Should Bush Administration Be Prosecuted for Torture?

[Prime Junta]

Chuck Norris doesn't roundhouse kick info out of them. Chuck Norris already has the info.

 

[Benedict]

Chuck Norris doesn't roundhouse kick info out of them. Chuck Norris already has the info.

He'd still roundhouse kick them in the face though, that's just how he rolls.

 

[dteowner]

Since when, in 2000+ years of recorded human history, have we demonstrated the ability to all behave well because there's a bigger country that's telling us all to?

Didn't do too awful bad in the Greco-Roman era, allowing for a Euro-centric view.

 

[Prime Junta]

Didn't do too awful bad in the Greco-Roman era, allowing for a Euro-centric view.

You. Have. No. IDEA!

Ancient history is so damn interesting precisely because everybody was behaving so terribly all the time. If they weren't genociding each other, they were mounting rebellions, civil wars, or other such fine stuff. The Pax Romana was a strictly local phenomenon; the gates of the temple of Janus in Rome were only closed so rarely that the event made Tacitus's and Suetonius's history books.

 

[dteowner]

Given the limitations in communication and poor military response time back then, they didn't do half bad trying to keep a lid on man's basic nature. The question wasn't whether they were perfect, the question was a central authority doing a reasonable job controlling "the world" (again, there's a bunch of Asians and native Americans, north and south, that might be a bit miffed being omitted from "the world"). Militarily, financially, and culturally, they did pretty well. When it takes a year to get a message from one end of the empire to the other, you're going to have some command control issues that will lead to corruption and uprisings (as it did), but the overall picture was still awfully good given the constraints they had.

 

[magerette]

.....*snip*... The potential benefit to the relationship from seeing some people punished for it is probably outweighed by the harm to the relationship that comes from giving time in the spotlight to people who symbolise everything they hate about america to remind them why they hate america in the first place.

Congratulations, Benedict--you've written a longer, more convoluted and arcane sentence than even me! The scary thing is I understood it.

And I do agree; if the punishment for Bush is to be known as one of the worst Presidents in history, and to have discredited his party completely, that's both fitting and sufficient for me. Revving on this issue forever only emphasizes it's defects.

 

[blatantninja]

The question is tricky legally as its not entirely clear that the Geneva conventions would apply to many (most?) of the people held (the Taliban not being a recognized government and most of the participants removed to Cuba not being regular or identified military. In theory they should have been protected by rights of habeas corpus and basic human rights which the Bush administration purposefully ignored.

As far as whether warterbording constitutes torture by a legal definition the best international definition I'm aware of is from the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1975

A1.i



The US is a signatory - as far as I remember the Administrations defence was to define 'severe pain or suffering' as permanent physical mutilation (ie they could do anything sort of cut things off and it wouldn't be torture) - you can draw your own conclusions about that.

Either way any prosecution would be the responsibility of the state first and the international system only gets involved if the state is unwilling or unable to conduct a trial. In practical terms I doubt it'll go anywhere, which gives the Chinese, Iranians, Syrians, North Koreans and every other unpleasant regime every right to smirk and call Americans hypocrites when they talk about human rights.

The problem with that definition (though I doubt we could find one much better) is that it is too vague for practical use. For instance, severe isolation, which is a proven interrogation method, could be deemed 'mental' torture. So where do you stop interrogations? You can't just sit at a table and hope these guys will eventually give us the intelligence we need. There simply is no easy answer.

 

[blatantninja]

I have some questions after reading all of this:
If the torture is not illegal then why do it in Guantanamo Bay?
If the torture is not illegal, does this mean it can be applied to any prisoner in the US?

Gitmo had little to do with the decision to put them outside the US. It had to do with keeping them outside of the US legal system. Since Gitmo isn't technically US soil, the theory was that they didn't have rights to the due process that they would if interned on US soil. Our Constitution, for better or for worse, is applied to anyone that is in the US, regardless of why.

 

[JDR13]

Chuck Norris doesn't roundhouse kick info out of them. Chuck Norris already has the info.

Chuck Norris once shot down a fighter plane with his finger by yelling "bang".


.....don't get me started on Chuck Norris facts..

 

[dteowner]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090218/ap_on_go_co/truth_commission_3

Let the witch hunt begin. "Truth Commission" ?? This has nothing to do with truth and everybody knows it.

 

[Prime Junta]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090218/ap_on_go_co/truth_commission_3

Let the witch hunt begin. "Truth Commission" ?? This has nothing to do with truth and everybody knows it.

Oh, really?

Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that the Bush administration did, in fact, engage in blatant acts of illegality.

