[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Bringing the criminals to justice, for one thing. You’re in favor of that, right?
Deterring their successors - in some cases, themselves - from doing it again.
This isn’t all that advanced a concept.
[/QUOTE]
Yep, Michael Savage was right.
Are you waving a miniature American flag and saluting whilst typing with your toes, perchance?
Analogy FAIL. And you got it in with just a few weeks to spare to compete in the 2014 Analogy Fail Championship. My money’s on you, chum.
I can understand why you might be intrigued with my life, or any life other than your own. On the other hand, I couldn’t give two shits about yours or what you do.
[quote=“Terr, post:313, topic:706773”]
No, I am under the impression that former heads of the CIA have no power to declassify any documents. Do you think otherwise?
QUOTE]
Yes you are correct. I edited my post after I realized that is what you meant.
Well, I’m an American, and I think this report serves a valuable and patriotic function and needs to come out.
The problem is that our government has zero control over the stories: they’re told all the time by people wholly unconnected with the US government. What’s more, they’re told by people who are actively trying to recruit aggro Saudi teens to be terrorists.
Their narrative right now is that the US is a bunch of horrible colonial racist torturers who engage in horrific practices in secret, and everyone in America supports their bloody government.
If we cover up stories of torture, if we deny, deny, deny, if we fuss and scold those who reveal torture instead of those who commit torture, we feed directly into that narrative.
If we reveal torture, if we condemn torture, if we prosecute torture, then we contradict that narrative. We show that we agree that there are some terrible people who work for our government and that we’re trying to get rid of them. We make the recruiter’s job harder.
That’s setting aside the obvious moral benefit of weeding out evildoers and criminals in our own government.
Terr and I do agree on one subject: despite this report, Democrats are entirely too cowardly to press charges. We presumably disagree on whether that’s a good thing. I absolutely think that we have people in our government whose crimes make Bernie Madoff look like Mother Teresa (shut up, Christopher Hitchens), and a robust prosecution of them would be morally and practically an excelent course of action. Yes, the torture might be done–for now–but it could start up again at the drop of a grenade in a shopping mall. If the folks who performed the torture maintain their comfortable lifestyles of torture-with-impunity, it’s that much likelier to recur.
We disagree on the reasoning. You think that they could prosecute but do not. That would indeed be craven. I say their accusations are bullshit, that people (as in voters) are against the Democrats in this, and that Democrats are afraid to shine more light on this except when it can be strictly controlled such as in this partisan report. Which makes releasing the report cowardly and pathetic, not the failure to prosecute.
If you did, they probably put an “R” after his name.
Of course Obama could press the Justice Department for prosecutions. Of course he should. It’s shameful that he won’t, and it speaks very poorly to our nation’s moral fiber.
You may be right, that the bulk of Americans would oppose such prosecutions. Americans have a long history of supporting some really atrocious cultural practices; our ideas of democracy, justice, and liberty are often steeped in hypocrisy. That should have no bearing on whether these tortures broke the law, and whether they should be prosecuted.
But, any argument or assertion in ethics comes down to that ultimately.
Releasing the report without any prosecutions is pathetically cowardly.
That’s step 1. I don’t think it’s the last step.
Is it really that hard to understand that some people think that when very bad actions are taken by the government, those very bad actions should be investigated and publicized, even after the actions are stopped?
I assume you actually understand this, and are asserting that releasing this information increases the danger to Americans, and that determining the details of what happened is just not worth this increased danger. If so, I disagree – I don’t think this increases the danger in any significant way in the short term, and in the long term I think releasing the information significantly reduces the danger to Americans and our interests.
So I believe that this was very necessary – both for the principle of determining in detail what actually happened with these very bad actions that the government took, and to benefit Americans and our interests in the long term by showing the world that we are not afraid to discuss in detail the bad things that we have done in the past.
This American Veteran agrees. So do many of my former shipmates (while some others disagree, of course).
Very possibly, but not releasing the report would be far more cowardly, in my view.
I don’t agree with this.
Firstly, “the Democrats” are not monolithic, and it’s possible that the Senate Democrats disagree with the Obama Justice Department about this, but only the latter have the authority to prosecute.
But second, it’s possible for things to be immoral and bad policy without being illegal. So a report saying that “such-and-such abuses took place and should never happen again” doesn’t necessarily mean that any prosecutable acts were committed.
The report flat out accuses CIA personnel of committing crimes. Not of “being immoral” or pursuing “bad policy”.
This doesn’t follow. First, the folks who released the report have no prosecutorial power. They’re in the wrong branch of government for that. Second, “cowardly” is failing to do the right thing out of fear. Releasing the report was the right thing to do, and even if you incorrectly think that keeping things secret was the right thing to do, there’s no indication that they failed to keep it secret out of fear.
The word “cowardly” is too often used as shortcut for “thing I find reprehensible.” I get that you find it reprehensible to release the report, but “cowardly” is simply an incorrect descriptor.
They have the oversight power. For example, they could subpoena Holder into a committee to explain, meticulously, why he is refusing to prosecute these horrible crimes. Of course, they would only do that if they actually thought horrible crimes were committed, instead of just blabbing about it for show.
Again, in a Republican controlled Congress, what committee?