OT: Release of the DOJ torture transcripts.

[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.

[afx114]

Well put. I can’t disagree with most of what you’ve said, except for a few shades of gray when it comes to definitions. I think this issue is really many smaller issues packaged together, so sometimes it helps to break them apart and take them individually. I see many questions arising in this debate:

– Does torture even work? This is an important question, but it can’t be answered until my next question is:

– What exactly defines ‘torture?’ The UN has tried to define it, but they are vague and don’t refer to specific techniques. Amnesty International has slightly different definitions (here’s a good read from them titled Torture & The Law). Can we possibly expect to ever achieve a perfect list of every possible form of torture (Barry Manilow I’m OK with, but Celine Dione is definitely torture)? Of course not. So this is difficult.

– Once torture is defined, who do the laws regulating torture apply to? Only to Americans? What about foreigners? Are we allowed to torture them because they’re not US Citizens and therefore aren’t availed the right to not be tortured? Or do we follow our supposed American morals to the necessary conclusion that certain rights are bestowed upon all men, regardless of country? What about enemy combatants? Do we subscribe to the ‘eye for an eye’ school of torture or do we try to retain the moral high ground?

– The larger issue that reveals itself is the slowness of the legislature in dealing with today’s urgent threats. It is certainly understandable that certain issues require instant action, but once you go down that road, what’s the point of even having the legislative process at all then? If all it takes is a national security scare to ram through some new legislation because “we don’t have time,” where are the checks and balances? My guess is that some sort of retro-active approval process similar to what FISA had. It should also probably be a temporary power that is pending further review. But then it begs the question you raised earlier about being retroactively charged with a crime!

So it seems like the torture issue is stuck in an infinite loop. These are all difficult questions, and there are no easy answers.

[afx114]

Well put. I can’t disagree with most of what you’ve said, except for a few shades of gray when it comes to definitions. I think this issue is really many smaller issues packaged together, so sometimes it helps to break them apart and take them individually. I see many questions arising in this debate:

– Does torture even work? This is an important question, but it can’t be answered until my next question is:

– What exactly defines ‘torture?’ The UN has tried to define it, but they are vague and don’t refer to specific techniques. Amnesty International has slightly different definitions (here’s a good read from them titled Torture & The Law). Can we possibly expect to ever achieve a perfect list of every possible form of torture (Barry Manilow I’m OK with, but Celine Dione is definitely torture)? Of course not. So this is difficult.

– Once torture is defined, who do the laws regulating torture apply to? Only to Americans? What about foreigners? Are we allowed to torture them because they’re not US Citizens and therefore aren’t availed the right to not be tortured? Or do we follow our supposed American morals to the necessary conclusion that certain rights are bestowed upon all men, regardless of country? What about enemy combatants? Do we subscribe to the ‘eye for an eye’ school of torture or do we try to retain the moral high ground?

– The larger issue that reveals itself is the slowness of the legislature in dealing with today’s urgent threats. It is certainly understandable that certain issues require instant action, but once you go down that road, what’s the point of even having the legislative process at all then? If all it takes is a national security scare to ram through some new legislation because “we don’t have time,” where are the checks and balances? My guess is that some sort of retro-active approval process similar to what FISA had. It should also probably be a temporary power that is pending further review. But then it begs the question you raised earlier about being retroactively charged with a crime!

So it seems like the torture issue is stuck in an infinite loop. These are all difficult questions, and there are no easy answers.

[afx114]

Well put. I can’t disagree with most of what you’ve said, except for a few shades of gray when it comes to definitions. I think this issue is really many smaller issues packaged together, so sometimes it helps to break them apart and take them individually. I see many questions arising in this debate:

– Does torture even work? This is an important question, but it can’t be answered until my next question is:

– What exactly defines ‘torture?’ The UN has tried to define it, but they are vague and don’t refer to specific techniques. Amnesty International has slightly different definitions (here’s a good read from them titled Torture & The Law). Can we possibly expect to ever achieve a perfect list of every possible form of torture (Barry Manilow I’m OK with, but Celine Dione is definitely torture)? Of course not. So this is difficult.

– Once torture is defined, who do the laws regulating torture apply to? Only to Americans? What about foreigners? Are we allowed to torture them because they’re not US Citizens and therefore aren’t availed the right to not be tortured? Or do we follow our supposed American morals to the necessary conclusion that certain rights are bestowed upon all men, regardless of country? What about enemy combatants? Do we subscribe to the ‘eye for an eye’ school of torture or do we try to retain the moral high ground?

