Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 02:59 PM Dec 2014

Interesting question: would you support a War On Terror Truth & Reconciliation process?

One predicated on the premise that anyone -- literally anyone -- who testifies to a crime committed on either "side" of the War on Terror in the past 15 years can receive full amnesty for any act testified to?


5 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Yes, immediately
2 (40%)
Some day, but it's too soon now
0 (0%)
No
3 (60%)
Yes, but it must be managed by an entity other than the US Government
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

KeepItReal

(7,769 posts)
1. Let's start with a Police Brutality and Prosecutorial Misconduct T&R Process
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 03:02 PM
Dec 2014

Bush & Co. need indictments for what they did to those prisoners.

derby378

(30,252 posts)
3. Screw that - we're not South Africa
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 03:08 PM
Dec 2014

We need a Nuremberg-style tribunal. We need sentences handed down. We need to hear cell doors clanging shut. In a few cases we may even need to smell gunpowder and cordite.

malthaussen

(17,187 posts)
4. "Full Amnesty" would just give the blackguards official color
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 03:11 PM
Dec 2014

Granted, they already have a Get Out of Jail Free card, but there is no reason to think that they wouldn't lie in their teeth when giving such "testimony" anyway. Since we can't be assured of getting the "truth" from such persons, what purpose is served by amnesty?

-- Mal

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
5. Well, I was thinking of one like South Africa's
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 03:13 PM
Dec 2014

Where any testimony that is found to be untruthful or less than the whole truth means the amnesty is negated.

malthaussen

(17,187 posts)
11. It would be nice if the persons responsible admitted so,
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 03:31 PM
Dec 2014

... but frankly, I'm pretty sure they don't think they did anything warranting confession. Although in general I don't like to play the Shadow (I surely don't know what evil lurks in the hearts of men), the President's "Remember, these are true patriots" indicates to me that their only regret is that the program produces little if any useful intelligence. Even in today's statement, Mr Obama found it necessary to point out that not only was torture against our values, it didn't work. He has always argued against the utility of such practices, which is really not relevant in consderations of morality. The fact that he includes this in his (IMO) lukewarm repudiation tells me that utilty is more important to him (and by extension, others in decision-making positions) than any other question.

-- Mal

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
6. Maybe. But, only if the torturers and their bosses make full public confessions of their crimes.
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 03:15 PM
Dec 2014

And, refusal to do so would result in a trial for their crimes.

derby378

(30,252 posts)
9. I'm betting McConnell will call for an official repudiation of the report next month
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 03:18 PM
Dec 2014

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Interesting question: wou...