Should anyone in the USA be prosecuted for torture?

[DC]

I'll look more into this. It seems a bit onesided though. It paints the detainees as angels pretty much and the servicemen as vicious thugs a little too much to appear unbiased to me.

Was there hearings on this and if so where's the transcript if public or results?

If this is accurate and was passed down as standard treatment from high up I'd say there is a problem though.

Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.

yeah you dont get suspected when you are innocent, and even then, he was a moslem.

[Kestrel]

I'll look more into this. It seems a bit onesided though. It paints the detainees as angels pretty much and the servicemen as vicious thugs a little too much to appear unbiased to me.

So would find it reasonable if your son hung by shackles and beaten this way?

Or does the fact that the victim was Muslim make it somehow different?

The key point is that it was the decision by our nation's political leaders that the rules in the Army Field Manual and the Geneva Conventions didn't apply that led to this.

[Drysdale]

So would find it reasonable if your son hung by shackles and beaten this way?

Or does the fact that the victim was Muslim make it somehow different?

The key point is that it was the decision by our nation's political leaders that the rules in the Army Field Manual and the Geneva Conventions didn't apply that led to this.

If my son was scheming to kill thousands I'd not have much sympathy for him no. I have no tolerance for nondiscriminate murderers. That has nothing to do with this though.

I also have no qualms with Muslims unless they're Jihadists. Nice try to attempt to make this an ethnic issue for points from Dictator Cheney since that's obviously what this is.

Was it an order from the political leaders or just rogue troops?
Any proof on that assertion?

[JoeTheJuggler]

If my son was scheming to kill thousands I'd not have much sympathy for him no. I have no tolerance for nondiscriminate murderers. That has nothing to do with this though.

I also have no qualms with Muslims unless they're Jihadists. Nice try to attempt to make this an ethnic issue for points from Dictator Cheney since that's obviously what this is.

So you're flat out against the presumption of innocence? Have you ever had a Civics class? Do you realize how important this principle is?

You're happy to presume that someone accused of a crime is probably guilty and is a scumbag undeserving of your sympathy. Luckily, your approach isn't the approach our legal system takes.

What you describe doing is criminal. I've cited the law. That you disagree with it is irrelevant.

Breaking the law is a crime. The question seems to hinge on political reluctance to enforce the law equally. Unfortunately, that reluctance undermines the very notion of the rule of law and supports a "might makes right" approach. If only the losers of a conflict are held accountable for their crimes, then the law has little meaning.

You might be happy with "might makes right" as long as your side has the might. It's a short sighted approach though. I guarantee you, the U.S. will not enjoy its status as the sole superpower forever. This was partly what I had in mind when I pointed out that failure to enforce the law equally is not pragmatic in the long run. (Also the fact that torturing doesn't result in reliable information or confessions, and sets up our own people who are captured for similar treatment.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

If my son was scheming to kill thousands I'd not have much sympathy for him no. I have no tolerance for nondiscriminate murderers. That has nothing to do with this though.

What if some other person SAID that your son was scheming to kill thousands? How would you feel about your son being tortured based on that?

In Iraq, many people were imprisoned based on other people's confessions.

It's a horrible, illegal and downright uncivilized practice.

[Tailgater]

Whoever makes those Geico commercials.

[leftysergeant]

This is just dripping with un-American blather. We aree a nation of laws. Torture is barbaric and stupid. Some of your prior assumptions are utterly wack.

If my son was scheming to kill thousands I'd not have much sympathy for him no. I have no tolerance for nondiscriminate murderers.

Were you aware that some of the people being tortured were never found to have committed a crime? What justifies torturing them?

I can see no justification that a civilized human would accept.

Was it an order from the political leaders or just rogue troops?
Any proof on that assertion?

It came right from the top. Cheney, Rummy Gonzo and the Shrub got a worthless sack of detritus in the DoJ to write them a memo full of double-talk saying it was okay and they went ahead and gave the orders to people who should have known better than to carry them out.

[Lonewulf]

If my son was scheming to kill thousands I'd not have much sympathy for him no.

Yeah, see, you're the one that's assuming that the government is so perfect that it can't possibly ever end up torturing an innocent person by accident, and you claim I'm the "Utopian"...

[Darth Rotor]

I really hate to Godwin this, but isn't the Nuremberg Trials a good precedent for this? I mean, didn't the men involved in that make the exact same defense; they were just "following orders"?

Don't get me wrong, the degrees are quite different between what the Nazis did and our treatment of detained prisoners; but I'm asking, wasn't "we were just following orders" not seen as a good defense?

While your question may seem like an intriguing parallel, it misses the vital fact that nobody has their boot on the neck of America, defeated by might of arms, as the leverage for exercising this model of trial.

I'd be careful of trying to evoke that cookie cutter approach. I's a second order Godwin approach, this Appeal to Nuremburg. :p

I found the comments I read from the Spanish judge, recently, of interest: the pains the Bush's team went through to set up the policy by legal argument, based on this, that, and the other, seems to move the question into a swamp: is having a different legal opinion illegal?

Not too pleased with how this whole mess has played out, but I agree with the AG Holder: move on, don't bugger this up again.

@ lefty: the problem with info obtained under torture is that it may or may not be truthful. That is not the same statement as "torture doesn't work" which is what you have said before.

General Hayden explicitly stated that they waterboarded three people at Gitmo. Based on some sources in the open media, the info so obtained was useful.

It was or it wasn't. Don't know enough to judge, and I won't assume either way.

What is more interesting to me is: were those three it, or not? If they were it, fine. If not, then General Hayden ought to be summoned to Congress to explain the delta. He's not director of CIA anymore, but I think a subpoena would be in order.

DR

[Kestrel]

If my son was scheming to kill thousands I'd not have much sympathy for him no. I have no tolerance for nondiscriminate murderers. That has nothing to do with this though.

I also have no qualms with Muslims unless they're Jihadists. Nice try to attempt to make this an ethnic issue for points from Dictator Cheney since that's obviously what this is.

All it takes for you to believe someone is a Jihadist is a declaration from our political leaders.

Was it an order from the political leaders or just rogue troops?
Any proof on that assertion?

