Rumsfeld torture suit

[JoeTheJuggler]

From Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-thayer/court-allows-torture-suit_b_488374.html):

Federal Judge Wayne R. Andersen issued a historic ruling Friday allowing a suit charging former Defense Secretary with authorizing torture.

Rumsfeld asked the court to dismiss the case because he is a high-placed governmental official and argued that he was immune from suit even for allegations of torture. Mr. Rumsfeld also argued that due to his position, the Constitution permitted him to order interrogation techniques that are widely considered by human rights experts to be torture. The Court rejected both of Rumsfeld's arguments and held that high-placed placed cabinet officials can be held personally liable if they authorize the use of torture.

I keep going back to the way torture is defined (in the CAT and in U.S. law), which includes that it be done by government officials. The obvious intent of the law is to prohibit governments from committing torture. (Non government torture, is a matter for state criminal law, and in general it is considered an aggravating circumstance in the commission of other crimes.)

So how can they possibly argue that Rumsfeld is somehow immune due to his position? That is exactly the situation the laws envisioned.

I'm glad the judge ruled this way.

Now let's see if we can set a new precedent: the first time a torture suit against a former cabinet member tried on its merits.

I would greatly prefer to see the matter prosecuted in criminal court, but this would be a profound advance in enforcing torture laws.

[theprestige]

"Rumsfeld Torture Suit"

Unless it's a three-piece iron maiden, suitable for staff meetings and cocktail parties, in a tasteful matte-grey pinstripe, designed by the man himself, I'm not interested.

[JoeTheJuggler]

"Rumsfeld Torture Suit"

Unless it's a three-piece iron maiden, suitable for staff meetings and cocktail parties, in a tasteful matte-grey pinstripe, designed by the man himself, I'm not interested.

Then why post here?

ETA: Do you agree with the defense's motion? That Rummy should be immune because of his former position?

[Captain.Sassy]

*clap clap clap*

Waiting to see what comes of this.

[theprestige]

Then why post here?
Good point. I guess I am interested... just in a different way than you. "I'm not interested" would be a figure of speech in this context, obviously.

ETA: Do you agree with the defense's motion? That Rummy should be immune because of his former position?
I'm not nearly well-versed enough in the law to reach a conclusion one way or the other. I happily defer to the courts, though I am under the impression that advisors to the President are typically exempt from certain kinds of legal redress, so that they can properly consider all options without fear of reprisal... And I think that in principle, this is a good policy. But I have no idea if it does--or even should--apply in this context.

[JoeTheJuggler]

There is no such legal principle as the one you describe--legal immunity (or "exemption") for wrongs committed by policy makers solely because of their position. Nixon tried that (the old if-the-president-does-it-that-means-it's-not-a-crime canard).

No one should be above the law.

ETA: ", so that they can properly consider all options without fear of reprisal.." The point of laws against torture are exactly so that government officials should not under any circumstances consider torture to be an "option".

[leftysergeant]

I'm not nearly well-versed enough in the law to reach a conclusion one way or the other. I happily defer to the courts, though I am under the impression that advisors to the President are typically exempt from certain kinds of legal redress, so that they can properly consider all options without fear of reprisal... And I think that in principle, this is a good policy. But I have no idea if it does--or even should--apply in this context.

It was a crime to suggest the measures and it was a crime for the little piece of wasted DNA he was advising to take that illegal advice, resulting in the commission of a heinous crime.

Hang him out to dry, and see if evidence presented at trial leads anywhere else.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It was a crime to suggest the measures and it was a crime for the little piece of wasted DNA he was advising to take that illegal advice, resulting in the commission of a heinous crime.

Hang him out to dry, and see if evidence presented at trial leads anywhere else.

Unfortunately, it's extremely unlikely that anyone (in the U.S. anyway) will ever prosecute Rummy for these crimes.

This is a civil suit. The only thing in jeopardy is some of his money.

[The Fool]

This is a civil suit. The only thing in jeopardy is some of his money.

better than nothing... Just a judge pointing at him and saying you are guilty would be enough for me.

[Brainster]

More details here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/world/middleeast/18justice.html). The story as written there is very troubling indeed, and I would welcome the facts being determined in court. That said I suspect that Rumsfeld is too far removed from the actual circumstances to be personally liable.

