[quote=afx114]
In your opinion is the Nuremberg Defense a valid defense when committing any crime? If I am a UPS driver and I get a ticket for speeding while attempting to make an on-time delivery, am I off the hook because I was ‘just doing my job?’ I think you’d be hard pressed to find any judge who would accept that as a valid argument. (I’m not a lawyer, so please correct me if I am wrong).
[/quote]
I’m not one either. But I think in this case the driver would be charged with a pre-existing crime – speeding. I think in the Nuremberg case the defendants were charged with crimes against humanity. Obviously there was no law on the German books that prevented/allowed their behavior – they were supposed to “know” that what they were doing was wrong. Is that same principle in effect here? When you “know” you have actual bad guys that have information, it seems a stretch to me to call it a crime against humanity. I acknowledge though that the “know you have actual bad guys” part could be abused.
[quote=afx114]
So the AG is the one that decides what’s legal and what isn’t? I could be wrong, but wasn’t he simply advising the administration on whether he thought it was legal or not?
[/quote]
Yeah you’re probably right about that.
[quote=afx114]
As far as I know torture is/was illegal.
[/quote]
I do not know the answer to that. What were the legal limits on the behavior of U.S intelligence agents then, or even now? BTW, I agree with a previous poster that Al Quaida guys are not necessarily entitled to Geneva guarantees, and they certainly don’t hold themselves to them. (You may recall KSM beheaded Danny Pearl).
[quote=afx114]
That’s the whole point — why not have a proper trial, and if the administration’s lawyers can convince a judge/jury that torture was legal, then they’re off the hook. If not, they broke the law.
[/quote]
Innocent until proven guilty. Someone (I suppose you’re saying the Obama administration) could charge the interrogators with violating their civil rights – again, are those guys even entitled to U.S. civil rights? Note: in the Abu Ghraib case the folks *were* punished – evidently the Bush/Obama administrations feel this case is different.
[quote=afx114]
If the administration wanted to torture — or more specifically waterboard — they should have proposed legislation to legalize it, not bend the rules to get away with something illegal. The last thing we need are our leaders unilaterally declaring laws at their will.
[/quote]
I agree with your last part about the undesirability of unilateral extra-constitutional legislation. On the other hand, there is a balance to be struck. When you’ve had 9/11 and you’re trying to prevent 10/11, you obviously don’t have time for the legislative process to work to completion.
A tough problem. I suppose you could now have congress write a law that says no American shall commit or cause to be committed “torture” upon anyone in any circumstance and then somehow try to define torture. Apart from the difficulty of defining torture (could loud Barry Manilow be torture?) I think it’s in our interest as a nation to leave the boundaries ambiguous, but others might disagree.
On the other hand, I do not support violating the Geneva convention for those to whom it applies.