The secret Feb. 7, 2002 memo (http://lawofwar.org/Bush_memo_Genevas.htm) issued by George W. Bush for starters.

I determine that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants and, therefore, do not qualify as prisoners of war under Article 4 of Geneva. I note that, because Geneva does not apply to our conflict with al-Qaida, al-Qaida detainees also do not qualify as prisoners of war.

If you read the Geneva Conventions and our Military Law a tribunal is required to make such a determination should any doubt be raised. (An Afghan taxi driver that claims he is not a Jihadist for example). It can't just be a blanket declaration by a political leader.

The details of what could be done were in other documents (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html) including some that were recently released.

In September of 2006, George W. Bush was still claiming something else:

I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -and I will not authorize it.


That's one small fib for George, one giant fail for mankind.

[ponderingturtle]

While your question may seem like an intriguing parallel, it misses the vital fact that nobody has their boot on the neck of America, defeated by might of arms, as the leverage for exercising this model of trial.

So it really was just victors justice, and basic retribution, not any real legal process. We need to stop trying to sell it as anything but a show trial.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I dont know about often justified. I dont recall saying that.
You said a couple of times something like, as long as the terrorists continue their despicable crimes, torture is justified.

I pointed out that there will likely never be a time when there are no more terrorists or terrorism, so you are in effect saying that torture will be justified forever.

In fact, I was trying to paraphrase your position is a way that sounded as reasonable and moderate as I could. If you like, how about "sometimes justified"?* Similarly, I picked out what I thought was Wildcat's strongest point--that lawyers shouldn't be prosecuted for the crime of torture for giving their legal opinions on the issue.

The point I was making was that there is obviously a viable discussion going on in this thread because there are several quite starkly different positions on the topic.

Cobalt seemed to think we were just wasting our time all saying "rabble rabble rabble". I think he has since agreed that this was an unfair and inaccurate description of this thread.

*ETA: I find that phrasing disingenuous since you know full well that terrorism and other heinous crimes will never disappear from the face of the Earth. Again, if it's meant to be a temporary justification, but you know for sure the justification will never go away, then you're not really arguing that it's a temporary thing. That's part of the problem I have with the "war on terror". It's a war that can't possibly be won, so we know from the outset that it's meant to be a perpetual war or at least some sort of perpetual state of emergency. (See Dict. Cheney's sig!)

[JoeTheJuggler]

So it really was just victors justice, and basic retribution, not any real legal process. We need to stop trying to sell it as anything but a show trial.

I'm somewhere in between on this point. I think Nuremberg established some sound principles of law. Unfortunately, it only applied them to the losers in the conflict.

I see nothing wrong with citing those principles (and the modern law built on them) and trying to get them applied equally. I think there's a strong moral argument to be made pointing out the hypocrisy of pretending to establish a rule of law but then failing to apply that rule to everyone.

I guess that's because I'm a progressive at heart. I think at least some people involved in Nuremberg were idealistic enough to see the value in holding the trials and establishing some principles in hopes that one day they might be applied to everyone and not just the losers. I think that that "one day" is long overdue.

[Drysdale]

I've looked for more info on that article. The records are sealed it looks like. It also appears most charges were dropped or reduced. That being the case it certainly looks like Golden embellished the truth and left out some details.

I do trust our servicemen though. I'm not going to apologize for that. I am a former vet so I'm biased perhaps but I'm going to take the word of our servicemen over a liberal newspaper writer. I'm not gonna throw our vets under the bus like Lefty and others seems to like to do even though he's supposedly a former vet as well. Too many times the news media has tried to paint the vets as muderers and pillagers and been wrong. Haditha comes to mind right off the bat.

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree.

[leftysergeant]

I do trust our servicemen though. I'm not going to apologize for that. I am a former vet so I'm biased perhaps but I'm going to take the word of our servicemen over a liberal newspaper writer. I'm not gonna throw our vets under the bus like Lefty and others seems to like to do even though he's supposedly a former vet as well.

Who is throwing the veterans under the bus. I am just sufggesting that Rummy, Gonzo, the Shrub, Cheney and Yoo be thrown under a tank. They're animals.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I found the comments I read from the Spanish judge, recently, of interest: the pains the Bush's team went through to set up the policy by legal argument, based on this, that, and the other, seems to move the question into a swamp: is having a different legal opinion illegal?
In my opinion, the answer is no. But acting on a "legal opinion" that is different than the law might very well be a crime.

For example, my lawyer my tell me that there's a chance I can get away with doing x. If I do x, and the court and most reasonable people disagree with the opinion of my lawyer, I can't use my lawyer's opinion as an excuse for my actions.

I also expect if my lawyer's advice was so egregiously bad--so obviously in contradiction to the law, he might face disbarment.

[leftysergeant]

I also expect if my lawyer's advice was so egregiously bad--so obviously in contradiction to the law, he might face disbarment.

If my lawyer says it is okay for me to go out and beat the fool out of the witness in a burglary charge against me, is my lawyer committing a crime? I think so.

[Oliver]

CNN: Memo: 2 at Gitmo waterboarded 266 times (http://us.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/20/cia.waterboarding/index.html)

[Lonewulf]

I do trust our servicemen though. I'm not going to apologize for that. I am a former vet so I'm biased perhaps but I'm going to take the word of our servicemen over a liberal newspaper writer.

And I'm one that doesn't have blind faith in anyone, from "liberal newspaper writers" to people who conduct secret prisons.

In fact, the more secretive one acts, the less I trust them.

Unlike you, I think of the servicemen as being human. Humans I think of as fallible. It doesn't matter what position you're in, who you are, or what profession you've undertaken; you're still human, and you're still fallible. Period. This is why I favor transparency, and this is why most people do as well; through transparency, one can see where another is being fallible, and we can hope to correct that error. With secret prisons, one cannot.

[Lonewulf]

CNN: Memo: 2 at Gitmo waterboarded 266 times (http://us.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/20/cia.waterboarding/index.html)

Yes yes, but as Wildcat has noted, it's just like throwing a cockroach in their cell and the victims having "the vapors", including the captain that was waterboarded in a Japanese prison.