Still, a very troubling case.

[JoeTheJuggler]

More details here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/world/middleeast/18justice.html). The story as written there is very troubling indeed, and I would welcome the facts being determined in court. That said I suspect that Rumsfeld is too far removed from the actual circumstances to be personally liable.

How absurd. If it can be proven that he ordered the torture, that "distance" is irrelevant. At any rate, that's not the grounds for the motion of dismissal I'm talking about anyway. The defense claimed some kind of immunity due to his position.

Still, a very troubling case.
Why is it troubling? You agree with the defense that some members of our government should be above the law?

And I assume you disagree with the third Nuremburg Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles)?
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

[JoeTheJuggler]

better than nothing... Just a judge pointing at him and saying you are guilty would be enough for me.

Oh, I agree. And even this case going to trial (and it looks like it will) is a big first.

[Brainster]

How absurd. If it can be proven that he ordered the torture, that "distance" is irrelevant.

Correct. I was not talking about physical distance, but bureaucratic distance.

At any rate, that's not the grounds for the motion of dismissal I'm talking about anyway. The defense claimed some kind of immunity due to his position.

And that aspect is far from settled; I strongly suspect that Rumsfeld will appeal to a district court.

Why is it troubling? You agree with the defense that some members of our government should be above the law?

It is troubling because it happened to an American citizen. I don't know the legal aspects of whether Rumsfeld can be sued and express no opinion on that; let the courts hash it out.

And I assume you disagree with the third Nuremburg Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles)?

I don't think you understand what I found troubling. I found Vance's treatment troubling. He is clearly not an enemy combatant; he is a US citizen.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And that aspect is far from settled; I strongly suspect that Rumsfeld will appeal to a district court.
I don't think they can stop it going to trial at this point. Their motion to dismiss on the grounds that Rumsfeld is immune has been rejected.



It is troubling because it happened to an American citizen. I don't know the legal aspects of whether Rumsfeld can be sued and express no opinion on that; let the courts hash it out.

And I assume you disagree with the third Nuremburg Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles)?

I don't think you understand what I found troubling. I found Vance's treatment troubling. He is clearly not an enemy combatant; he is a US citizen.

Yes, I did misunderstand. I thought you meant the lawsuit was troubling. (I thought maybe you agreed with ThePrestige that there is something good about granting immunity to high government officials.) Sorry about that--my bad.

The problem with not following due process with regard to any detainee is that you don't know which are the good guys and which are the bad guys. Saying we can deny due process to "terrorists" merely begs the question. (That is, without due process, no one has had to make the case that the detainee is a criminal/terrorist.) And you end up with situations just like this. I think these sorts of stories are predictable outcomes of the policy of denying due process.

And on the question of torture, the laws apply in all cases. You can't torture bad guys either. It's illegal. You might spin the crimes of a bad-guy torture victim as a mitigating factor in the crime of torture, but the CAT is clear that there is no circumstance of any kind whatsoever that can justify it.

[fuelair]

I'd love to see Rummy and his co-conspirators in torture suits. Full of sewn-in nettles and poison ivy for starters. To get their attention.

[leftysergeant]

More details here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/world/middleeast/18justice.html). The story as written there is very troubling indeed, and I would welcome the facts being determined in court. That said I suspect that Rumsfeld is too far removed from the actual circumstances to be personally liable.

Once made aware of it, the idiot should have gone nuclear on everybody in the chain of command that allowed it, if he was not in on it himself. Instead, the thug just laughed and called it "not torture."

The Iraqis hanged the wrong man.

[fuelair]

Once made aware of it, the idiot should have gone nuclear on everybody in the chain of command that allowed it, if he was not in on it himself. Instead, the thug just laughed and called it "not torture."

The Iraqis hanged the wrong man.

In all fairness, they hanged one correct one, just .........

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd love to see Rummy and his co-conspirators in torture suits. Full of sewn-in nettles and poison ivy for starters. To get their attention.

While I appreciate the sentiment (and hope you're only joking), I am in favor of applying the laws prohibiting torture to anyone who violates the law, regardless of their status (such as high position in government or on the winning side in a conflict).

