Obama administration illegally protecting torturers

It's fucking infuriating. This happened when Ford pardoned Nixon a week after he ran off from the presidency, happened again when nobody got in trouble for Iran-Contra, and I suppose you could throw Lewinsky in there under the auspice of some silly "nonpartisanship," even if what Clinton did was irrelevant to the larger picture here.

There is no excuse to not pursue prosecution. We will realize this the next time a President inevitably does something outside of their power.
 
I wouldn't want someone who carried out orders from a superior to be punished for said actions. Work your way up the chain but don't punish the subordinates. If your teacher asked you to write a swear word on the board or fail the class you'ld do what he told. Then when the principal sees what you've done should you be punished? (sorry; I couldn't find a great analogy on short notice).

Nevertheless; you're taught not to disobey in the military. End of story.
 
[quote name='Magehart']I wouldn't want someone who carried out orders from a superior to be punished for said actions. Work your way up the chain but don't punish the subordinates. If your teacher asked you to write a swear word on the board or fail the class you'ld do what he told. Then when the principal sees what you've done should you be punished? (sorry; I couldn't find a great analogy on short notice).

Nevertheless; you're taught not to disobey in the military. End of story.[/QUOTE]


I thought someone would bring this up. It's an interesting topic but irrelevant here, because prosecution is now required by law. From the link I posted:

I agree entirely that it is the DOJ lawyers who purported to legalize torture and the high-level Bush officials ordering it who are the prime culprits and criminals, as compared to, say, CIA agents who were proverbially just following orders and were told by the DOJ that what they were doing was legal. But leave aside the question of whether prosecutions would produce good or bad outcomes. After all, the notion that the law can and should be ignored whenever we think doing so would produce good results or would constitute good policy was the engine that drove Bush lawlessness. If, as Barack Obama proclaimed yesterday, "the United States is a nation of laws" and his "Administration will always act in accordance with those laws," isn't it the obligation of those opposing prosecution to justify that position in light of these legal mandates and long-standing principles of Western justice? How can they be reconciled?
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Magehart']I wouldn't want someone who carried out orders from a superior to be punished for said actions. Work your way up the chain but don't punish the subordinates. If your teacher asked you to write a swear word on the board or fail the class you'ld do what he told. Then when the principal sees what you've done should you be punished? (sorry; I couldn't find a great analogy on short notice).

Nevertheless; you're taught not to disobey in the military. End of story.[/QUOTE]

This is sort of my take on it as well. The people who *should* be prosecuted are much higher up in the chain of command, and I would love to see them jailed for war crimes.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']This is sort of my take on it as well. The people who *should* be prosecuted are much higher up in the chain of command, and I would love to see them jailed for war crimes.[/quote]

Start with the small fry. Offer them immunity for the successful prosecution of the bigger fry. Lather, rinse, repeat until there isn't a bigger fry.
 
[quote name='rickonker']I thought someone would bring this up. It's an interesting topic but irrelevant here, because prosecution is now required by law. From the link I posted:[/quote]

and every law is worth adhering too? I don't care whether you think torture is right or wrong but you shouldn't punish those who administered it. Whoever gave the order to do it should be punished. Whoever laid down the plans to first start torture procedures should be punished. All who authorized both their requests to perform torture should be punished. Don't punish those who didn't have a say in it. All you can do is file a complaint and that's that. Otherwise they could be imprisoned for disobeying a direct order. If these guys are imprisoned then you're pissing on the military and that's wrong. Punish the leaders who authorized the atrocities.


**Also; I hope that no lawsuits come from this outside of a soldier who did disobey and was reprimanded for it.
 
everyone involved should be punished from the solider who carry it out to the administration official that ok'ed it.

I am sorry but "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable defense....I don't care what cult, terrorist group, military, church, hippie collective, think tank, business, political party, thursday night sewing club, etc you belong to you should be prosecuted.

As for Obama not doing anything about...I am disgusted (I like Obama quite a bit) but I would not be against a person/s looking into putting some political and more if need be pressure on him to reevaluate the decsion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='gareman']everyone involved should be punished from the solider who carry it out to the administration official that ok'ed it.

I am sorry but "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable defense....I don't care what cult, terrorist group, military, church, hippie collective, think tank, business, political party, thursday night sewing club, etc you belong to you should be persecuted.

As for Obama not doing anything about...I am disgusted (I like Obama quite a bit) but I would not be against a person/s looking into putting some political and more if need be pressure on him to reevaluate the decsion.[/quote]

Why? Hypothetically if someone pulled a gun to your head and told you to kill your best friend otherwise he'd kill both of you should you be charged with their murder? You committed the crime against your FREEwill. Yes you would never have done the act in an ideal situation but this isn't an ideal situation they were in.
 