What wimps! They should have it done two times, no, four times more often. Maybe then the damned libruls will have a reason to complain. ;)

[Oliver]

Yes yes, but as Wildcat has noted, it's just like throwing a cockroach in their cell and the victims having "the vapors"


Well, maybe Jerry allows us to waterboard him over and over again until he confesses that it is torture. :boxedin:

[applecorped]

In fact, the more secretive one acts, the less I trust them.




Very woo-ish sounding.

[Pardalis]

CNN: Memo: 2 at Gitmo waterboarded 266 times (http://us.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/20/cia.waterboarding/index.html)

Boy, 266 times. What more proof did they need that this technique doesn't work?

[Lonewulf]

Very woo-ish sounding.

How is that?

"Humans are fallible" -- not woo-ish sounding.
"Secret trials held by fallible humans may contain errors" -- not woo-ish sounding.
"The more secretive people are and hide things from the general public, the less I trust them." -- Not woo-ish sounding.

Of course, if the average person is hiding something, that doesn't concern me as much. I may not trust them, but an absence of trust means nothing; just that they stay strangers to me, and I would not necessarily trust anything they said. Of course, I'd believe them on normal average things, but that level of trust still stays at "stranger level"; if you're the type that trusts any stranger like they're a close friend, I'm not the one with the problem...

But when you become a government, especially a republic, that ultimately answers to the people, then those people should also have some idea about what you're doing. Top secret military projects are an exception to this, but trials that may very well be picking up innocent people for "not really torture" sessions are something that should cause concern.

And believe me, if you believe that humans are perfect in any position of government, then I'm not the woo around here...

[Lonewulf]

Boy, 266 times. What more proof did they need that this technique doesn't work?

Maybe they should upgrade to Japanese "water torture". Hey, if it hurts more and threatens their lives, it must be more effective.

[Cobalt]

Who is throwing the veterans under the bus. I am just sufggesting that Rummy, Gonzo, the Shrub, Cheney and Yoo be thrown under a tank. They're animals.

HEY! Let's torture them to find out something! There's OBVIOUSLY nothing wrong with that.


The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

[Lonewulf]

HEY! Let's torture them to find out something! There's OBVIOUSLY nothing wrong with that.


The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=hyperbole&search=search

The main difference between hyperbole and reality? One group's actually torturing. Three guesses on which one.

[Cobalt]

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=hyperbole&search=search

The main difference between hyperbole and reality? One group's actually torturing. Three guesses on which one.

Oh, sorry, let me fix that post I just made.

</sarcasm>

[Lonewulf]

Oh, sorry, let me fix that post I just made.

</sarcasm>

Somehow, that doesn't really change things, I think.

[Cobalt]

Somehow, that doesn't really change things, I think.

It wasn't meant to be a serious post. Gotta relax, man, just go with the flow.

[Lonewulf]

Well, no skin off my nose, either way. ;)

[JoeTheJuggler]

If my lawyer says it is okay for me to go out and beat the fool out of the witness in a burglary charge against me, is my lawyer committing a crime? I think so.

What crime? Surely not the crime of assault (the same as actually beating up the guy)? Is there some law where people in a position where their legal advice is likely to have such consequences can be held responsible for those actions?

I agree Gonzales and Yoo should be held accountable for their "legal opinion" attempting to redefine torture (limiting it only to the intentional infliction of pain equivalent to organ failure, loss of bodily function and death), but they're not actually guilty of committing or ordering torture, are they?

Dubya and whoever else acted on that advice certainly are. So are the ones who did the dirty work.

[Lonewulf]

What crime? Surely not the crime of assault (the same as actually beating up the guy)? Is there some law where people in a position where their legal advice is likely to have such consequences can be held responsible for those actions?Malpractice?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Malpractice?

That would be a suit where a former client sues his own attorney. In this case, it would be Dubya and company suing Gonzales and Yoo. I don't think legal malpractice (http://www.texaslegalmalpractice.com/definition.htm) is a legal theory that gives us ("the people") any grounds for pressing charges.

[ZirconBlue]

And I'm one that doesn't have blind faith in anyone, from "liberal newspaper writers" to people who conduct secret prisons.

In fact, the more secretive one acts, the less I trust them.

Unlike you, I think of the servicemen as being human. Humans I think of as fallible. It doesn't matter what position you're in, who you are, or what profession you've undertaken; you're still human, and you're still fallible. Period. This is why I favor transparency, and this is why most people do as well; through transparency, one can see where another is being fallible, and we can hope to correct that error. With secret prisons, one cannot.

Well said, Lonewulf. I'm a big fan of the brave men and women who serve in our armed forces. But, they're still human, and we should be careful about putting people up on pedestals.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I see where Obama just said (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/21/obama.memos/index.html)that he's not closing the door on the possibility of torture prosecutions, but that it's really up to A.G. Holder.

He also said this:
There's a host of very complicated issues involved there. As a general deal, I think we should be looking forward and not backward.
That's what I like to call the Mark McGwire defense: "I'm not here oversight committee] to talk about the past."

Why does no one say something like this when we're talking about a crime committed by a poor person? Our prisons are filled with relatively minor drug offenders, but we pull this garbage when it's time to prosecute people who advocated or actually conducted torture.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Me too. I voted! YAY ME!


I know you want to belittle political participation, but I just heard a news report that attributes Obama's change in position on this issue to pressure he got from people like me (calling, e-mailing, writing letters and so on).

As I've said several times, I can't see any legitimate reason for not investigating and pressing charges against people involved at least in the most egregious cases--where the prisoner was tortured to death. After all, this even satisfies the horrendous legal opinion given by Yoo and Gonzales.

Obama is now in favor of a bipartisan committee to investigate torture during the Bush administration. Yay!

[Cobalt]

I know you want to belittle political participation, but I just heard a news report that attributes Obama's change in position on this issue to pressure he got from people like me (calling, e-mailing, writing letters and so on). Well good for you. No, really, I'm actually happy that you did something instead of just bitch about it over the internet.