I think it should be done dispassionately--not out of revenge or outrage or anger. I think part of the reason why we should commit to the CAT is that we want to remove the decision to commit torture from the heat of the moment or passions of a potentially emotional situation (like the "war or terror" or "remember 9-11" or "did you see what they did to those 4 American contractors?!" or anything like that). We want to make that decision for all cases in calm deliberation away from those real world considerations.

Similarly, I think we should enforce the laws dispassionately too. I would love to see everyone who was responsible for putting into place policies of torturing detainees to be tried for their crimes. I would want each of them to get full due process, good counsel and every protection from public outrage our criminal justice system affords. (I would definitely not want to remove their assumption of innocence based on the heinous nature of the crimes.)

And I certainly don't think anyone should be tortured in the name of prohibiting torture! (Again, I hope people who are saying that are just joking.)

What we've had so far, though, is a mockery of the Convention Against Torture. We have cases where detainees were tortured to death, and so far no one has been tried for the crime of torture. (A few low-level people have been found guilty of relatively minor charges like "dereliction of duty".)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's another account of the case:

http://www.jdjournal.com/2010/03/08/illinois-judge-refuses-to-dismiss-rumsfeld-lawsuit/

It doesn't go into much depth on the motion to dismiss that was refused, but I think the account in Huffington Post I linked to in the OP had that about right. This one gives a much more concise summary of what happened to Vance.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The Iraqis hanged the wrong man.

Supporting genocidal dictators are we now Lefty?

[INRM]

I don't see any problem with Rumsfeld being tried for the torture he authorized

[ponderingturtle]

More details here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/world/middleeast/18justice.html). The story as written there is very troubling indeed, and I would welcome the facts being determined in court. That said I suspect that Rumsfeld is too far removed from the actual circumstances to be personally liable.

Still, a very troubling case.

The broad principle at stake here is of course that of the inherent rightness of any actions taken on America's behalf. We can't hold people who did the actions accountable as they were only following orders, we can't hold the those who issued orders accountable either. The only way someone gets held accountable is if they are unlucky low level people to get caught in a public **** storm like in Abu Graib. Then because of the bad publicity that is the only way to get the courts to act after all.

So the moral of the story is, don't let pictures get leaked to the media.

[ponderingturtle]

I think it should be done dispassionately--not out of revenge or outrage or anger.

But outrage and anger are the only things that will get politicians to act, see the differences between candidate Obama and President Obama for this clear distinction.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Bumping this thread because there are new developments.

The lawsuit against Rumsfeld has been allowed to go forward by 7th Circuit Court of Appeal which upheld the lower court's decision to reject Rumsfeld's (and the Obama adminstration's) motions to dismiss.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/08/us-usa-torture-rumsfeld-idUSTRE7775O220110808

[Ziggurat]

Supporting genocidal dictators are we now Lefty?

What do you mean, "now"?

[mortimer]

The Iraqis hanged the wrong man.
Care to support this assertion with your personal reasoning backed with facts?

[Skeptic]

Rumsfeld's Torture Suit

Maxwell's Silver Hammer sold seperately.

[RandFan]

I keep going back to the way torture is defined (in the CAT and in U.S. law), which includes that it be done by government officials. The obvious intent of the law is to prohibit governments from committing torture. (Non government torture, is a matter for state criminal law, and in general it is considered an aggravating circumstance in the commission of other crimes.)

So how can they possibly argue that Rumsfeld is somehow immune due to his position? That is exactly the situation the laws envisioned. And remember, we don't want other nations torturing our troops. He is entitled to a fair trial and presumption of innocence. I doubt that if he is guilty (and I think he is, we are entitled to form an opinion we just can't serve on a jury if we do) he will be found so. He has a lot of powerful friends.

[WildCat]

And remember, we don't want other nations torturing our troops.
I'm pretty sure that our enemies in every war we've ever fought torturesd our captured troops. Treaties don't seem to affect that at all.

[DC]

I'm pretty sure that our enemies in every war we've ever fought torturesd our captured troops. Treaties don't seem to affect that at all.

so when they do it, its ok for you to do it?

[Leif Roar]

I'm pretty sure that our enemies in every war we've ever fought torturesd our captured troops. Treaties don't seem to affect that at all.

