and why do you think this is good?
My first thoughts are that it’s bad and possibly premature. I think it unlikely that a thorough investigation has been completed, so I suspect that it was either a campaign thing*, or that it’s been revealed to him that The Bush has things wired so tight that legal action is probably futile.
Not really seeing an up side.
*So? I knew he had feet of clay when I voted for him.
Bet they are going to let things slide on that whole No-Bid-Contracts™ thingy too…
(Doesn’t surprise me one bit as I figured that this issue was alms for the faithful…though there may actually be a glimmer of truth to what Der Trihs, in his usual tactful and cheerful way is saying about how once you become President you have a vested interest in keeping the club going on the same footing as your predecessor)
-XT
I think it’s bad. Water boarding is clearly torture, and that torture was clearly against the law at the time it took place. The President and everyone else in the executive branch are not above the law. Their illegal actions damaged the reputation of the U.S. abroad, caused unspeakable agony for the victims of their crime, and were undertaken with a brazen disregard for the law. Actions like this simply cannot go unpunished. Otherwise, it simply sends the message that it is ok to break the law so long as you have political power. Our elected representatives had no issues with publicly and thoroughly investigating a sitting president for much lesser crimes. I don’t see why this one should get a pass on potentially much more serious violations.
Clarification requested in post number 8.
-FrL-
I suspect, but cannot prove, that he is picking his fights carefully, and, IMO, wisely. We need an investigation because we need to know what was done in our name, and to whom, and why. That is more important than any criminal charges being made.
Perhaps more importantly, the legalistics of this are a fucked up mess. Is waterboarding torture? I certainly think so, and am heartily ashamed that it was done in my name. But the Bushiviks have a whole clot of yes/no/maybe memos that would make any fair and just prosecution impossible.
And we already know where the real responsibility lies, and there is no way that any justice will be rendered unto these miscreants. Therefore, it is unjust to prosecute their subordinates who were, after all, just following orders. (That sounds so much better in English, rather than the original German…)
But investigate, and make the results public. Oh, yeah. It isn’t enough, but its all we’re likely to get.
I shall await the results with held breath for the publication of the results of any investigation…
I just don’t think any such investigation or publication of results is likely and in reality will not be holding my breath for one.
-XT
So what do you think Jesus would say about torturing suspected terrorists? Do you think he’d shake the torturer’s hand–I mean the “harsh interrogator’s hand”–look him in the eye and say, “Well done, my good and faithful servant”?
Who would Jesus torture? What if Jesus thought a suspect had knowledge about a nuclear bomb, would he torture then? If Jesus thought he could save 10 American lives by torturing one terrorist suspect, wouldn’t Jesus be morally obligated to torture?
If Jesus were roaming the wasteland, would he feel delight or sorrow as he blew the head off a raider with a Chinese Assault Rifle? What about a ghoul? Would he disable the nuke in Megaton or would he set it off and retire to a luxury penthouse? These are all interesting questions, to be sure…
-XT
I don’t know, maybe I’m just silly, wanting to know what the actual evidence is and the results of the investigation, before determining whether not charging is Good or Bad. Silly old evidence, who needs to know what it is.
Sort of like those calling for Bush’s head before any of this supposed evidence was actually found, let alone presented? I agree though…I’m all for bringing out any and all evidence that any investigations happen to find…and then prosecuting any who are guilty of crimes to the maximum degree.
I’m just a bit skeptical that there IS any such evidence, or that any such investigation will actually be launched, let alone that the findings will be made public. Guess we’ll see, ehe?
-XT
What about all those guys at Gitmo that the Bush administration can’t put on trial because then the details of their interrogations will come out? Even the model terrorist slam-dunks have been put in jeopardy because every bit of evidence they have against these guys is tainted by torture.
What about them? If what the Bush administration and their flunkies have done truly is illegal then I suppose Obama et al will find that out and throw the book at them…right? Fine by me if they do. I’m just not very sanguine about the prospect, ehe?
-XT
What Jesus would say and what our criminal justice system should do are two entirely different things.
Well, there certainly is evidence that some abuse took place at Abu Ghraib. And there are admissions of waterboarding. And allegations of abuse and torture at Guantanamo. What matters, though, is the specifics. While I think it is perfectly clear that waterboarding is torture under the legal definition, without knowing the exact details (funny how those tapes got destroyed, isn’t it?), I couldn’t say charges should or shouldn’t be brought. And if we’re looking at charging higher ups, there damn well better be a paper trail of authorizations.
I think, ultimately, that will be the downfall. While there were certainly isolated incidents of torture, it will be impossible to get enough evidence to prove someone authorized it.
If the law was broken, AND there is enough evidence to sustain a conviction, charge them. But I’m not going to say it’s a good thing that they aren’t going to be charged without knowing what the hell the evidence is. Apparently others don’t have that issue.
Evidence of abuse is not the same thing as evidence of illegal activity. Even if illegal acts were in fact committed this does not necessarily mean they will be able to tie them back to the administration.
I’m fine with investigating any suspicious activity and fine with making the results public. In fact I’m more than fine with that…I’m all for it. And honestly I think if they DO find anything that there would be no reason not to prosecute…in fact, I can’t see how Obama et al will justify NOT prosecuting.
The hook though is…will there actually be an investigation? Will it actually find anything? Will the results be made public?
-XT
When I say it’s a good thing, I’m making some assumptions. If those assumptions turn out to be wrong, then I can certainly agree my conclusion is up for debate.
One assumption is that the people who actually committed the acts in question relied upon instructions from their superiors. And unlike, say, the Nazis, the line here is far from clear, so that no reasonable person can say, “It’s obvious the act was illegal, no matter what the Justice Department said.”
Well, if we’re assuming that the law was broken, but that members of the Bush administration authorized people to break that law, I think exonerating everyone is definitely not a Good Thing.
But one huge problem with prosecutions (a problem I think this adminstration planned for and created) is the existence of the ever-so popular PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY. The ones who actually broke the law can claim that they were authorized to by the higher ups, while the higher ups can claim that they really didn’t mean for their subordinates to engage in law breaking activity. This is especially true for the cases involving torture, because the ones who did it can claim they were just following the “advanced interrogation techniques” plan of the Bush administration, while the higher ups can claim “well we didn’t mean to authorize REAL torture”.
BINGO. Everyone’s a winner. Except for those who were tortured. And the rules of law. And the reputation of the United States.
And, by the by, I see the exact same thing happening with the warrantless wiretap issues.
What I believe to be the case is that crimes were definitely committed, but the Military Commisions Act of 2006 has given blanket retroactive immunity.
From Findlaw:
I eagerly await your response to this nugget of information. Do you judge this to be “good”? Will you once again defend the Status Quo and the Powers That Be? Have you ever considered using your intellect for good instead of evil? :eek:
One question I have though: Can Congress remove the immunity once they’ve granted it?
Not good.
I’m disappointed by this.
Fine, but why should there be no charges considered against the superiors who gave the orders?