[quote name='Magehart']Why? Hypothetically if someone pulled a gun to your head and told you to kill your best friend otherwise he'd kill both of you should you be charged with their murder? You committed the crime against your FREEwill. Yes you would never have done the act in an ideal situation but this isn't an ideal situation they were in.[/quote]

how can I do something against my freewill? Even though the scope of my freewill was narrowed by another person I still made a choice (whatever that choice might have been).


These soldiers did not have a gun against their head as far as I know. But regardless, these soldiers were doing something that was against the law. Now do I think they should be punished by being thrown in jail...no. I think they should evaluated by a mental health team and be placed in rehabilitation programs accordingly. I can see the pressure of a job, an authority figure, the military as a whole contributing greatly to a person acting in such a manner, but to allow someone whom tortured people to get a pass card and walk around in public without being evaluated or educated is criminal to me.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']This is sort of my take on it as well. The people who *should* be prosecuted are much higher up in the chain of command, and I would love to see them jailed for war crimes.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Magehart']and every law is worth adhering too? I don't care whether you think torture is right or wrong but you shouldn't punish those who administered it. Whoever gave the order to do it should be punished. Whoever laid down the plans to first start torture procedures should be punished. All who authorized both their requests to perform torture should be punished. Don't punish those who didn't have a say in it. All you can do is file a complaint and that's that. Otherwise they could be imprisoned for disobeying a direct order. If these guys are imprisoned then you're pissing on the military and that's wrong. Punish the leaders who authorized the atrocities.


**Also; I hope that no lawsuits come from this outside of a soldier who did disobey and was reprimanded for it.[/QUOTE]


That's not how it works. I don't know if either of you read the link, or even the short quote I posted, but nobody here is arguing that the higher-ups shouldn't be punished. The Obama administration is required by law to prosecute, and Obama has pledged that his "Administration will always act in accordance with those laws". He is now breaking that pledge and illegally protecting torturers. From the link, again: "But leave aside the question of whether prosecutions would produce good or bad outcomes. After all, the notion that the law can and should be ignored whenever we think doing so would produce good results or would constitute good policy was the engine that drove Bush lawlessness."

[quote name='Magehart']every law is worth adhering too?[/quote]


We're not talking about you or me. We're talking about the president of the United States, the head of the government. So yes, they better follow the fucking law. Or have you already forgotten the last eight years?


[quote name='Magehart']Why? Hypothetically if someone pulled a gun to your head and told you to kill your best friend otherwise he'd kill both of you should you be charged with their murder? You committed the crime against your FREEwill. Yes you would never have done the act in an ideal situation but this isn't an ideal situation they were in.[/QUOTE]


They willingly broke the law.

[quote name='gareman']everyone involved should be punished from the solider who carry it out to the administration official that ok'ed it.

I am sorry but "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable defense....I don't care what cult, terrorist group, military, church, hippie collective, think tank, business, political party, thursday night sewing club, etc you belong to you should be persecuted.[/QUOTE]


:applause:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Magehart']Why? Hypothetically if someone pulled a gun to your head and told you to kill your best friend otherwise he'd kill both of you should you be charged with their murder? You committed the crime against your FREEwill. Yes you would never have done the act in an ideal situation but this isn't an ideal situation they were in.[/quote]

You would be willing to kill your best friend at the chance of living a little longer? I will definitely not go apple picking with you.

EDIT: As to the bigger picture, adults are responsible for their actions and must face their consequences.
 
[quote name='HowStern']He's not protecting anyone.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_interrogation_memos

Salon.com is an iffy site to get info from. They like to word things "their own way" I've found sometimes.

It's just that they were orders from higher up. But like FOC said they should use the little ones to bait the big ones.[/QUOTE]
Look at the dates. There's nothing "iffy" about the link. This is just Obama responding to pressure. We'll see if he actually does anything.
 
[quote name='gareman']
I am sorry but "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable defense....I don't care what cult, terrorist group, military, church, hippie collective, think tank, business, political party, thursday night sewing club, etc you belong to you should be prosecuted.
[/QUOTE]

That's pretty much how I feel every time I'm at a stop light next to a car blaring rap music super loud. I feel my life is in more inherent danger from that torture than I would if I were waterboarded. ;)

_____

Anyway, I thought Obama, at some point in his campaign, promised not to prosecute these guys in some way. Or maybe I'm thinking of something else.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Look at the dates. There's nothing "iffy" about the link. This is just Obama responding to pressure. We'll see if he actually does anything.[/quote]
He just had to think it over. It's a tough call since they were just following orders from the higher ups. We all know it should really be Bush and Cheney up on trial. At least we actually have a president who does, indeed, think things over.

That link wasn't iffy but sometimes it feels like salon.com has a motive and it isn't just objective reporting. They walk the line it seems. I do like the site though.

edit to clarify "following orders". I do believe they should have refused to follow such orders but they obviously would have lost their jobs and I suspect the CIA has done much worse in their time than approve waterboarding as a reasonable torture. So, I highly doubt the people in such position to refuse said orders are the type to have the integrity to do so. Ultimately they should be prosecuted so that in the future people will have the backbone to refuse to do such things. But like I said the higher ups should be prosecuted just as harshly.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Sometimes, the best way to fertilize is to scorch the earth.[/quote]But... generally speaking, letting things sit and rot is actually a better way of going about it.
 
