He’s entitled to his own opinion. However, it’s pretty obvious that his (Bybee’s) opinion is that it’s illegal; why else would he feel the need to make things up to support his legal opinion?
Naturally, being a lawyer, you’d know that opinions and legal opinions are completely unrelated.
For the record, that “false” was not my opinion. It was a guess, completely unsupported by the facts, case law, the text of the relevant statute or anything else- which means it has as much grounding in law as the legal opinion which attempted to define waterboarding and head-wall bashing as not torture.
I don’t think that’s lack of knowledge of the facts, either. In all those cases, the general attitude seems to have been distaste along with the rationalization that war gets messy sometimes and the people on the front lines need a freer hand. If the Abu Ghraib photos hadn’t rubbed our faces in it, I think that would be the prevailing attitude this time, too. It’s common enough as it is.
No, it needs to stop because the US is committing gross human rights violations when it tortures its victims. The effect this has on the US National Ego is secondary.
My understanding is that it’s very unclear what Obama wants to do. He initially said he unequivocally believed we should be a party to the Rome Statute, but has since said that he is unsure of his stance on it anymore.
As was stated, this doesn’t remove the US of answering to the ICC, but the ICC itself isn’t exactly a terribly effective body or anything. Actually, I don’t even know if the US would have to answer, it depends if the people being tortured are members of party states- were they? I know Afghanistan is a party to the Rome Statute, but Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan aren’t. If neither the actors or the victims are parties to the Rome Statute, then the case has to be referred to the court by the UN Security Council and I wonder how viable of an option this would be? Even if that got worked out, the court hasn’t even had a conviction yet, right? Or was there just one? I can’t remember off the top of my head. I know there has only been one trial, though.
You can use your opinion of what the norms are to govern your behavior, but you can’t use them to govern my behavior. Why? Because it’s not illegal for me to do something that you find immoral.
Not true. I just disagree with his premises. Deontic logic is about how the concepts of “should” and “it is possible that” etc. relate to each other. I disagree on the premise that a “should” exists in the first place.
Actually, sometimes it is. In the case of torture, it is both immoral (for most) and illegal. The fact that we may not prosecute anyone in this case doesn’t make torture legal or moral.
I only skimmed pg 2 here, and I have skipped the usual Rand Rover sideshow … so forgive me if this was covered…
Did Obama campaign on prosecuting the torturers? Link? I can’t find it myself. I found Obameter: | PolitiFact but that doesn’t mention prosecutions/investigations. I seem to recall being disappointed during the campaign because I didn’t hear him saying he would follow it through.
Then how is it exactly that we have laws in the first place? You deny that “should” exists, but you admit that somehow norms “crystallize” into laws. How does this process work exactly?
That was inartful on my part. I just meant to say that I disagree with his premise that his opinion that an action I want to take is immoral imposes some moral obligation on me not to do it. If enough people agree that that action is immoral, then they can get the law to forbid me from doing it.
Like U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, §2340A?
Torture
(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
No. I’m all for prosecution under the laws that apply. If we do not do this, we will be allowing all sorts of people to use the “I was just following orders” defense. Bybee was not just following orders, he could have refused, he could have quit. He was looking for ways to “justify” something that had already been decided on and no one was forcing him (or any others) to follow suit.
And, the arrests and convictions of the small fish, may just land one of the lunkers.
No; it will ENSURE that is happens again - for that matter, I’m sure it’s still happening. If Obama wasn’t a torture supporter I’d expect him to go after these people; he’s not. It will make it clear to the world that America is a nation that supports torture, and that claims to the contrary are outright lies; we simply don’t like it to be made public. At most, the result will just be more of our torture victims being dropped into the ocean or otherwise disposed of so they can’t go public and embarrass us.
Why is bipartisanship with torturers and murderers desirable ?
Let’s walk you through an exercise. Here’s the situation: You and I are both on a public bus in Paris. I am sitting behind you. I poke you on the shoulder once every minute, just as the second hand crosses the 12.