Possible basis for war crimes prosecutions released by Obama administration

[Capt_Kirk]

@Shodan

No, the trouble is that Democrats are obsessed with getting revenge on Bush for winning the elections. It’s petty, it’s stupid, I am hopeful that in 2012 it will be counter-productive, but apparently the Dems can’t think of anything except BushBadBushBadBushBadBushBadBushBadBushBadBushBad.

Regards,
Shodan

Sorry No, It is simply about right and wrong, Torture is wrong no matter the political affiliations of person who authorized it. To the point I don’t believe that this Administration is going to prosecute anyone over this but I do find it likely that the Hague will. The end result of that John Yoo, Dick Cheney and Co don’t go to Europe anymore, the US won’t turn them over to the Hague. This shameful episode is a semi permanent stain on our reputation, and we would do well to confront it ourselves, but in todays politically environs we won’t

Howdy from Texas to Really not all that bright, nice to see your reason and sanity again on the SDMB

[Lobohan]

@JasperST

Hey, you can access Wikipedia. Good for you.

Yes, good for me!

I didn’t actually suggest anything, just made a statement of fact.

Oh, so you were simply burping out random factoids and we happened across you when you issued one that was, by sheer random chance, related to what we were talking about.

Okay, you are not arguing that waterboarding isn’t torture. You are not arguing that because SEALs waterboard each other (to train for the possibility for being captured and tortured) that it can’t be torture.

You were just saying some bit of trivia that you heard once and were trying to butt into the conversation.

Now that that’s settled, I suppose we can get on with it.

Those with the political agenda are doing the speculating. Whether waterboarding is torture or not isn’t for me to say, I thought it actually had been ruled on years ago. I guess the ruling was unsatisfactory so we need to revisit the issue, redefine it and prosecute since the current administration can’t run on its’ record.

Oh, so you do think that waterboarding isn’t torture. How interesting. And you throw in a meaningless political snipe while you’re at it.

You know, I don’t think you were just sputtering random factoids. I think you were making an argument, and it fell utterly flat, and now you’re back-tracking and making other similarly worthless arguments.

Have you even been to boot camp? I would have traded waterboarding for quite a bit of it.

It’s easy to say stuff like that when you aren’t going to do it.

[Capt_Kirk]

@Age_Quod_Agis

What makes you think that the beneficial treatment of prisoners of war is one of our “founding values”? Because POWs were not treated well in the US’s early wars.

Revolutionary War:
Civil War:

So you believe that we as a society haven’t improved in 200+ and 150 years ago? BTW they hung the camp commander from Andersonville, for War Crimes

[elbravoiv]

i think that this will never go down just because of the implications and standards that have been set, let me set some background

-1920s, red scare, then wwii (late 1930s-40s, american direct involvement 41-45): hoover ran an american gestapo, illegal wiretaps, burglaries, illegal detention, were all rampant: this is when FDR started abusing the guise of national security for illegal governmental activities

-1948: CIA act, completely unconstitutional as the funds can be hidden within other expenditures- accountability of funds is directly stated in the constitution… you wanna talk war crimes, the CIA assassinates democratically elected officials, and is actually WAY more incompetent than you think - read legacy of ashes

-Ike was one of the greatest military minds of all time, one of the greatest presidents we’ve ever had… see his farewell speech, he warned all about this, warned about the boogeyman scare tactics for national security - pretty predictable outcome, intelligence gets ignored

-Nixon: if it’s secret, it’s legal pretty much sums it up… HOWEVER, this is when the president’s cabinet really started abusing power, kissenger DIRECTLY went against nixon’s order not to spy on american citizens…and kissenger is regarded to be such a great guy, yeah ok

-1980s - Reagan committed treason, and completely got away with it. There’s one thing in going behind Congress’s back, there’s another in going against actions specifically outlawed: Arming the Contras (a bad bunch of dudes that reagan called the equivalent of our founding fathers) was treason, Reagan should have been sent to the gallows, bottom line (that’s my opinion, but if that’s not treason, i don’t know what is)

Bush I - set a good example with desert storm, legal operation, clean, completed objectives, very short war… no way can this be argued as imperialism or war crimes

1990s - Clinton had a good time, he did demonstrate that following the law has its negativity -namely, Africa … but he didn’t have any boogeymen, soviets were gone, al qaeda wasn’t scaring the hell outta everyone… he tried to warn about bin laden, tried to get him, buy gingrich & co called him crazy and wouldn’t have it - result typical: prevention ignored, then the problem is deferred to when s*it hits the fan

