OT: Release of the DOJ torture transcripts.

[patientrenter]

What TG said. Sometimes I half-wish the purists on this issue could be dropped off somewhere in the Northwest Frontier province of Pakistan. Then interview the survivors (if any) as they emerge for a TV discussion of human rights. Make sure to get a few Harvard professors of law to grill them on how fair and law-abiding they were to their pursuers.

[KSMountain]

[quote=afx114]
“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.
[/quote]
You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.

[quote=afx114]
As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever —
In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now.”
[/quote]

Again a pretty sketchy comparison. We’re not talking about murder here. The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time and other folks acted with that knowledge in persuance of their jobs and helping their fellow citizens. Your murder analogy is different: there is very little controversy over the definition of murder, and we’re not talking about retroactively declaring murder to be illegal.

If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.

Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder? They didn’t waterboard anyone – no, worse, they shot 3 teenagers in the head! If not, why not? Because the captain’s life was in danger? Do you not think that the lives of many more citizens were similarly (and provably) in danger from the likes of the 3 Al Quaida guys? Is it only “legal” to take action when someone has a loaded AK-47 pointed at someone else’s head? Seems a dangerous line for a nation to try to walk. And who should define where the line lies? Folks at home on their comfy couch watching John Stewart?

[KSMountain]

[quote=afx114]
“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.
[/quote]
You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.

[quote=afx114]
As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever —
In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now.”
[/quote]

Again a pretty sketchy comparison. We’re not talking about murder here. The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time and other folks acted with that knowledge in persuance of their jobs and helping their fellow citizens. Your murder analogy is different: there is very little controversy over the definition of murder, and we’re not talking about retroactively declaring murder to be illegal.

If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.

Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder? They didn’t waterboard anyone – no, worse, they shot 3 teenagers in the head! If not, why not? Because the captain’s life was in danger? Do you not think that the lives of many more citizens were similarly (and provably) in danger from the likes of the 3 Al Quaida guys? Is it only “legal” to take action when someone has a loaded AK-47 pointed at someone else’s head? Seems a dangerous line for a nation to try to walk. And who should define where the line lies? Folks at home on their comfy couch watching John Stewart?

[KSMountain]

[quote=afx114]
“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.
[/quote]
You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.

[quote=afx114]
As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever —
In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now.”
[/quote]

Again a pretty sketchy comparison. We’re not talking about murder here. The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time and other folks acted with that knowledge in persuance of their jobs and helping their fellow citizens. Your murder analogy is different: there is very little controversy over the definition of murder, and we’re not talking about retroactively declaring murder to be illegal.

If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.

Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder? They didn’t waterboard anyone – no, worse, they shot 3 teenagers in the head! If not, why not? Because the captain’s life was in danger? Do you not think that the lives of many more citizens were similarly (and provably) in danger from the likes of the 3 Al Quaida guys? Is it only “legal” to take action when someone has a loaded AK-47 pointed at someone else’s head? Seems a dangerous line for a nation to try to walk. And who should define where the line lies? Folks at home on their comfy couch watching John Stewart?

[KSMountain]

[quote=afx114]
“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.
[/quote]
You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.

[quote=afx114]
As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever —
In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now.”
[/quote]

Again a pretty sketchy comparison. We’re not talking about murder here. The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time and other folks acted with that knowledge in persuance of their jobs and helping their fellow citizens. Your murder analogy is different: there is very little controversy over the definition of murder, and we’re not talking about retroactively declaring murder to be illegal.

If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.

Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder? They didn’t waterboard anyone – no, worse, they shot 3 teenagers in the head! If not, why not? Because the captain’s life was in danger? Do you not think that the lives of many more citizens were similarly (and provably) in danger from the likes of the 3 Al Quaida guys? Is it only “legal” to take action when someone has a loaded AK-47 pointed at someone else’s head? Seems a dangerous line for a nation to try to walk. And who should define where the line lies? Folks at home on their comfy couch watching John Stewart?

[KSMountain]

[quote=afx114]
“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.
[/quote]
You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.

[quote=afx114]
As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever —
In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now.”
[/quote]

Again a pretty sketchy comparison. We’re not talking about murder here. The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time and other folks acted with that knowledge in persuance of their jobs and helping their fellow citizens. Your murder analogy is different: there is very little controversy over the definition of murder, and we’re not talking about retroactively declaring murder to be illegal.

If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.

Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder? They didn’t waterboard anyone – no, worse, they shot 3 teenagers in the head! If not, why not? Because the captain’s life was in danger? Do you not think that the lives of many more citizens were similarly (and provably) in danger from the likes of the 3 Al Quaida guys? Is it only “legal” to take action when someone has a loaded AK-47 pointed at someone else’s head? Seems a dangerous line for a nation to try to walk. And who should define where the line lies? Folks at home on their comfy couch watching John Stewart?