Can't say I've heard any stories of US prisoners of war (unlike agents or members of the resistance) being tortured by Germany in World War II. Of course, in a war that size there's bound to be instances of it, but as a general rule that didn't seem to happen.

[WildCat]

so when they do it, its ok for you to do it?
I didn't say that. I said they'll do whatever they want regardless of what we do. It's not like we're going to war with liberal democracies.

I just find that line of reasoning unrealistic, with no real-world evidence to back it up.

[WildCat]

Can't say I've heard any stories of US prisoners of war (unlike agents or members of the resistance) being tortured by Germany in World War II. Of course, in a war that size there's bound to be instances of it, but as a general rule that didn't seem to happen.
Are you kidding? There are many examples of allied soldiers summarily executed by German soldiers upon capture. Examples include the Malmedy massacre, the d'Ardenne massacre, Le Paradis massacre, the Wormhoudt massacre, etc etc. Probably much more nobody knows about.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I didn't say that. I said they'll do whatever they want regardless of what we do.

And I think you're wrong. I think payback and vengeance actually happens, as does mutual deterrence.

And I think for most nations, there is a strong will to abide by the rule of law, including treaties, rather than might makes right.

[Leif Roar]

Are you kidding? There are many examples of allied soldiers summarily executed by German soldiers upon capture.

Of executions, yes, but as far as I know, not of torture.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Are you kidding? There are many examples of allied soldiers summarily executed by German soldiers upon capture. Examples include the Malmedy massacre, the d'Ardenne massacre, Le Paradis massacre, the Wormhoudt massacre, etc etc. Probably much more nobody knows about.

And summary execution, while also deplorable, is not torture.

[RandFan]

I'm pretty sure that our enemies in every war we've ever fought torturesd our captured troops. Treaties don't seem to affect that at all.Ah, tu quoque So we should just be barbaric as any other nation and not appeal to other nations not to torture our prisoners because the lowest common denominator is best. BTW: The North Vietnamese stopped torturing American POWs in 1969 when pressure was brought to bear on them.

How could we in the future expect such a thing if we don't hold such ideals ourselves?

[JoeTheJuggler]

And remember, we don't want other nations torturing our troops. He is entitled to a fair trial and presumption of innocence. I doubt that if he is guilty (and I think he is, we are entitled to form an opinion we just can't serve on a jury if we do) he will be found so. He has a lot of powerful friends.

Since this is a civil lawsuit and not a criminal case, he cannot possibly be found guilty. And the Obama administration has made it clear that they will not pursue criminal charges on any of these torture cases (despite how flagrant some of them are--including the Diliwar case where a completely innocent man was tortured to death).

And I'm torn as to whether or not I'd like to see a swift decision on this lawsuit or whether it would be somehow fitting for these charges to hang over Rumsfeld's head for years. I'm leaning toward the latter because I suspect they won't be able to get a majority of the jury to find him liable. It's really going to be tough to prove that he knew or should have known what was going on and condoned it even tacitly. There's also the business of the way the U.S. (including the present administration) would re-define torture to include a much more difficult standard (prolonged, for one thing).

In U.S. courts, these issues have never been tested.

[DC]

I didn't say that. I said they'll do whatever they want regardless of what we do. It's not like we're going to war with liberal democracies.

I just find that line of reasoning unrealistic, with no real-world evidence to back it up.

but he said "we don't want other nations torturing our troops." and i think this is very correct. you really don't want that.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ah, tu quoque So we should just be barbaric as any other nation and not appeal to other nations not to torture our prisoners because the lowest common denominator is best. BTW: The North Vietnamese stopped torturing American POWs in 1969 when pressure was brought to bear on them.

How could we in the future expect such a thing if we don't hold such ideals ourselves?

There's also the question of whether or not treaties signed and ratified by the U.S. are worth the paper they're written on. I think some commitment to law and order (rather than just getting away with what we can) is important.

At any rate, I also disagree with Wildcat's narrow point that that particular line of reasoning (that if we commit torture, our own captured troops are more likely to be tortured) is not valid. As I said, I think mutual deterrence is a good alternative to payback and vengeance. Even if there is no evidence that it's happened, I'd say that's because the U.S. also has never been especially fastidious about abiding by the actual terms of the Convention Against Torture.