[quote name='HowStern']He just had to think it over. It's a tough call since they were just following orders from the higher ups. We all know it should really be Bush and Cheney up on trial. At least we actually have a president who does, indeed, think things over.[/quote]


But HowStern, why do you want a president who, when faced with a choice between following the law and NOT following the law, has to "think things over"? By that standard, Bush thought things over all the time. The law is the issue here, not who should be punished more.

That link wasn't iffy but sometimes it feels like salon.com has a motive and it isn't just objective reporting. They walk the line it seems. I do like the site though.
Click to expand...


This was from Glenn Greenwald, who has been following these issues for a long time and has a great track record.


edit to clarify "following orders". I do believe they should have refused to follow such orders but they obviously would have lost their jobs and I suspect the CIA has done much worse in their time than approve waterboarding as a reasonable torture. So, I highly doubt the people in such position to refuse said orders are the type to have the integrity to do so. Ultimately they should be prosecuted so that in the future people will have the backbone to refuse to do such things. But like I said the higher ups should be prosecuted just as harshly.
Click to expand...


Ok, so you're saying they should be prosecuted. I agree. The law agrees. Obama does not, and he's now willing to break the law to make sure it doesn't happen.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Ok, so you're saying they should be prosecuted. I agree. The law agrees. Obama does not, and he's now willing to break the law to make sure it doesn't happen.[/quote]

Well, it looks like he has changed his mind with the link I posted above and then the one gareman just posted. But while I disagree with his initial stance of not pursuing charges, I understood the dilemma. It was sanctioned by gov't, so, why go after the little people. I disagreed but I get why it would take some thought.

Also, I'm not so sure GWB thought anything through haha just look at this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
 
[quote name='The Crotch']But... generally speaking, letting things sit and rot is actually a better way of going about it.[/quote]

Typical Canadian response. Always wanting somebody else to do the heavy lifting.

Oooo, allowing red worms to eat the waste doesn't turn into an uncontrollable blaze that destroys several neighborhoods and families.

If Jeebus didn't want the entire city devastated, he would have donated more money to the fire department.
 
[quote name='gareman']everyone involved should be punished from the solider who carry it out to the administration official that ok'ed it.

I am sorry but "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable defense....I don't care what cult, terrorist group, military, church, hippie collective, think tank, business, political party, thursday night sewing club, etc you belong to you should be prosecuted.[/quote]

Slippery slope logic.
 
[quote name='paddlefoot']Slippery slope logic.[/quote]


explain how that is a slippery slope.

edit: considering I didn't even make an argument.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='HowStern']Well, it looks like he has changed his mind with the link I posted above and then the one gareman just posted. But while I disagree with his initial stance of not pursuing charges, I understood the dilemma. It was sanctioned by gov't, so, why go after the little people. I disagreed but I get why it would take some thought.[/quote]


Like I said, he's just responding to pressure.

There was no immediate explanation of the reversal in Obama's position on the officials who formulated the interrogation policy, but it came amid mounting pressure from congressional Democrats and human rights activists for greater accountability regarding the program.
Click to expand...


It said he's now leaving the door open. We need to see if he actually decides to follow the law.

Also, I'm not so sure GWB thought anything through haha just look at this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
Click to expand...


Yeah, exactly.
 
[quote name='rickonker']
It said he's now leaving the door open. We need to see if he actually decides to follow the law.[/quote]This stuff is not exactly my strong point, but...

... isn't it out of his hands? Isn't this a matter for the attorney general in the end?
 
[quote name='The Crotch']This stuff is not exactly my strong point, but...

... isn't it out of his hands? Isn't this a matter for the attorney general in the end?[/quote]

If our king doesn't want criminals prosecuted, then they won't be prosecuted.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']This stuff is not exactly my strong point, but...

... isn't it out of his hands? Isn't this a matter for the attorney general in the end?[/QUOTE]


No, Crotch, of course not. He's responsible for making sure the duties of the executive branch are carried out, and he's the attorney general's boss. Presidents order their attorneys general to do stuff all the time.

But yeah, he might try to pass it off that way.
 
[quote name='rickonker']
But yeah, he might try to pass it off that way.[/quote]Which is kinda exactly what I figure is going on here.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Which is kinda exactly what I figure is going on here.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he tries to leave it at that. But like I said, it's just not a valid excuse.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']An' if he takes a hands-off approach to the whole thing?[/quote]

I don't see how this can backlash against Obama if he lets his dogs hunt.

If all evidence of torture is destroyed before Holder finds it, Holder is just incompetent and can be replaced.

If evidence of torture is found, the prosecutions will make for great distractions for the imploding world economy.

It isn't Obama's fault the previous regime tortured people and he isn't fabricating new evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top