As I've said several times, I can't see any legitimate reason for not investigating and pressing charges against people involved at least in the most egregious cases--where the prisoner was tortured to death. After all, this even satisfies the horrendous legal opinion given by Yoo and Gonzales. Never said I disagreed with you.


Obama is now in favor of a bipartisan committee to investigate torture during the Bush administration. Yay!
Hooray!

[leftysergeant]

Obama is now in favor of a bipartisan committee to investigate torture during the Bush administration. Yay!

I just hope that this time, those thugs like Karl Rove who refuse to honor a suibpoena are arrested and stuck in the dungeon under the Capitol until they decide to talk, and that any of them caught lying fdo the jail time they have coming.

[JoeTheJuggler]

What crime? Surely not the crime of assault (the same as actually beating up the guy)? Is there some law where people in a position where their legal advice is likely to have such consequences can be held responsible for those actions?

I wonder if there's a possibility of something like "conspiracy to torture"?

(I was thinking about Charles Manson--he didn't actually do any of the murders, so I think he was charged with conspiracy --probably upped to murder using the felony murder rule. But I don't know for sure.)

[leftysergeant]

I wonder if there's a possibility of something like "conspiracy to torture"?

(I was thinking about Charles Manson--he didn't actually do any of the murders, so I think he was charged with conspiracy --probably upped to murder using the felony murder rule. But I don't know for sure.)

Yoo is a slam-dunk for criminal facilitation before the fact of murder. A couple people croaked behind his memo.

[applecorped]

Yoo is a slam-dunk for criminal facilitation before the fact of murder. A couple people croaked behind his memo.


And which couple of people croaked?

[leftysergeant]

And which couple of people croaked?

I would have to look up the names, but there was one Iraqi General.

Did that Afghan taxi driver survive?

[Darth Rotor]

I've read about twenty articles lately on this topic, and find AG Holder's job to be a difficult one, the politics of it all considered.

If he is to pursue anyone, I have seven people who he must pursue first, anyone else second:

George W Bush: buck stops here, and he was involved in at least some decisions. Also, on his watch.

Donald Rumsfeld: DoD assistance to the program at GITMO, and the crap in Iraq that got out of hand. On his watch.

George Tenet: wanted it. On his watch.

Four Senators on the sooper sekrit Senat Intel Committee: two Dems, two GOP's. They were briefed, and did not act. One (a Dem) played the "I don't recall" horsecrap, which I guess has become de rigeur in Washington.

So, AG Holder, since what is coming to light seems to show that the decision makers in suits in Washington fast tracked this, and given mixed advice felt a time pressure to "get the ticking bomb before Jack Bauer gets there first" and thus went on to use these nasty methods to not only handly a few hard cases, but apparently a few more, they are answerable to Congress, or to the AG and his Ken Starr sort of special prosecutor, when one is appointed.

This is a bit more than a blow job.

DR

[davefoc]

I've read about twenty articles lately on this topic, and find AG Holder's job to be a difficult one, the politics of it all considered.

If he is to pursue anyone, I have seven people who he must pursue first, anyone else second:

George W Bush: buck stops here, and he was involved in at least some decisions. Also, on his watch.

Donald Rumsfeld: DoD assistance to the program at GITMO, and the crap in Iraq that got out of hand. On his watch.

George Tenet: wanted it. On his watch.

Four Senators on the sooper sekrit Senat Intel Committee: two Dems, two GOP's. They were briefed, and did not act. One (a Dem) played the "I don't recall" horsecrap, which I guess has become de rigeur in Washington.

So, AG Holder, since what is coming to light seems to show that the decision makers in suits in Washington fast tracked this, and given mixed advice felt a time pressure to "get the ticking bomb before Jack Bauer gets there first" and thus went on to use these nasty methods to not only handly a few hard cases, but apparently a few more, they are answerable to Congress, or to the AG and his Ken Starr sort of special prosecutor, when one is appointed.

This is a bit more than a blow job.

DR

Yup, this is the kind of stuff that needs to be done if one were really to go after the people responsible. Personally, as a person that always aspired for higher positions throughout his career, I would have passed on this mess I think. It would have been cool to have ever achieved anything remotely as impressive as AG but damn, this is a flaming mess and it could mess up anybody near it.

I notice that you didn't list Cheney. He was probably the strongest advocate for this stuff in the administration. You think he didn't have the relevant authority for prosecution?

[Darth Rotor]

I notice that you didn't list Cheney. He was probably the strongest advocate for this stuff in the administration. You think he didn't have the relevant authority for prosecution?
Correct, however much Cheney may have advocated for this, he had no authority. W's call, W's responsibility.

And Cheney knew that. You may not like him, but he's not stupid. He was also a decent SEC DEF. 9-11 undid his brain, IMO.

DR

[davefoc]

Correct, however much Cheney may have advocated for this, he had no authority. W's call, W's responsibility.

And Cheney knew that. You may not like him, but he's not stupid. He was also a decent SEC DEF. 9-11 undid his brain, IMO.

DR

I agree sort of. In my musings about how organizations work one thought I have had is that managers in successful organizations have appropriate responsibility to authority ratios. Cheney's authority level in the early Bush administration seemed off the chart, but it's hard to see that he had any responsibility level at all.

And it did seem like he knew what he was doing as secretary of defense, but from my perspective his vice presidency was marked with extreme personal loyalty, a belief in and the pursuit of a kind of Corporate/Government aristocracy and an obsession with the notion that all things were justified if the risk of a terrorist attack was reduced without seeming to realize that some of the things he was doing could make them more likely.

[leftysergeant]

And Cheney knew that. You may not like him, but he's not stupid.

Of course not. He is a sociopath, though. Total waste of human emotions.

He was also a decent SEC DEF.

Second worst of my life time.

9-11 undid his brain, IMO.

No. He just never had a conscience.

When he was Sec Def, he and the critter who would later go on to become the worst-ever Sec Def convinced the government to spend billions of dollars to develop a means of locating a super-horrible-God-awful-stealth Soiviet submarine that the CIA insisted never existed.

The CIA was right.

Now whales are dying by the hundreds because of the technology that was developed to track the submarine that those two scuzz buckets convinced Gerald Ford was a real threat.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is a bit more than a blow job.