The unending cycle of reciprocation for atrocities is NOT good policy. And the only way to have a chance at breaking that cycle is for us to join with the nations that obey the law.

[Kestrel]

Can't say I've heard any stories of US prisoners of war (unlike agents or members of the resistance) being tortured by Germany in World War II. Of course, in a war that size there's bound to be instances of it, but as a general rule that didn't seem to happen.

The German military generally respected the rules, even if other parts of the German state did not. An RAF pilot I knew was tortured by the Gestapo during WW2 after he escaped from a POW camp. The Luftwaffe found out the Gestapo had him and demanded custody as they were responsible for POWs in Germany. This almost certainly saved our friend's life.

[Merko]

I don't think the US has a particularly good reputation in war. Certainly, paramilitary groups and deeply degenerate governments might be expected to do worse than democratic or even functional autocratic governments. But overall, I think the US comes across as being very cavalier about killing enemy soldiers. Contrary to some popular belief, that is not the objective in war, although it is often unavoidable.

Torture, on the other hand, is definitely below the general US reputation. Yes, the US has historically been deeply complicit in Vietnam, Nicaragua etc. But that has been in war-by-proxy situations, and there is some difference here.

There is everywhere a tendency in war to paint the enemy as pure evil incarnate, irrational and wholly immoral. But it seems to me that with the US, this sentiment has been more likely to affect those in power themselves. It has not just been propaganda for the masses.

[RandFan]

Since this is a civil lawsuit and not a criminal case, he cannot possibly be found guilty. And the Obama administration has made it clear that they will not pursue criminal charges on any of these torture cases (despite how flagrant some of them are--including the Diliwar case where a completely innocent man was tortured to death).

And I'm torn as to whether or not I'd like to see a swift decision on this lawsuit or whether it would be somehow fitting for these charges to hang over Rumsfeld's head for years. I'm leaning toward the latter because I suspect they won't be able to get a majority of the jury to find him liable. It's really going to be tough to prove that he knew or should have known what was going on and condoned it even tacitly. There's also the business of the way the U.S. (including the present administration) would re-define torture to include a much more difficult standard (prolonged, for one thing).

In U.S. courts, these issues have never been tested.:) Too many boilermakers last night. Which is odd because I don't like boilermakers.

Good post.

[RandFan]

There's also the question of whether or not treaties signed and ratified by the U.S. are worth the paper they're written on. I think some commitment to law and order (rather than just getting away with what we can) is important.

At any rate, I also disagree with Wildcat's narrow point that that particular line of reasoning (that if we commit torture, our own captured troops are more likely to be tortured) is not valid. As I said, I think mutual deterrence is a good alternative to payback and vengeance. Even if there is no evidence that it's happened, I'd say that's because the U.S. also has never been especially fastidious about abiding by the actual terms of the Convention Against Torture.

The unending cycle of reciprocation for atrocities is NOT good policy. And the only way to have a chance at breaking that cycle is for us to join with the nations that obey the law.

American Slave Trader circa 1750. "Hey, if I don't sell 'em someone else will".

[WildCat]

Of executions, yes, but as far as I know, not of torture.

And summary execution, while also deplorable, is not torture.
IMHO summary executions are a bit worse than torture... YMMV.

[RandFan]

IMHO summary executions are a bit worse than torture... YMMV.I'm honestly not sure. I don't think it's so black and white. People being tortured often ask for death. People who suffer torture often suffer terribly the rest of their lives. Not true of all people for sure and certainly death leaves no opportunity for anything. It might edge out torture but I'm not sure how much. Personally I think I'd rather be shot.

But the point still stands.

[Leif Roar]

IMHO summary executions are a bit worse than torture... YMMV.

Many things are, but the topic under discussion was torture.

[JoeTheJuggler]

IMHO summary executions are a bit worse than torture... YMMV.

Maybe so, but they're not evidence of torture and are irrelevant to the point you were attempting to substantiate.

But if you want to start another debate on this new topic, while I don't have a strong opinion, I could play devil's advocate and posit that I personally would probably rather a swift death than at least some of the worst types of torture.

