The Senate Judiciary Committee that they controlled, under Obama, for the last 6 years. Unless you think 6 years is not enough to call Holder to testify?
Fair enough. They could do that.
And if they did that, they’d cause a big rift between the WH and the Senate. They’d probably lose significant political clout in the process. There’s a very strong reason for them not to do so, even if they sincerely believe crimes were committed.
That reason is cowardly, no doubt–but your implication that the report is therefore dishonest is bogus.
Aside from the issue of whether the US should pursue criminal prosecutions, there’s another can of worms. The sites are scattered far and wide. Many of the known and suspected sites are in countries that are Party to the International Criminal Court. Even though the didn’t ratify the ICC the acts were committed in countries that are covered. Along the way there’s likely some non-American accomplices in the governments of those powers hosting the sites.
Wait, what? You’re saying the accusations of torture are bullshit? Or what?
Because I thought we were all agreeing that torture happened, like, a lot, the only disagreement is whether that torture was a good thing or a bad thing.
“It wasn’t torture! And even if it was torture, they deserved it! And even if they didn’t deserve it, the torture program is over! It’s wrong to torture, but since we tortured anyway at least keep it secret! But it worked to save American lives, so stopping torture is wrong! And even though it’s against the law to torture people, we shouldn’t prosecute torturers because the American people approve of torture! What if we prosecuted someone for torture and they were acquitted, that would be embarrassing! And this is a partisan issue, the only reason the Democrats are against torture is because the torturers were Republicans! And Diane Feinstein is woman, and women are soft and womanly and put heroic manly American men at risk with their bizarrely shaped genitalia! If a government official does something wrong, and people learn about it, it creates distrust of the government, so therefore revealing government misdoing is wrong!”
It’s hard to keep track of the bullshit because it changes so fast.
My bottom line is, even if torture could sometimes be justified, no government officials should be given the legal right to torture. It’s not that there could never be a situation where somehow the greater good would be served by torture (not that I therefore concede that these particular cases of torture are such instances), it’s that I don’t believe fallible human beings should be given the power to make that determination. I’m morally certain that there are people who should just be shot in the back of the head, and the world would be a better place. That doesn’t mean that the next time I shoot a guy in the back of the head I should expect a parade. You all can’t trust me with the unilateral legal authority to shoot motherfuckers in the head, because why would you?
We can’t give the CIA the legal authority to torture people, not because the guys they torture always deserve not to be tortured, but because we the people don’t deserve to live in a country where CIA agents have the legal authority to torture people. This is why we have a constitution. We don’t give criminals the fifth amendment right to not incriminate themselves because we love criminals, but because we don’t believe we can trust the authorities with the power to compel defendants to testify against themselves. That’s what they did in, you know, Stalinist Russia. There are plenty of criminals who committed really bad crimes that could be in prison right now, if only we weren’t hamstrung by the Fifth Amendment prohibition against forced self-incrimination. So what? I still don’t want to repeal the Fifth Amendment.
I don’t care whether torture did or did not reveal information that was or was not used against terrorist networks that did or did not save American lives. It’s fucking irrelevant, just like it’s irrelevant that if we could have tortured OJ into confessing killing Nicole and Ron he would have gone to prison for those murders. Instead he was acquitted and strolled off to shoot a few rounds of golf, all because the cops couldn’t torture him. I still don’t favor torturing criminal suspects, even if the criminals are suspected terrorists, because allowing cops to torture turns AMERICA INTO A FASCIST TOTALITARIAN POLICE STATE and I don’t feel like living in as a slave in a fascist gulag.
I guess the crimes are not that horrible then. At least not horrible enough to risk losing political clout.
No, they are that horrible.
Wait, that sentence was ambiguous: did I mean “they” to refer to “the crimes” or to “the senate?”
The answer is “yes.”
They are, and many politicians are cowards. That doesn’t excuse the crimes, or mean that the report shouldn’t have been released. It would have been even more cowardly to hold back the report.
I disagree. There is cowardly and there is craven. Releasing the report but refusing to prosecute anyone is craven.
And just to get a proper sense of perspective, how would you describe those who would committed the horrendous acts described in the report?
You probably disagree, but however cowardly/craven it is, not releasing it is far more so, in my view.
If I thought they were actually “horrendous acts”? Criminals that need to be prosecuted. Which is the only consistent position.
Nice dance there-Now actually answer the question I asked.
I don’t know how they do things back in Communist Russia, but here in America the Senate does not have the legal authority to prosecute crimes.
If you want to complain that the Obama Administration isn’t exactly jumping at the chance to prosecute torturers, then complain all you want about that, although it looks more like you think they’re heroes. Complaining that Diane Feinstein and her fellow committee members aren’t prosecuting NAME REDACTED and NAME REDACTED, not to mention NAME REDACTED or NAME REDACTED is fucking nonsensical.
You’re incoherent on this issue.
This is a set of horrendous acts. Torture isn’t a good thing. Getting people prosecuted for this is politically unlikely, because the utter craven morons who make up the GOP base would start shooting people if Dick Cheney and Bush, and Rumsfeld were hauled off in chains.
Cheney deserves to swing for the mockery he made of this country’s ideals. But *deserves *got nothing to do with it.
Answered exactly the question you asked.
I disagree.
Neither is a lot of stuff that is not “horrendous acts”.
And the utter craven morons who make up the Democrats are afraid to do anything remotely controversial - like prosecuting the CIA officials who directed these supposedly “horrendous acts”. Afraid? Or maybe the acts are not as “horrendous” as they are pretending they are?
I’m deeply disappointed that the Obama Administration has not moved to prosecute in this matter, but recognize the political problems with bringing a former POTUS or VPOTUS up on war crimes charges.
I like the idea I heard, in an interview with an ACLU representative, that Obama should just issue pardons for those who tortured and those who authorized it. Politically less of a bomb than putting Cheney et al. in the dock, but makes it clear that we know they did something illegal. If he does that, I suspect it will happen in the period between the 2016 election and the end of his term. Not holding my breath.
Didn’t Bush pre-pardon all those guys? Or did Congress pass some legislation saying they couldn’t be prosecuted? I could have sworn something like that happened…
I don’t care. Enjoy the concept of our government torturing people.
Oh, at least you agree it’s “not good”. I guess that’s progress.
Really? Like executive-action immigration reform? Universal Health Care?
The Bush administration made the US do a vile thing. And the GOP Base, the folk that elect people like Bush, would start CW II if a Republican president were hauled off in chains.
Obama, the adult who has to deal with the tantrum throwers on the right, has decided that clapping Cheney in irons isn’t worth the societal damage it would cause. Just like Ford decided that clapping Nixon in irons wasn’t worth the societal damage it would cause.
It’s easy for you to grouse about everything that’s being done or not done, because you have no skin in the game. Anything Obama does is wrong to you. You’ll find a reason to hate any action he takes. So you are free to chortle about how weak he is, but he’s the one dealing with the big decision.
I hope he does it. But, yeah, I have my doubts he would.