– The larger issue that reveals itself is the slowness of the legislature in dealing with today’s urgent threats. It is certainly understandable that certain issues require instant action, but once you go down that road, what’s the point of even having the legislative process at all then? If all it takes is a national security scare to ram through some new legislation because “we don’t have time,” where are the checks and balances? My guess is that some sort of retro-active approval process similar to what FISA had. It should also probably be a temporary power that is pending further review. But then it begs the question you raised earlier about being retroactively charged with a crime!

So it seems like the torture issue is stuck in an infinite loop. These are all difficult questions, and there are no easy answers.

[afx114]

Well put. I can’t disagree with most of what you’ve said, except for a few shades of gray when it comes to definitions. I think this issue is really many smaller issues packaged together, so sometimes it helps to break them apart and take them individually. I see many questions arising in this debate:

– Does torture even work? This is an important question, but it can’t be answered until my next question is:

– What exactly defines ‘torture?’ The UN has tried to define it, but they are vague and don’t refer to specific techniques. Amnesty International has slightly different definitions (here’s a good read from them titled Torture & The Law). Can we possibly expect to ever achieve a perfect list of every possible form of torture (Barry Manilow I’m OK with, but Celine Dione is definitely torture)? Of course not. So this is difficult.

– Once torture is defined, who do the laws regulating torture apply to? Only to Americans? What about foreigners? Are we allowed to torture them because they’re not US Citizens and therefore aren’t availed the right to not be tortured? Or do we follow our supposed American morals to the necessary conclusion that certain rights are bestowed upon all men, regardless of country? What about enemy combatants? Do we subscribe to the ‘eye for an eye’ school of torture or do we try to retain the moral high ground?

– The larger issue that reveals itself is the slowness of the legislature in dealing with today’s urgent threats. It is certainly understandable that certain issues require instant action, but once you go down that road, what’s the point of even having the legislative process at all then? If all it takes is a national security scare to ram through some new legislation because “we don’t have time,” where are the checks and balances? My guess is that some sort of retro-active approval process similar to what FISA had. It should also probably be a temporary power that is pending further review. But then it begs the question you raised earlier about being retroactively charged with a crime!

So it seems like the torture issue is stuck in an infinite loop. These are all difficult questions, and there are no easy answers.

[afx114]

Well put. I can’t disagree with most of what you’ve said, except for a few shades of gray when it comes to definitions. I think this issue is really many smaller issues packaged together, so sometimes it helps to break them apart and take them individually. I see many questions arising in this debate:

– Does torture even work? This is an important question, but it can’t be answered until my next question is:

– What exactly defines ‘torture?’ The UN has tried to define it, but they are vague and don’t refer to specific techniques. Amnesty International has slightly different definitions (here’s a good read from them titled Torture & The Law). Can we possibly expect to ever achieve a perfect list of every possible form of torture (Barry Manilow I’m OK with, but Celine Dione is definitely torture)? Of course not. So this is difficult.

– Once torture is defined, who do the laws regulating torture apply to? Only to Americans? What about foreigners? Are we allowed to torture them because they’re not US Citizens and therefore aren’t availed the right to not be tortured? Or do we follow our supposed American morals to the necessary conclusion that certain rights are bestowed upon all men, regardless of country? What about enemy combatants? Do we subscribe to the ‘eye for an eye’ school of torture or do we try to retain the moral high ground?

– The larger issue that reveals itself is the slowness of the legislature in dealing with today’s urgent threats. It is certainly understandable that certain issues require instant action, but once you go down that road, what’s the point of even having the legislative process at all then? If all it takes is a national security scare to ram through some new legislation because “we don’t have time,” where are the checks and balances? My guess is that some sort of retro-active approval process similar to what FISA had. It should also probably be a temporary power that is pending further review. But then it begs the question you raised earlier about being retroactively charged with a crime!

So it seems like the torture issue is stuck in an infinite loop. These are all difficult questions, and there are no easy answers.

[KSMountain]

Ok, how about this:

I agree everyone, including the President, should have checks and balances, but on the other hand there is the need to act with rapidity (and perhaps mystery and violence) in certain unfortunate and hopefully rare circumstances.

So, how about we have a special court, like the FISA wiretap court, that could authorize “unlimited” treatment? The President could apply to this court, in certain very rare circumstances, for approval to treat a particular person in any means deemed necessary by the President. The target individual would have to be named.