You said it!

I agree with your list, but I don't think there's any reason to take prosecution of the people lower down off the table.

I see in the news today (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/22/us.torture.karpinski/index.html) that Karpinski is claiming she was scapegoated for just following orders. I've already pointed out that "just following orders" is specifically ruled out as a defense in the Convention Against Torture.

ETA: If you're a colonel running a prison in Iraq and you AREN'T familiar with the U.N. Convention Against Torture, you should be discharged for gross incompetence.

I heard a part of an interview (maybe on NPR) with former guard at Guantanamo. This was just a grunt (a "specialist" or "private" or whatever the low rank is) who was strictly a guard and not involved in interrogations at all, but she said that early in her training it was stressed to her that she had an obligation to disobey any order that was illegal or immoral. Surely a colonel would have also known her duty to disobey such orders. Ditto CIA agents or people qualified to do the interrogations.

I think it's an important bit of law that needs to be clarified in the minds of everyone. I don't care if many of these people use "following orders" as a mitigating circumstance and end up with token sentences, but they should actually be found guilty of the crimes they committed.

[BenBurch]

Normally, I would endorse prosecuting everybody involved with it. And perhaps an International jurisdiction may yet do this.

But I simply don't see the political will to do that here, and so I am voting for prosecution of those who issued the orders because somebody has to pay for this crime against humanity.

[JoeTheJuggler]

In my musings about how organizations work one thought I have had is that managers in successful organizations have appropriate responsibility to authority ratios. Cheney's authority level in the early Bush administration seemed off the chart, but it's hard to see that he had any responsibility level at all.

While it's not in the language of the C.A.T. I recall language in other war crimes legislation that says a person who is "effectively in command" even if not nominally in command (meant to cover unofficial set-ups like war lords or cartel bosses or whatnot) is responsible for what is done by those he is in command of. Again, it was meant that if you're the guy who takes power in a power-vacuum, and you even allow war crimes to continue while you're in a position to make them stop, you are guilty of those crimes.

I'm pretty sure a case can be made that Cheney effectively shared command with Dubya.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Normally, I would endorse prosecuting everybody involved with it. And perhaps an International jurisdiction may yet do this.

But I simply don't see the political will to do that here, and so I am voting for prosecution of those who issued the orders because somebody has to pay for this crime against humanity.
I'm more concerned about the precedent we set by not prosecuting any particular level. Yes, emotionally I'm with Lefty in wishing the puppet masters get a bit of eye-for-an-eye treatment, but more rationally, the best way to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again is to make it clear to the world that the law actually counts.

Frankly, I think there will always be thugs at the top who go mad with power (or perceived power). I'm a bit more hopeful that if the mid-level people and operatives on the ground (those actually conducting interrogations) take their duty to disobey illegal orders more seriously, it is they who could put a stop to this in the future.

ETA: I think what Obama and Holder have both said about not prosecuting the operatives who were just following orders is horribly dangerous. It tells people that if there's any doubt as to whether an order is illegal or not, they're safe in obeying it. It basically undoes the principle established at Nuremberg.

[BenBurch]

I'm more concerned about the precedent we set by not prosecuting any particular level. Yes, emotionally I'm with Lefty in wishing the puppet masters get a bit of eye-for-an-eye treatment, but more rationally, the best way to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again is to make it clear to the world that the law actually counts.

Frankly, I think there will always be thugs at the top who go mad with power (or perceived power). I'm a bit more hopeful that if the mid-level people and operatives on the ground (those actually conducting interrogations) take their duty to disobey illegal orders more seriously, it is they who could put a stop to this in the future.

Without a doubt, you have no duty to obey an illegal order. And these were illegal orders EVEN if you were told at the time by other criminals that they were legal orders. And so this should be prosecuted exactly as we prosecuted the Nazis at Nuremberg.

I just don't see us managing to do that without international prodding.

Because if we took out everybody involved in this, we would be outlawing the GOP. And Democrats may control the country now, but we would never be able to get that to happen without a civil war.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And so this should be prosecuted exactly as we prosecuted the Nazis at Nuremberg.
That won't happen, because that was a case of the winners prosecuting the losers. In this case, we need to do better than that.

At any rate, the C.A.T. spells out how prosecutions should be carried out. The whole thing is overseen by The Committee, but it seems the individual country ("State Party" in the language of the C.A.T.) is largely responsible for enforcing the law. Other State Parties may appeal to the committee if they think the U.S. is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention, but by and large it's up to the legal system in the U.S. to tackle prosecutions.

Because if we took out everybody involved in this, we would be outlawing the GOP.
I don't think that's true. The list Darth Rotor provided (plus Cheney) wouldn't be the undoing of the GOP. In fact, it might actually help the party in the long run to distance itself from this chapter in their history.

ETA: Even it's so, the demise of a political party is not a legitimate reason to refrain from prosecuting torture criminals.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've read about twenty articles lately on this topic, and find AG Holder's job to be a difficult one, the politics of it all considered.

If he is to pursue anyone, I have seven people who he must pursue first, anyone else second:

George W Bush: buck stops here, and he was involved in at least some decisions. Also, on his watch.

Donald Rumsfeld: DoD assistance to the program at GITMO, and the crap in Iraq that got out of hand. On his watch.

George Tenet: wanted it. On his watch.

Four Senators on the sooper sekrit Senat Intel Committee: two Dems, two GOP's. They were briefed, and did not act. One (a Dem) played the "I don't recall" horsecrap, which I guess has become de rigeur in Washington.


You can add Conaleeza Rice & John Ashcroft (and Cheney as already mentioned) to the list:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/23/cheney.rice.waterboarding/index.html

[INRM]

Dan O.

Trials of war crimes should be held in international courts where the world can uncover the real truths and subject the criminals to proper punishment without the protectionist umbrella of the mother country.

Maybe you're right.

Opinions?

