Did I borrow that much? I’ll have to check my notes to myself.
That’s right, they’re picked up by bounty hunters, looking to make a buck:
I have to say I am disappointed that President Obama has said he will protect the torturers. I understand exposing them and indicting them would be politically very risky and difficult but it would be the right thing to do. Most of the blame does not fall on Obama but on the American people who should be demanding accountability and instead are in favor of protecting the criminals. It is sad but that is what America is today.
I somewhat disagree. If I’m a member of the CIA, I think I’m obligated to refuse unlawful orders from my superiors, even the President. But if I’m a member of the CIA, and I ask my legal counsel whether the order is lawful or not, and they tell me it is after consulting with other lawyers, I think you’re expecting too much of me to do my own independent legal analysis.
Obviously there’s even a line here, too. If the President orders me to murder his political opponents, even if both the CIA attorneys and OLC tells me that’s legal, I might be obligated to get a third opinion (at the very least). But while I think the enhanced interrogation techniques were clearly illegal, I don’t think they were so clearly illegal that any reasonable person would know that the OLC memo was a load of horseshit.
You’re asking CIA members to put their jobs on the line to act on their own interpretation of somewhat complicated law when people who should know better are explicitly telling them, based on pages of legal analysis they can’t be expected to fully understand, that the actions are lawful.
Easy enough. The UN Convention Against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, defines it:
“any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions”
Clear enough for ya?
There’s also the Army interrogation manual, which btw is consistent with our legal obligations following our signatory status, if you want to know what’s allowed and what’s not in actual practice.
The attackers all died in the attack. Except for Osama and the *true *AQ conspirators, and Bush gave that one up long ago.
But taking you at your meaning, Americans don’t have “the stomach” to become bad guys ourselves. We like to think we’re better than the worst. The fact that we have done so anyway fills most of us with revulsion and a desire to clean up the mess as best we can.
And turn far, far more people into “hornets” themselves, in case you hadn’t noticed. Cheney’s actions have made many more people hate us and that has made us less secure.
Claiming that there is no applicable definition, implying that there may not be any actions that are off-limits, is not only factually false (see above) but morally repugnant.
Look at the Abu Ghraib photos and try again.
Clearly a hot potato, as proven by the seemingly changing signals emanating from the WH:
Obama open to prosecution, probe of interrogations
ETA: Some Dems are not going to come out looking pretty either if this goes forth – as it very well should.
Boy, those hermaphrodites are fucked.
And I’d “hazard” that ALL of the torturers are “sadistic fucks” “who ought to be put down”. And yes, we did grab people essentially at random. Because some bounty hunter handed them over, or someone turned over a personal enemy to us.
More like sand. Once more; it doesn’t work with anyone who isn’t already prone to accept anything you say anyway.
Actually, we’ve attacked people who DIDN’T attack us, and in general acted like a bully, a thug, and a mass murdering lunatic.
:rolleyes: Oh, please. Letting the powerful get away with atrocities is a GOOD thing now ?
Our OWN definitions come to mind - what we do is torture according to us when other people do it to us.
No, I’m simply pointing out the reality you want to ignore. We DID torture innocent people. And cruelty is most certainly one of the motives.
In what way ? There’s no contradiction between opposing torture and in thinking that torturers should be imprisioned or executed.
Ok – step over here and let me tie you to this device. You’ll understand in a few moments.
Seriously – that’s it: everyone knows torture when it’s happening to him or her. Endless first-person testimony, as well as a few seconds’ honest thought, has established that. So if you can think, and are honest, you can in moments arrive at a functioning definition.
(bolding mine) Well, that lets buttonjockey308 out.
I do not need a team of lawyers to know torture is illegal. In any case, the purpose of a trial is to determine guilt or not guilt. They can tell their story to the jury and if they are not guilty they will go free. Furthermore, what aboyt the higher-ups who gave the orders and cooked up the cover? In the end we are being told nobody will be held responsible. Countries were invaded, persons were tortured, persons were killed, mistakes were made, but nobody is responsible. Not the higher-ups, not the lower downs. What a crock.
No we aren’t. Read today’s news.
Well, there are mixed signals but I am not holding my breath. President Obama has said the torturers themselves will be protected and has only kind of suggested that the Attorney General maybe, could, if he so wishes, investigate those who made and justified the policy. Of course, they are treading lightly and carefully because they know America does not support being open about what happened, investigating and punishing the guilty. Those who carried out the torture will be covered and those higher ups might in the best of cases face some kind of political investigation but will not be punished in any way. The fact is that America is not ready to condemn and punish the criminals. Mostly because those criminals acted following the will of the American people as expressed at the voting booth.
I assume you’re not speaking literally, so I’ve lost the metaphor here.
Can’t speak for Sailor, but I think the statement is quite literally true in so far as a referendum in a democracy reflects the will of the people. A majority of Americans voters decided to re-elect (or elect for the first time if you will) the Bush regime in '04 when the abuses/torture at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo were already common knowledge – thus tacitly approving in the voting booth the actions being done in their name.
That makes sense if you believe (a) those voters thought Bush authorized the torture, and (b) that anyone who votes for a politician based on one issue must necessarily support everything that politician does. I don’t think either (a) or (b) are true.
Plus, nobody in Germany got off the hook for war crimes or genocide just because the German people were in favor of exterminating the Jews.
Sure, but Germany wasn’t a Democracy. 
Well, in the case of “a” a plead of willful ignorance might, or might not, constitute a legitimate defense because, as I said, the facts were already out there for all to see. As for “b” I think that’s a very weak excuse, bordering on insulting the intelligence of those that did so. For if you happen to be a one-issue voter, and that alone makes you choose a candidate that you know advocates and practices torture, I don’t see how you’re not willingly supporting said practice.
Legitimate defense? To what? I think you’ve already forgotten the point Sailor was making. He was arguing that the voters ratified the torture. If they were ignorant of it, willful or not, how did they ratify it?
I agree that voters should have known better than to believe the official line about “bad apples.” But there is an important difference between being naive or credulous and knowingly approving of torture.
What?