Prosecuting from the bottom up is unjust.

I can see arguments for or against prosecuting CIA torturers.

I can see arguments for or against prosecuting those who gave orders to torture.

But I can see no logical argument that justifies prosecuting the former but not the latter.

that everyone who worked at Abu Ghraib, or Gitmo, and had any contact with those who had been tortured would be subject to prosecution. I don't know how many people that is, but if one is culpable aren't all?

Because I think everyone should pay for their mistakes, but if you go for everyone you will run into millions of excuses and stories. X did this because he/she was beat by her uncle, Y was thrown out of the house when he was twelve by his alcoholic father, he lived on the streets for five years, witnessed numerous rapes and murders, he wanted to fit in. Focusing on the top minimizes justification.

So I disagree.

to prosecute decision makers.

You don't prosecute the ones on top and ask them to present evidence against their inferiors. You go from the bottom to the top because it allows for damning evidence to be gathered against the real big wigs. Because the guys on the low end of the totem pole will be willing to do pretty much anything to lower their sentences.

in the nice offices.

My understanding is that it is undisputed that the CIA tortured people; what is being questioned is whether or not it was legal for them to do so.

So gathering more evidence isn't really important.

CIA torturers had no political cover at all for months. The torture began, as far as we know, in April 2002. Those memos didn't exist until August.

In fact, the production of those memos in itself might be a crime.

So, no, there is no real question if it was legal for anyone to break US law and torture. The real question is, was there a conspiracy in the Justice Department to try to circumvent Federal law in producing those memos.

Which is really putting too much faith in documentation and facts gathered from the previous administration.

redefining torture to fit nicely into the bUsh administrations demands.

See what if any laws were broken, bent or twisted beyond recognition. See who was responsible. Take appropriate action.

The CIA was following orders. Orders given by a corrupt and perverted administration.

the little fish can swim free, straight to their therapists.

what happened to Lyndie England was a fucking travesty.

who tortured others to walk?

You're much more generous than I am.

How can these people be members of DU? Huh?

The education system of America is seriously failing our kids if they think these kinds of things about government. The laws about this stuff are everyone's responsibility, not just a few. We all must know them, so that we can all stand together and say a collective "no" to these crimes against humanity.

i think about our government like a hardened cynic. remember how we all thought bush should be impeached? did you ever really think he would be, even after the dems took congress back?

you did? then you are more naive than i.

i do not believe american has the will or desire to fully prosecute EVERYONE involved. you will not convince me otherwise; our attention spans are too short, and we can't take hearing that we're not USA #1.

short of 100% prosecution and punishment because "america doesn't torture" (when clearly we DO torture), who would you rather was held culpable? the little fish, or rumsfeld & cheney?

I don't understand the objection.

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

If you disobey the order, you'll be court-martialled and the person will still be tortured.

If you don't give the order, the person won't be tortured, and you won't be punished because it was your decision.

And, ultimately, I agree that the person who gave the order is more culpable than the one who carried it out.

But, as others have noted above, you usually have to catch a little pig and get it to squeal before you can get enough evidence to convict the big pig. That's why these things usually work from the bottom up.

:dem:

-Laelth

Even in the uniform code code of military justice, it prevents people from following unlawful orders. You may read it for yourself:
" Art. 94. (§ 894.) 2004 Mutiny or Sedition.

(a) Any person subject to this code (chapter) who—

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.

(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct."

This is a basic fact of American law, even outside of the military. One may have a court martial, but that's OK, because if the order is unlawful then the court martial will sort it out. While in many areas it may be a matter of extreme doubt that something might be unlawful, torture is one of the few areas there is no doubt.

Our US Constitution has a clear prohibition for torture after someone has been convicted of a crime, and if that prevents cruel and unusual punishment, it inherently prevents cruel or unusual punishment before a conviction.

Even in the worst case scenario, when the government will execute a member of the armed forces for not following orders to torture, the officer should be willing to die for the right thing. I cannot force anyone to die for me, but if they've already agreed to defend the US Constitution with their lives, on a battlefield, then that means all battlefields. Including ones of principle, and not just any principle, but the one that prevents things like the Nazi Death Camps.

How could you live with yourself as a person for enabling something like Nazism in America? That's what carrying out torture is.

There are no bad guys bad enough to justify it, because the second we do it, we become the bad guys.

This is the military, however, and the CIA is not a military organization. However, the CIA is bound by the same US Constitution and it must not torture either. Individuals in government must take an oath similar to that of a soldier:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

How does one support and defend of the US Constitution by violating such a sacred prohibition as the one on cruel and unusual punishment?

One doesn't, when one does that, it is THE THING that destroys the US Constitution, and that is the greatest form of protection for the people.

But I agree that the person who gave the order is more culpable. Your excerpt doesn't address that point, does it?