[shadron]

Some news reportage, from the FAS secrecy in Government (http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/) project:

MORE DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS ON TORTURE

The Senate Intelligence Committee released a newly declassified account of the opinions issued by the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel concerning CIA's interrogation and detention program during the Bush Administration. The document is neutral, dispassionate, and maybe a little dull, particularly when compared with the gruesomely detailed contents of some of the OLC opinions themselves, on which it does not render any moral or legal judgment. Remarkably, release of this Senate report was blocked last year when the Bush Administration National Security Council refused to declassify it. But now it, and much more, has been released. See "Declassified Narrative Describing the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel's Opinions on the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program" (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2009_rpt/ssci_olc.pdf) (pdf), released April 22, 2009.

Another newly declassified report, from the Senate Armed Services Committee, does not shrink from drawing conclusions. "The report represents a condemnation of both the Bush administration's interrogation policies and of senior administration officials who attempted to shift the blame for abuse--such as that seen at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and Afghanistan--to low ranking soldiers. Claims, such as that made by former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz that detainee abuses could be chalked up to the unauthorized acts of a 'few bad apples,' were simply false," said Sen. Carl Levin in an April 21 floor statement (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2009_cr/levin042109.html) introducing the report (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2009_rpt/detainees.pdf) (large pdf).

Does torture work? Preempting and perhaps foreclosing an argument advanced by former Vice President Cheney and others, DNI Dennis C. Blair said in an April 21 statement (http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2009/04/dni042109.html) that "The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security," he said (http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2009/04/dni042109.html).

[leftysergeant]

And these were illegal orders EVEN if you were told at the time by other criminals that they were legal orders.

That they had Yoo's memo gave the perps the ability to convince the underlings that they were prepared to ruin the lives of anyone who preferred to be a human being and a soldier. To some extentr, PVT England was acting under duress. That diminishes her responsibility, and makes the Shrub's, Cheney's, Rummy's and Yoo's crimes more heinous.

Because if we took out everybody involved in this, we would be outlawing the GOP.

Which I would see as a good thing. Then the opposition could be shared by three other parties, Libertarian, Fascist and Theocratic, there only to make noise unless and until the Democrats jump the shark.

[JoeTheJuggler]

To some extentr, PVT England was acting under duress. That diminishes her responsibility, and makes the Shrub's, Cheney's, Rummy's and Yoo's crimes more heinous.

This is a bit of a derail, but I don't understand why some of these people who did the sex stuff aren't made to register as sex offenders for their "abuse".

[JoeTheJuggler]

Opinions?
See my post #304.

[Brainster]

So, how about Nancy Pelosi in the dock (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0409/Pelosi_briefed_on_waterboarding_in_02_.html)?

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

I'm going to take a wild-ass guess and say that one of the other four members of Congress was Harry Reid, Senate Majority leader.

[applecorped]

There's a fine line between harsh techniques and torture. A very fine line. A line so fine that no court will able to discern its place accurately enough to be able to prosecute anyone.

[Lonewulf]

So that's one man's opinion.

[Texas]

You can add Conaleeza Rice & John Ashcroft (and Cheney as already mentioned) to the list:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/23/cheney.rice.waterboarding/index.htmlPlease add Pelosi and Reid.

[Brainster]

And suddenly the sound of crickets from the pro-prosecution side.

[applecorped]

And suddenly the sound of crickets from the pro-prosecution side.

Let it happen! It would be quite the show!!

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's a fine line between harsh techniques and torture. A very fine line. A line so fine that no court will able to discern its place accurately enough to be able to prosecute anyone.

I don't agree. For one thing, courts are perfectly able to discern lines. Courts frequently use terms such as "severe", "reasonable" and the like.

Secondly, the line is pretty clear-cut, at least for many cases. In the U.S. Code, one of the types of severe mental pain is the threat of imminent death. Waterboarding works primarily by making the person think he is going to die. (Also, the U.S. has prosecuted criminals for using waterboarding.)

Also, what about the people who were actually tortured to death? Surely there's no spin one can put on these incidents to argue credibly that it was not torture.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And suddenly the sound of crickets from the pro-prosecution side.

Nonsense. I've repeatedly said on these torture threads that anyone guilty of doing or ordering torture should be prosecuted. I've pointed out that you could make a case for complicity or conspiracy for some others (the brilliant legal minds who tried to justify it, and perhaps even people who merely knew about it but remained silent).

I could care less what party they belong to.

And yes, if Obama's policy on rendition leads someone to be tortured in another country (as happened with Bush), I will be calling for his impeachment and prosecution as well. Extraordinary rendition is plainly a violation of the C.A.T.

[applecorped]

Time will tell.

[Lonewulf]

Time will tell.
Indeed it will. Though I suppose you'd count anything as a victory; if the courts don't do anything, ergo, they couldn't do anything, correct?

[Oliver]

U.S. actually did execute Japanese soldiers for waterboarding (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/yes-inational-reviewi-we_b_191153.html)

Awwww ... that's soooo cute hypocritical. :rolleyes:

[KoihimeNakamura]

That was also 50 years ago.:| Everyone knows what happened then is no way relevant to now :rolleyes:

[Brainster]

Such a delight to hear that everything the US did in WWII to the Japanese was 100% right. Perhaps we could start up internment camps for Muslims in the United States. After all, we did it in World War II! Or maybe we could nuke Tehran, after all, we did it in World War II!

[KoihimeNakamura]

Brainster: I think taking that tact is useless on Oliver. However, I felt like being mildly sarcastic about whether or not that applied today.

[Oliver]

Brainster: I think taking that tact is useless on Oliver. However, I felt like being mildly sarcastic about whether or not that applied today.


I didn't even notice that Brainster was aiming at me [probably a translational issue.]

However, given the fact that the US-System and consitutuion still is pretty much the same as was back then, I consider the death penalty back then - and in contrast to "Meh, me, Obama won't take action" as pretty hypocritical ... at best - even if I completely understand the political POV that kicking retardlican evildoers torture policies doesn't help him in any way whatsoever - besides restoring the USA's reputation outside it's borders, which surely doesn't seem to be a priority in this case.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Well. He may be aiming at me, but to answer it in a nonsarcastic manner: You're pointing ot something 3 generations ago. While the laws may apply the same, societal norms do in fact matter in how something is applied.