Also, I'd point out that the Germans answered for the crimes you cited (that is, at least some of the responsible parties were charged and convicted of war crimes). So if anything, arguing that these killings are somehow analogous to Rumsfeld's role in torturing the plaintiffs, it sounds like an argument in favor of criminal prosecution or at least holding him responsible in a civil suit.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm honestly not sure. I don't think it's so black and white. People being tortured often ask for death. People who suffer torture often suffer terribly the rest of their lives. Not true of all people for sure and certainly death leaves no opportunity for anything. It might edge out torture but I'm not sure how much. Personally I think I'd rather be shot.

But the point still stands.


Yep, but of course I think the broader point is that the best course would be to abide by the rule of law such that neither summary executions nor torture is allowed to happen without any repercussions.

Wildcat is trying to muddy the waters, I think, by inserting the issue of summary executions. For any of us in favor of holding Rummy accountable for his role in torture--or more generally in favor of the U.S. abiding by the actual terms of the Convention Against Torture-- we need not condone German summary executions at all.

[JoeTheJuggler]

American Slave Trader circa 1750. "Hey, if I don't sell 'em someone else will".

That's a more apt analogy than I thought at first glance. (I'd say make it circa 1810--some point after the slave trade was abolished even in the British Empire.) They claim that someone else would do it even though most nations in the world weren't doing it.

[RandFan]

American Slave Trader circa 1750. "Hey, if I don't sell 'em someone else will".

That's a more apt analogy than I thought at first glance. (I'd say make it circa 1810--some point after the slave trade was abolished even in the British Empire.) They claim that someone else would do it even though most nations in the world weren't doing it.

Yes, that's fair but my point was that at some time someone has to be the first to stand up and say "this is wrong" before anyone will ever change. If no one will stand up because "well, everyone else does it", then nothing can change.

Further, if we think that we are a shining city on a hill, and that is debatable, but to the extent anyone thinks that then by god we ought to be the first or at least one of the first. 6th? 7th?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, that's fair but my point was that at some time someone has to be the first to stand up and say "this is wrong" before anyone will ever change. If no one will stand up because "well, everyone else does it", then nothing can change.

Further, if we think that we are a shining city on a hill, and that is debatable, but to the extent anyone thinks that then by god we ought to be the first or at least one of the first. 6th? 7th?

And if they remove the scales from their eyes they might recognize that if we don't become among the last of western democratic nations to reject torture, we will become a rogue nation that gets away with it simply be dint of might.

But yeah, I don't mind if they want to pretend that we're a moral leader on this. But sadly, that isn't happening. The Obama administration has pretty completely flip flopped on his campaign rhetoric wrt torture. Not only has he decided not to press criminal charges in these cases, he has also issued executive orders (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/01/nation/na-rendition1)further authorizing the practice of extraordinary rendition (a practice also prohibited by the CAT).

[grunion]

Regardless of whether he will receive a fair trial (I am guessing not) I welcome this news because of the hope that it will drive a wider and more serious public discussion about the morality of torture against presumed enemy combatants. That is, if the media does their job (a stretch, I know.)

[Minoosh]

Yep, but of course I think the broader point is that the best course would be to abide by the rule of law such that neither summary executions nor torture is allowed to happen without any repercussions.

If we can agree on rules for war, couldn't we just agree not to have wars?

By insisting on defense of torture the U.S. definitely ceded whatever moral capital we might have had in the "War on Terror." I wonder if torture works. Kindness might actually be more productive.

Thinking we can go to war and then set terms for what is "allowed to happen" - I'm not sure that's realistic.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Thinking we can go to war and then set terms for what is "allowed to happen" - I'm not sure that's realistic.

Why not?

We made treaties with the USSR during the Cold War. How is the Convention Against Torture any different?

[Minoosh]

Why not?

We made treaties with the USSR during the Cold War. How is the Convention Against Torture any different?

The Cold War was cold for a reason, apparently MAD wasn't an attractive option and bizarrely, "cool" head prevailed.

On the ground, in a battlefield ... I just kind of think, all bets are off. It takes on a life of its own.

Within a government, yes, I could say, we will hold our troops accountable. But if the Germans in WWII summarily executed an escaped POW - they could see it as entirely justified, an unacceptable risk, and I'm not sure I would call it a war crime.