[afx114]

[quote=KSMountain]You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.[/quote]

I wasn’t comparing the crimes, I was comparing their defense. It doesn’t just apply to the Nazis, it applies to anyone whose defense is ‘I was just following orders.’

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=KSMountain]The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time.[/quote]

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? And isn’t it the job of a judge/jury to ultimately decide the legality of it? As far as I know torture is/was illegal. 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=KSMountain]If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.[/quote]

Again, you’re operating under the assumption that torture is now (or was when they were doing it) legal. When has torture ever been legal? When Gonzalez declared it so?

I agree with you – torture is not well defined, and that makes legal arguments for and against difficult — but in this case, we had an administration declare that it was legal simply because they wanted to use it, without any regard for whether or not it was actually legal. 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=KSMountain]
Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder?[/quote]

No, because they acted within the legal rules of engagement. Within the law. Now, if they just went off and shot any random dude on a boat for no reason — sure, they should be tried for murder.

[afx114]

[quote=KSMountain]You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.[/quote]

I wasn’t comparing the crimes, I was comparing their defense. It doesn’t just apply to the Nazis, it applies to anyone whose defense is ‘I was just following orders.’

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=KSMountain]The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time.[/quote]

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? And isn’t it the job of a judge/jury to ultimately decide the legality of it? As far as I know torture is/was illegal. 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=KSMountain]If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.[/quote]

Again, you’re operating under the assumption that torture is now (or was when they were doing it) legal. When has torture ever been legal? When Gonzalez declared it so?

I agree with you – torture is not well defined, and that makes legal arguments for and against difficult — but in this case, we had an administration declare that it was legal simply because they wanted to use it, without any regard for whether or not it was actually legal. 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=KSMountain]
Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder?[/quote]

No, because they acted within the legal rules of engagement. Within the law. Now, if they just went off and shot any random dude on a boat for no reason — sure, they should be tried for murder.

[afx114]

[quote=KSMountain]You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.[/quote]

I wasn’t comparing the crimes, I was comparing their defense. It doesn’t just apply to the Nazis, it applies to anyone whose defense is ‘I was just following orders.’

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=KSMountain]The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time.[/quote]

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? And isn’t it the job of a judge/jury to ultimately decide the legality of it? As far as I know torture is/was illegal. 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=KSMountain]If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.[/quote]

Again, you’re operating under the assumption that torture is now (or was when they were doing it) legal. When has torture ever been legal? When Gonzalez declared it so?

I agree with you – torture is not well defined, and that makes legal arguments for and against difficult — but in this case, we had an administration declare that it was legal simply because they wanted to use it, without any regard for whether or not it was actually legal. 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=KSMountain]
Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder?[/quote]

No, because they acted within the legal rules of engagement. Within the law. Now, if they just went off and shot any random dude on a boat for no reason — sure, they should be tried for murder.

[afx114]

[quote=KSMountain]You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.[/quote]

I wasn’t comparing the crimes, I was comparing their defense. It doesn’t just apply to the Nazis, it applies to anyone whose defense is ‘I was just following orders.’

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=KSMountain]The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time.[/quote]

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? And isn’t it the job of a judge/jury to ultimately decide the legality of it? As far as I know torture is/was illegal. 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=KSMountain]If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.[/quote]

Again, you’re operating under the assumption that torture is now (or was when they were doing it) legal. When has torture ever been legal? When Gonzalez declared it so?

I agree with you – torture is not well defined, and that makes legal arguments for and against difficult — but in this case, we had an administration declare that it was legal simply because they wanted to use it, without any regard for whether or not it was actually legal. 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=KSMountain]
Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder?[/quote]

No, because they acted within the legal rules of engagement. Within the law. Now, if they just went off and shot any random dude on a boat for no reason — sure, they should be tried for murder.

[afx114]

[quote=KSMountain]You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.[/quote]

I wasn’t comparing the crimes, I was comparing their defense. It doesn’t just apply to the Nazis, it applies to anyone whose defense is ‘I was just following orders.’

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=KSMountain]The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time.[/quote]

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? And isn’t it the job of a judge/jury to ultimately decide the legality of it? As far as I know torture is/was illegal. 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=KSMountain]If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.[/quote]

Again, you’re operating under the assumption that torture is now (or was when they were doing it) legal. When has torture ever been legal? When Gonzalez declared it so?

I agree with you – torture is not well defined, and that makes legal arguments for and against difficult — but in this case, we had an administration declare that it was legal simply because they wanted to use it, without any regard for whether or not it was actually legal. 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=KSMountain]
Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder?[/quote]

No, because they acted within the legal rules of engagement. Within the law. Now, if they just went off and shot any random dude on a boat for no reason — sure, they should be tried for murder.

[KSMountain]

[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.

[KSMountain]

[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.

[KSMountain]

[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.

[KSMountain]

[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.

[Author]

Posts