General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsInteresting 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%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)Bush & Co. need indictments for what they did to those prisoners.
cpamomfromtexas
(1,245 posts)shraby
(21,946 posts)can do the time.
derby378
(30,252 posts)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)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)Where any testimony that is found to be untruthful or less than the whole truth means the amnesty is negated.
malthaussen
(17,187 posts)... 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)And, refusal to do so would result in a trial for their crimes.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)dembotoz
(16,799 posts)the process
derby378
(30,252 posts)I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.