that those people that we don't see or hear about that work around injustices like these are doing what they can to keep some sort of balance. I try to convince myself sometimes that these people that love their country and want to do good are trying to use what power they have to make things right. I know for a fact that there are amazing people working in government and I hope the good stuff these people do just doesn't get much attention.
I love my country, I served, I consider myself a patriot, but I worry about my children and their children. I don't expect much, if anything, to come of this and the fact that that feeling is common for me as an American puts knots in my stomach.