Or if the Americans nuked Japan saying that was the only way to end the war and 100,000+ civilians died how are our actions not a war crime?

It's fine for me to see the suit against Rumsfeld go forward.

[BenBurch]

Nobody is above the law. I am happy to see this tried even if that is the only point made.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The Cold War was cold for a reason, apparently MAD wasn't an attractive option and bizarrely, "cool" head prevailed.

On the ground, in a battlefield ... I just kind of think, all bets are off. It takes on a life of its own.

Within a government, yes, I could say, we will hold our troops accountable. But if the Germans in WWII summarily executed an escaped POW - they could see it as entirely justified, an unacceptable risk, and I'm not sure I would call it a war crime.

Or if the Americans nuked Japan saying that was the only way to end the war and 100,000+ civilians died how are our actions not a war crime?

It's fine for me to see the suit against Rumsfeld go forward.

I agree with most of what you say here, but none of it supports your argument that we shouldn't have a Convention Against Torture, or that it's somehow unrealistic.

FWIW, war crimes are about violence against non-combatants during times of war (see the 4th Geneva Convention), whereas the Convention Against Torture applies at all times. I think maybe you are imagining that torture is a war crime, and that's why you think it's silly to make rules of war.

The Convention Against Torture is an agreement among signatory nations not to commit torture, which is defined as the intentional infliction of pain (physical or mental) by an agent of the government on a person in custody for the purpose of punishment or to extract a confession or other information. Whether or not we are war, cold or hot, is irrelevant.

I was merely comparing the deterrent effect with MAD during the Cold War. It is possible to make and abide by treaties and conventions with people we consider "enemies". In fact, those are by far the most important ones to make! The mutual deterrent is what makes such adherence to these agreements such a good idea.

And I think it's perfectly realistic to think that nations, especially our own, should abide by the terms of these treaties.

The biggest problem I see with the Convention Against Torture is that it was non self-executing and required signatory nations to pass their own laws within a period of time that would execute the terms of the treaty. In doing so (in U.S. signing and ratification reservation statements as well), the U.S. effectively re-defined torture.

Even so, plenty of what has gone on would still satisfy even the narrower definition. (According to Dubya's legal advisors, the definition required pain that was equivalent to that of organ failure and death, for example. Since some of the people were tortured to death, we have violated even this definition.)

So the biggest problem is that criminal prosecution still requires the political will to do it. Obama and A.G. Holder are unwilling to investigate and prosecute those who clearly violated the CAT.

So the best we can get are civil suits, meaning Rumsfeld will never be found guilty of the crime of torture, and will never face prison for that crime.

[RandFan]

Or if the Americans nuked Japan saying that was the only way to end the war and 100,000+ civilians died how are our actions not a war crime?IMO the bombing of civilian cities was a crime. Imprisoning Japanese Americans was a war crime. The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were war crimes. Perhaps in the grand scheme of things there were valid arguments for doing so. It's not absolutely black and white.

I don't think Rumsfeld actions are the equivalent. We had no compelling argument to torture. There was no finger on a nuclear trigger. No significant threat was identified.

It's one thing to act when you are at war and there is a reasonable expectation of risk because there is a hostile enemy engaged in military action against you. It doesn't justify any and every act but it's more reasonable.

[Mike!]

I thought this was going to be about clothes somehow too...
Like when I was a little kid in the 60's and for my birthday one year, my grandmother bought me a pink suit. Then to make matters even worse, my mother made me wear it to school once. That, my friends, was a torture suit.

[RandFan]

I thought this was going to be about clothes somehow too...
Like when I was a little kid in the 60's and for my birthday one year, my grandmother bought me a pink suit. Then to make matters even worse, my mother made me wear it to school once. That, my friends, was a torture suit.:D

Mike! for the win.

My mom bought us Levis from the equivalent of the Salvation Army. Stove pipe cuffs. In the age of Bell Bottoms that was pretty damn bad. Not pink suit bad but bad.

[Minoosh]

FWIW, war crimes are about violence against non-combatants during times of war (see the 4th Geneva Convention), whereas the Convention Against Torture applies at all times.
Absolutely, I was not making that distinction. Thanks.