[Oliver]

Well. He may be aiming at me, but to answer it in a nonsarcastic manner: You're pointing ot something 3 generations ago. While the laws may apply the same, societal norms do in fact matter in how something is applied.


Huh, why should torture have been a bad thing back then but not in nowaday terms - unless it's a hypocritical "back then it was the Japanese and now we are talking about US patriots who should be protected no matter what they do"-stance?

It's ridicolous if we're talking about the moral aspect and the different handling between 1940 and now, is it not?

[Oliver]

Huh, why should torture have been a bad thing back then but not in nowaday terms - unless it's a hypocritical "back then it was the Japanese and now we are talking about US patriots who should be protected no matter what they do"-stance?

It's ridicolous if we're talking about the moral aspect and the different handling between 1940 and now, is it not?


And I should add that the European outrage about those topics were not based on anti-americanism - but on "it's anti-american" to allow those things.

Thus the moral stance on torture at least didn't change in Europe - did it in the US? - ... because that's what you seem to imply.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I was more responding to the death-sentence aspect, not the torture thing.

[Oliver]

I was more responding to the death-sentence aspect, not the torture thing.


Mhmm, to me it doesn't make a difference what kind of legal consequences it had back then. It annoys me to learn that there are no consequences at all because the differentiation of foreigners and US-citizens doing the freaking same thing. That's a quite sad thing for what the rest of the West and the world believed America and their idiology to be.

You surely understand this sad fact if you think about it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well. He may be aiming at me, but to answer it in a nonsarcastic manner: You're pointing ot something 3 generations ago. While the laws may apply the same, societal norms do in fact matter in how something is applied.

Actually many of the principles of modern law on this topic came from the post WWII trials, but the laws in question are modern laws. The Convention Against Torture was signed by the U.S. in 1988 and ratified in 1994.

Is that recent enough law?

I don't know the exact dates, but I'm pretty sure the pertinent parts of the U.S. Code were written after the signing.

[applecorped]

Or maybe we could nuke Tehran, after all, we did it in World War II!

We'll let Israel do that for us.

[Lonewulf]

Such a delight to hear that everything the US did in WWII to the Japanese was 100% right. Perhaps we could start up internment camps for Muslims in the United States. After all, we did it in World War II! Or maybe we could nuke Tehran, after all, we did it in World War II!

Wait wait. Ignoring the incredibly lame analogy and the glaring differences between the two conflicts, you're against the nuclear weapons used in Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

I'm sorry, I thought that the arguments about "killing/torturing one to save thousands" actually meant something? Because, you know, the nuclear weapons dropped had the effect of lowering the total body count of the conflict, as the Japanese were not going to give up in the land war (they were training children how to fight in case we invaded the mainland, for Pete's sake; not the sign of a force about ready to give in).

If we dropped firebombs or conventional bombs, we would have killed no fewer amounts of civilians.

If we came in on land, lots of U.S. soldiers would have died, and the Japanese would have trained civilians to fight us.

As far as I see it, the nuclear weapons were seen to be the best possible solution to a problem that had only terrible solutions.

[Darth Rotor]

You can add Conaleeza Rice & John Ashcroft (and Cheney as already mentioned) to the list:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/23/cheney.rice.waterboarding/index.html

Ashcroft maybe. However, he did not order the actions, as i understand it, and as I understand the FBI's role, FBI agents were removed from the events. It is not clear to me. Very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaffe. But President Bush, if anyone is to be called on the carpet, was in the loop, and called himself the decider.

So, he's the prime party to answer for any of this. Given his belief, worthy or not, about the proximity in time of more substantial threats, and his (and Cheney's) fears of another attack, any inquiry by an objective commission or court -- rather than the usual political witch hunters who arrive in these cases -- might or might not convict him. It's not cut and dried, but it also isn't pretty.

ETA:

Please read "My Tortured Decision" for one look at this whole mess, from one FBI agent's point of view. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html

His problem, as I see it, in writing this article is that he presumes an eagle's eye view on "useful intel," wheras he comes up short, due to it being out of his lane. There are others who state quite clearly that useful intel was gained. Why should I believe him over them? He was not at the operating level where it all gets sifted into what is and isn't actionable.

That said, his point of view is important. He was not ever convinced that the time pressure was as pressing as it was portrayed to the public. He has credible authority to advocate like the guys in Iraq who got the useful info on Zarquari, the effectiveness of other metods in, over time, eliciting useful information. But recall the Zarquari problem: sure, we got him, in time, and in the two years that we didn't get him -- I was a bit involved in the summer 2004 efforts -- many thousand died in Iraq thanks to his efforts to continue with the killings and bombings for his faction in Iraq: AQI.

Temporal factor: it matters.

Within the intel collection and interrogation community, there was obviously a significant difference of opinion on the effectiveness of methods used and utility of what is gleaned from such. (See also two doctors, differing opinions ...) I note an enormous amount of confirmation bias in this thread.

Not a lot of skeptical going on.



Rice? Not as I see it. Her authority over CIA and DoD is and was nil. National Security Advisor has what directional authority? Can issue what orders?

If you can show me where she ordered torture/enhanced/whatever by State Department personnel, then I"ll go with your thought.

I find the witch hunt attitude to be low rent. There are indeed some people whose lines of authority are involved. They must answer for their orders: were they legal or not under American law? Note that President Reagan signed off on a treaty against torture in the 80's. If that treaty is still in effect, and thus binds the US legally, then there are some serious issues about, like Nixon, the president being in compliance, or in violation, of said American Law.

By the way, to Ben Burch: your dredging the bankrupt concept of " a crime against humanity" is pure horsecrap. Please stuff the Ivory Tower rubbish back into the trash compacter.

We have concrete issues here about American law and practice. This is our issue to resolve. The (rhymes with hunts) beyond our borders can go and hang, or show up with the might, guns, and steel to arrest whomever they think they can take to a kangaroo court somewhere else.

They'll need to dodge my lead in that case.

DR

[applecorped]

You suppose a lot.

[applecorped]

Indeed it will. Though I suppose you'd count anything as a victory; if the courts don't do anything, ergo, they couldn't do anything, correct?