(1) Do you believe that these acts should be investigated? If not, why not?
(2) If you answered "yes," who do you think should do the investigating? Let me remind you that normal law enforcement and judicial agencies don't do this sort of thing; i.e., you won't have the Washington, D.C. Attorney General do anything.

Looking forward to your answers...

 

[dteowner]

Your founding assumption is the problem there. Assume 2 = 17 and then tackle this simple addition problem...

The "trial" has already occurred. The appropriate authorities have already spoken. The "defendant" was already found innocent of all the charges. All the wishing in the world can't change that, even if you're convinced that blind justice pulled another OJ.

But, just for fun, I'll take a stab at it.
1) No, they should not. I do not favor "investigating" an issue until you get the verdict you want. Had these actions not already been reviewed, it would be a different story. If this was actually the first look, it should be reviewed even though it would likely be very embarassing and politically disasterous.
2) The process for review is spelled out very clearly. I don't know how you can summarily dismiss the AG when that's the legally designated authority. But even if we go outside the specified bounds a bit, I would expect a Gitmo detainee to sue the government in federal circuit court for some sort of civil rights violation. Jurisdiction would be a little hairy (I'm sure that's not an accident, even if I do buy into the party line of not importing hundreds of suspected terrorists onto US soil), but I would expect the circuit court that covers DC would be the best choice. The AG is supposed to defend, but if he's named in the complaint (I assume that's why you're dismissing him) it would have to fall to the Deputy AG, or the deputy's deputy on down to the 3rd floor janitor depending on how ridiculous the complaint gets.

 

[magerette]

I'm more interested in what the DOJ may do than Leahy and his Congressional cohorts. There's a report that was submitted by some DoJ Ethics Department lawyers questioning the legality of the so-called torture memos that may generate more heat than a commitee probe in Congress:

Torture Report Could be trouble

According to two knowledgeable sources who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters, a draft of the report was submitted in the final weeks of the Bush administration. It sharply criticized the legal work of two former top officials—Jay Bybee and John Yoo—as well as that of Steven Bradbury, who was chief of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the time the report was submitted, the sources said. (Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)
If Holder accepts the OPR findings, the report could be forwarded to state bar associations for possible disciplinary action...

It's a thorny issue,for sure.

 

[dteowner]

Part of the problem is that it will be very difficult to capture the "it seemed like a good idea at the time" angle. I'm all for second-guessing, but that should be an educational exercise and not a prosecutorial one.

 

[Squeek]

This is too much like what it obiously is, and we don't need it right now. Better to wait a while.

 

[Benedict]

I'm hoping Obama plays it well, he's started out pretty promisingly by saying that he's all about looking forward. If he & a number of the more moderate and sensible democrats vote against it then it could help marginalise the more extremist democrats and hopefully get a bit more of a centrist consensus going.

 

[V7]

Part of the problem is that it will be very difficult to capture the "it seemed like a good idea at the time" angle. I'm all for second-guessing, but that should be an educational exercise and not a prosecutorial one.

Plenty of crimes 'seem like a good idea at the time' that doens't make them legal. I think this is politically unproductive, but I remain unconvinced by your legal reasoniing.

 

[magerette]

More furor on this subject as more detailed memos are released. Regardless of whether releasing these details is bad policy, a republican talking point with which I disagree, I have to say McCain's reaction is the best from the Republican side I've heard:

“It’s unacceptable,” McCain said, adding:

One is too much. Waterboarding is torture, period. I can ensure you that once enough physical pain is inflicted on someone, they will tell that interrogator whatever they think they want to hear. And most importantly, it serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us.

Think Progress link to FOX News video

 

[dteowner]

I knew this thread would get traffic today. Seems like shaky judgment, but someone right there in the room looking at the terrorist decided that 183 rounds would get more good intel. Something made that guy think he was getting more by adding another round. Either that or you've got a dereliction of duty case against that guy, which has nothing to do with Dubya's administration.

 

[Prime Junta]

I knew this thread would get traffic today. Seems like shaky judgment, but someone right there in the room looking at the terrorist decided that 183 rounds would get more good intel. Something made that guy think he was getting more by adding another round. Either that or you've got a dereliction of duty case against that guy, which has nothing to do with Dubya's administration.

Or maybe he was just the kind of guy who gets a kick out of inflicting humiliation and pain on a fellow human, and nothing in the system stopped him from doing that.

The fact that such people exist, and the fact that they tend to gravitate to positions where they're able to do that, is the very *reason* we have norms that forbid torture, and mechanisms that monitor these norms. If all W did was to look away, that makes him almost as guilty as if he had personally been filling the buckets.