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

After all, the people who tortured actually did the dirty work.

They did something wrong, they should have enough integrity to refuse to follow an order like that. We are not lemmings, nor are the people in our government. They have a duty to protect the US Constitution, not a duty to the people who make orders.

The CIA is not a military organization, and even there this is simply not a defense. That's how the Nazis did what they did. They didn't question authority.

There is a difference in a military organization between being ordered to swab the decks or protect the law by fighting for it, and destroying the law by taking unlawful orders. Military organizations, at least just ones, do not protect or serve people, they serve the law, because the law is the greatest protection of the people. And not any law, but just law.

The idea is that everyone is supposed to refuse to torture someone. The people giving the orders have no power if everyone refuses to follow them at the same time.

It's not mutiny if the people giving orders are telling you to commit crimes against humanity, mutiny is the refusal to follow lawful orders, not unlawful ones. The authority of those in command comes from the law, if they aren't following the law, then they have no authority.

To do otherwise is to behave according to the Fuhrerprinzip, which is a system of thinking that suggests one must follow all orders because the leader always knows best, even if they contradict the law. This idea is what underpinned the system of lawbreaking and war crimes in Nazi Germany:

If you do not believe me, look at the rules of the military code of justice, it specifically says "lawful military authority":
"Art. 94. (§ 894.) 2004 Mutiny or Sedition.

(a) Any person subject to this code (chapter) who—

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct."

It is not lawful for torture to be committed in the United States, and no member of the Armed forces may commit it, nor any member of the CIA. There was no real law saying torture was legal, because for those covered under the Geneva Conventions, it is illegal there. For those not covered there, the US Constitution gives a specific prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment." If that prohibits cruel or unusual punishment after a person has been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, certainly it prevents cruel or unusual punishment before someone has been convicted, as is alleged here. If you do not think waterboarding is cruel or unusual punishment, then you are a sick fuck. EOM.

You start with the people who have committed the smallest crimes, and use the threat of prosecution to turn them, to get them to testify to nail the guys who committed the largest crimes, which is what prosecuting the CIA agents first is doing.

Without that, there is practically no way to conduct an investigation. I urge you to watch All The President's Men, it is a very good example of how any investigation is done. You do not aim too high, because if you shoot and miss, then the people at the top can come out and destroy your credibility.

You have to know what they did, and you find that out by working up from the bottom.

The problem with this whole situation is that it's not the crimes of the people who committed torture, or even ordered it. The crimes that happened were crimes of the actual system of government. It's not the one outlined in the US Constitution. It is a lawless system that makes it up as it goes along. When it wants more power, it just grabs it.

The government had no ability to torture people, it just grabbed the power in secret, and a nasty one at that. One which is never beneficial.

The defence being put forward is not that torture did not occur, but that it was legal. So the important thing isn't gathering more evidence, it's establishing legal precedent.

IT WAS NEVER LEGAL, AND IT WILL NEVER BE LEGAL!

Do not let these monsters tell you otherwise.

The US Constitution, which all branches and agencies of the US government MUST follow, specifically prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, like torture. Although that was probably intended to mean after a trial, if it applies after a trial by jury, CERTAINLY it applies BEFORE such a thing. If there's no trial, you can't even get to punishment, but if you did, you wouldn't be able to cruelly and unusually punish anyone!

Do you understand me? It doesn't matter how many laws are passed by Congress that say otherwise, how many acts by the executive violate that provision, or how many court decisions say it's legal, THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT DO IT AND IT IS ALWAYS FUCKING ILLEGAL!

The only thing that keeps us from turning into people like they were supposedly protecting us from is our system of laws. These people compromised it, no, they destroyed it by torturing these people. There are no bad guys bad enough to do this, NEVER. The second it happens, it turns us into the bad guys, the monsters who attacked us on 9/11. The only hope we have of recovering is to make sure that the people who did it are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I think you have to go into court and establish that those legal opinions were illegal. Then you have to establish that those that promulgated the instructions did something wrong. Then, and only then, we can talk about the people that ask for, received, and used this authority. Finally, we can discuss people who reluctantly decided to accept and follow these directions.

And everything Obama has suggested so far is that he isn't willing to go anywhere near this far.

a foreign court will.

Do not even let them tell otherwise. That's how Nazi Germany happened. Even thinking there is even a the slightest bit of doubt that these things are universally wrong in all situations is the thing that caused Nazi Germany.

If someone told you to kill a person, and they presented no real harm in the moment, they were unarmed and not assaulting anyone, you would not do it.

The same expectation applies to soldier or to any other individuals in the government of the United States. There is no doubt about that, there never was.

In fact, to doubt that is to violate a principle established at the trials of the Nazi war criminals in Nuremberg.