You suppose a lot. Incorrect.

[Lonewulf]

You suppose a lot.

Is that in response to Darth Rotor or me?

Either way, you have yet another vague post that seemed to have required perhaps .01 ounces of brain matter.

Can you please engage more of that stuff between your ears and actually go into detail about what you mean?

[Lonewulf]

You suppose a lot. Incorrect.

We'll see, then. ;)

Let's see just what "arguments" you'll be making later on.

[applecorped]

Can you please engage more of that stuff between your ears and actually go into detail about what you mean?


Since you said please, no.

[applecorped]

Nobody should and nobody will be prosecuted. Wait and see. Don't like it? Meh.

[Lonewulf]

Since you said please, no.

http://blogs.setonhill.edu/DenamarieErcolani/troll.jpg

[Darth Rotor]

http://blogs.setonhill.edu/DenamarieErcolani/troll.jpg

While I enjoyed the cartoon, what applecorped pointed out is a good prediction, given politics as it is.

Put it another way: it's the way I'd bet. With that in mind, his "don't like it, meh" is precisely on point.

A bitter pill? Sure.

DR

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nobody should and nobody will be prosecuted.
Those are two very different observations. I fear you may be right that nobody will be prosecuted.

I disagree wholeheartedly that nobody should.

Wait and see.
No thank you. When such things are done in my name by my government, I will not sit quietly and wait. I'll do all I can to encourage investigation and prosecution of these crimes.

[JoeTheJuggler]

His problem, as I see it, in writing this article is that he presumes an eagle's eye view on "useful intel," wheras he comes up short, due to it being out of his lane. There are others who state quite clearly that useful intel was gained. Why should I believe him over them? He was not at the operating level where it all gets sifted into what is and isn't actionable.


While I appreciate your analysis and your skeptical approach to the question of whether useful intel was gained by torture, I'd like to point out again that the law signed and ratified by the U.S. clearly and unequivocally states that nothing can be used to justify torture.

Reading through the reservations (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/cat/treaties/convention-reserv.htm) the U.S. issued upon ratification of the C.A.T., I see nothing about the U.S. asserting an exception when you can glean useful information from torture. (All I see are attempts to fit the language of the C.A.T. to U.S. law and to limit the definition of mental pain somewhat, and some other tweaks and clarifications. For example, it makes clear that International Law does not forbid capital punishment, so as long as the states act in compliance with the U.S. Consititution wrt to capital punishment, the C.A.T. is no restriction on capital punishment.)

[Darth Rotor]

While I appreciate your analysis and your skeptical approach to the question of whether useful intel was gained by torture, I'd like to point out again that the law signed and ratified by the U.S. clearly and unequivocally states that nothing can be used to justify torture.

Since I referenced the Reagan treaty sig, either here or in that other thread, don't bother. When and if one can show that one's actions justified bending a rule or law, one can show the defects or a law. Were one unable to do that, we'd not have, for example, cases where laws changed due to civil disobedience.

Have a care when you worship "law" as though it were something perfect.

Be very careful. It was lawful to own slaves in my country at one time. It was the law.

DR

[Fiona]

Since I referenced the Reagan treaty sig, either here or in that other thread, don't bother. When and if one can show that one's actions justified bending a rule or law, one can show the defects or a law. Were one unable to do that, we'd not have, for example, cases where laws changed due to civil disobedience.

Have a care when you worship "law" as though it were something perfect.

Be very careful. It was lawful to own slaves in my country at one time. It was the law.

DR

Do you then say that one should not uphold the rule of law? It is perfectly true that laws can be shown to be defective by challenge through civil disobedience. In such a case the person making the challenge is aware of the legal consequence of the action and if he or she is wise they will accept that consequence will follow. If the law is changed then thereafter people will not suffer that consequence: and sometimes the person who challenged it will get a pardon. But that is not the same as disregarding the existing law while it is in force. Nobody is "worshippiing" the law, DR. But I, for one, take the rule of law very seriously indeed

[Lonewulf]

While I enjoyed the cartoon, what applecorped pointed out is a good prediction, given politics as it is.

Put it another way: it's the way I'd bet. With that in mind, his "don't like it, meh" is precisely on point.

A bitter pill? Sure.

DR

He's a troll. He makes troll posts. He can't make an argument to save his life. He wouldn't even know how to engage in a rigorous debate, as he's never even bothered to fire off a single synapse towards anything besides grunting amusingly. He posts the same way in every thread, and is good for nothing besides the odd troll snipe.

And I wouldn't care any way you bet.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Since I referenced the Reagan treaty sig, either here or in that other thread, don't bother. When and if one can show that one's actions justified bending a rule or law, one can show the defects or a law. Were one unable to do that, we'd not have, for example, cases where laws changed due to civil disobedience.

Have a care when you worship "law" as though it were something perfect.

Be very careful. It was lawful to own slaves in my country at one time. It was the law.

A law that forbids torture in all cases is one that makes great sense to me. Such a law bears little (or no) similarity to a "law" that allowed one to own slaves.

In the discussion of the question posed in the OP of this thread, I think it's important for people to realize that the law makes no exception for allowing torture in cases where you think you might get good intel from it.

I actually spoke of civil disobedience earlier in this thread. If that were the case, then Bush and company should be willing to face charges. Also, it's curious that they wouldn't pursue the provisions of the C.A.T. that allow a party state to denounce the Convention (Article 31). Seems to me, if you wanted to change the law, that would've been the way to go, not just disobeying it and hoping not to be prosecuted based on a reinterpretation of the law (that says it's only torture if the "severe pain" is equivalent to the pain of organ failure, loss of bodily function or death).

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is perfectly true that laws can be shown to be defective by challenge through civil disobedience. In such a case the person making the challenge is aware of the legal consequence of the action and if he or she is wise they will accept that consequence will follow.

Guess I should have read on before replying since Fiona made the same point I just did. :)

In my own defense, I made this same point a couple days ago (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4648794#post4648794) in one of the other recent torture threads.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Joe: As I commented above, I was responding to the death-penalty. Personally, if they can find someone liable, I'd like to see them thrown in prison.