Bush:
In theory: Cheney could definitely be tried and convicted based on the torture, also he could face other charges for not having severed ties to haliburton (as he was supposed to): remember that guy he shot? that was a haliburton attorney. I think Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are war criminals as well, they’f be harder to convict. … Bush himself, honestly, here’s a case where incompetence will save you: despite what i think of his administration, he was a good guy, did what he thought was right, but wasn’t a good fact checker, i don’t know if puppet is the right word, maybe pet

In practice: The guise of national security makes everything legal. Plus, 5 justices are conservative, therefore if it came down to that, there would be a 5-4 split… thus no convictions. - Europe doesn’t have the money to let this go down right now, nor will they ever because of the ties with the US …

Obama: Bin Laden is arguably a war crime, but because it’s Bin Laden; nothing will happen, and I personally agree that these were extenuating circumstances and killing him was the right thing. The American in Yemen - forget his name, won’t happen though because of the national security. However, what comes from the dust in 50 years could be incredible… we’ll have to see, IF someone like Gingrich or Santorum won, I could easily see it happening, they seem to love imploding where their loyalties should lie; i think romney is a bit smarter, he can see what obama has done for hte image of our country, i don’t htink he’d wanna destroy that… either way i think obama’s gonna win and it’s not gonna happen- as for europe and obama: they love him too much

I say europe because that’s where the hague is (if u didn’t know)… china? who are they to talk about war crimes? same with russia… india, haha…anyone else?

[JasperST]

@Lobohan

Yes, good for me!

Oh, so you were simply burping out random factoids and we happened across you when you issued one that was, by sheer random chance, related to what we were talking about.

Are you stoned?

Okay, you are not arguing that waterboarding isn’t torture. You are not arguing that because SEALs waterboard each other (to train for the possibility for being captured and tortured) that it can’t be torture.

You can’t read.

You were just saying some bit of trivia that you heard once and were trying to butt into the conversation.

Now that that’s settled, I suppose we can get on with it.

More bong hits or what???

Oh, so you do think that waterboarding isn’t torture. How interesting. And you throw in a meaningless political snipe while you’re at it.

I said I din’t know, it isn’t for me to decide. Learn to read (sober if you will) if you are going to post comments.

You know, I don’t think you were just sputtering random factoids. I think you were making an argument, and it fell utterly flat, and now you’re back-tracking and making other similarly worthless arguments.

It’s easy to say stuff like that when you aren’t going to do it.

LOL.

[Marley23]

JasperST, you’re out of line here. You’re not allowed to insult other posters in this forum, so stop saying things like “Are you stoned” and “You can’t read.”

[Lobohan]

@JasperST

Are you stoned?
You can’t read.
More bong hits or what???
I said I din’t know, it isn’t for me to decide. Learn to read (sober if you will) if you are going to post comments.
LOL.

I’ll let the peanut gallery decide if this is obfuscation from you, or whether I’ve drunk the bongwater.

[Capt_Kirk]

@Lobohan

I’ll let the peanut gallery decide if this is obfuscation from you, or whether I’ve drunk the bongwater.

No I say that the bong is full of water and its clean:p

[John_Mace]

@elbravoiv

i-1980s - Reagan committed treason, and completely got away with it. There’s one thing in going behind Congress’s back, there’s another in going against actions specifically outlawed: Arming the Contras (a bad bunch of dudes that reagan called the equivalent of our founding fathers) was treason, Reagan should have been sent to the gallows, bottom line (that’s my opinion, but if that’s not treason, i don’t know what is)

That’s not treason. The Contras were not enemies of the US. Check the constitution for the definition.

1990s - Clinton had a good time, he did demonstrate that following the law has its negativity -namely, Africa … but he didn’t have any boogeymen, soviets were gone, al qaeda wasn’t scaring the hell outta everyone… he tried to warn about bin laden, tried to get him, buy gingrich & co called him crazy and wouldn’t have it - result typical: prevention ignored, then the problem is deferred to when s*it hits the fan

Bombing Serbia could arguably be a war crime. No authorization from Congress or the UNSC.

Cheney could definitely be tried and convicted based on the torture, also he could face other charges for not having severed ties to haliburton (as he was supposed to): remember that guy he shot? that was a haliburton attorney.

Can we have a cite that Cheney was forbidden to socialize with Halliburton employees?

[Roderick_Femm]

elbravoiv, one difference I see in this case is that much of this was discussed and done out in the open, where most of your examples were of secret abuses that only came to light much later. Here, issues were raised about waterboarding and other EITs and the administration said, in public, “it’s not torture, we have these justifications, and we’re going to do it.”

The significance of this document (which the Obama administration released with no fanfare whatsoever) is that it proves that the Bush administration had available to it, and chose to ignore (and tried to bury), very strong arguments that their justifications were completely bogus. Thus making their actions at least potentially prosecutable.
Roddy

[gamerunknown]

Also Clinton’s actions in Sudan. Chomsky goes into it here.

@Little Nemo

Attacking the Bush administration could easily end up looking like an attack on the United States.

It’s only patriotic to (verbally) attack the president if he’s Muslim.

[Ibn_Warraq]

I can’t believe people are still trying to claim that water-boarding isn’t torture or that they don’t know if it’s torture or not.

The US military certainly thinks it is, which is why they subject Special Operations troops to them.

I certainly don’t remember anyone arguing that they didn’t know whether or not John McCain had been tortured.

[John_Mace]

The US routinely ignores international law and the UN charter. Prosecuting Bush for war crimes is all well and good, but be prepared for pretty much every administration in the modern era to be vulnerable if you open Pandora’s box. Carter might be only one who wouldn’t be vulnerable.

Besides, war crimes are for losers. The US is the big guy on the block, and just isn’t going to subject itself to such an action. Not gonna happen.

[CoolHandCox]

@Roderick_Femm

Story here.

I would like to discuss these questions:

1. Should Bush-era officials, at any level, be charged with war crimes, by U.S. prosecutors, for authorizing (or using) the procedures that Zelikow criticized and apparently refuted?

The Zelikow memo was written in 2006. If we’re limiting it to waterboarding, that was stopped before 2006 (2003 I believe - the ones the Bush people have admitted to). So it’s not possible for anyone to have read this memo and then waterboarded someone. Thus, I don’t see how it could be used as evidence as argued in the link.

2. Is the Obama administration vulnerable to similar charges?

Obama has stated that waterboarding is torutre. Obama has stated that he will not prosecute certain people for waterboarding. The act of not pursuing likely acts of torture is itself a crime per the Convention Against Torture. Obama is easily violating this. But this is really small compared to the rest. However, it is some legal pressure to go after Bush and others.

The problem I see, is if you decide to prosecute, you better win. Because if you don’t win, it will give the appearance that it’s not actually torture. However, the law on the books make it extremely difficult to actually get a conviction of someone (because you have to get inside that person’s head and get them to admit they thought they were committing torture). In light of all the legal memo’s they can rely on, that’s tough. If there was a memo like the one linked, that pre-dated the waterboarding (or confirmed waterboarding after the linked memo), then that’s something, even though I think a OLC memo is more “reliable” than a State Dept memo.

Again, I’m only talking about waterboarding.

[Grumman]

@John_Mace

The US routinely ignores international law and the UN charter. Prosecuting Bush for war crimes is all well and good, but be prepared for pretty much every administration in the modern era to be vulnerable if you open Pandora’s box.

And why do you think that is? Don’t you think a refusal to prosecute people for war crimes creates an environment in which people are more likely to commit war crimes?

[JasperST]

@Marley23

JasperST, you’re out of line here. You’re not allowed to insult other posters in this forum, so stop saying things like “Are you stoned” and “You can’t read.”

But you have no policy against people telling other that their comments are meaningless? That’s not very consistent and leads to a very warped message board. But I have other places to go, thanks for sharing.

Have a nice life, hypocrite.

[Hamlet]

@JasperST

But you have no policy against people telling other that their comments are meaningless? That’s not very consistent and leads to a very warped message board. But I have other places to go, thanks for sharing.

Have a nice life, hypocrite.

You tell him, you big stud you. FIGHT THE POWER!!!

[Lobohan]

@JasperST

But you have no policy against people telling other that their comments are meaningless? That’s not very consistent and leads to a very warped message board. But I have other places to go, thanks for sharing.

Have a nice life, hypocrite.

If you happen upon this before you run away, telling someone a statement they make is meaningless isn’t the same thing as calling that person addled, perhaps by drugs.

[Marley23]

@JasperST

But you have no policy against people telling other that their comments are meaningless?

No, and your comment that this is hypocritical of me is - ready for it? - meaningless. Bye.

[Capt_Kirk]

@JasperST

But you have no policy against people telling other that their comments are meaningless? That’s not very consistent and leads to a very warped message board. But I have other places to go, thanks for sharing.

Have a nice life, hypocrite.

Kicking dirt on the umpire only gets you thrown out of the game, and to debate this we need someone like you, come on take a deep breath and wade back in:D