The law would be written so that this could not be applied to any U.S. citizen, nor against anyone to whom the Geneva conventions apply.

The members of this court themselves would be subject to sanction (up to for example charged with homicide) if the Supreme Court found that they were discharging their duties improperly.

To further limit abuse, perhaps the members of this court could be chosen randomly from among appeals court judges, and perhaps they couldn’t serve for very long, like for say 1 year.

This would give a legal mechanism to treat some folks badly, when necessary, and to put fear into others of what might actually be doable to them.

Perhaps the court would be required to release the names of the folks so declared or perhaps the number of folks so declared each year.

You could write into the law that the President could be held liable for inappropriate declaration, and that this would not be pardonable by a subsequent President.

[KSMountain]

Ok, how about this:

I agree everyone, including the President, should have checks and balances, but on the other hand there is the need to act with rapidity (and perhaps mystery and violence) in certain unfortunate and hopefully rare circumstances.

So, how about we have a special court, like the FISA wiretap court, that could authorize “unlimited” treatment? The President could apply to this court, in certain very rare circumstances, for approval to treat a particular person in any means deemed necessary by the President. The target individual would have to be named.

The law would be written so that this could not be applied to any U.S. citizen, nor against anyone to whom the Geneva conventions apply.

The members of this court themselves would be subject to sanction (up to for example charged with homicide) if the Supreme Court found that they were discharging their duties improperly.

To further limit abuse, perhaps the members of this court could be chosen randomly from among appeals court judges, and perhaps they couldn’t serve for very long, like for say 1 year.

This would give a legal mechanism to treat some folks badly, when necessary, and to put fear into others of what might actually be doable to them.

Perhaps the court would be required to release the names of the folks so declared or perhaps the number of folks so declared each year.

You could write into the law that the President could be held liable for inappropriate declaration, and that this would not be pardonable by a subsequent President.

[KSMountain]

Ok, how about this:

I agree everyone, including the President, should have checks and balances, but on the other hand there is the need to act with rapidity (and perhaps mystery and violence) in certain unfortunate and hopefully rare circumstances.

So, how about we have a special court, like the FISA wiretap court, that could authorize “unlimited” treatment? The President could apply to this court, in certain very rare circumstances, for approval to treat a particular person in any means deemed necessary by the President. The target individual would have to be named.

The law would be written so that this could not be applied to any U.S. citizen, nor against anyone to whom the Geneva conventions apply.

The members of this court themselves would be subject to sanction (up to for example charged with homicide) if the Supreme Court found that they were discharging their duties improperly.

To further limit abuse, perhaps the members of this court could be chosen randomly from among appeals court judges, and perhaps they couldn’t serve for very long, like for say 1 year.

This would give a legal mechanism to treat some folks badly, when necessary, and to put fear into others of what might actually be doable to them.

Perhaps the court would be required to release the names of the folks so declared or perhaps the number of folks so declared each year.

You could write into the law that the President could be held liable for inappropriate declaration, and that this would not be pardonable by a subsequent President.

[KSMountain]

Ok, how about this:

I agree everyone, including the President, should have checks and balances, but on the other hand there is the need to act with rapidity (and perhaps mystery and violence) in certain unfortunate and hopefully rare circumstances.

So, how about we have a special court, like the FISA wiretap court, that could authorize “unlimited” treatment? The President could apply to this court, in certain very rare circumstances, for approval to treat a particular person in any means deemed necessary by the President. The target individual would have to be named.

The law would be written so that this could not be applied to any U.S. citizen, nor against anyone to whom the Geneva conventions apply.

The members of this court themselves would be subject to sanction (up to for example charged with homicide) if the Supreme Court found that they were discharging their duties improperly.

To further limit abuse, perhaps the members of this court could be chosen randomly from among appeals court judges, and perhaps they couldn’t serve for very long, like for say 1 year.

This would give a legal mechanism to treat some folks badly, when necessary, and to put fear into others of what might actually be doable to them.

Perhaps the court would be required to release the names of the folks so declared or perhaps the number of folks so declared each year.

You could write into the law that the President could be held liable for inappropriate declaration, and that this would not be pardonable by a subsequent President.

[KSMountain]

Ok, how about this:

I agree everyone, including the President, should have checks and balances, but on the other hand there is the need to act with rapidity (and perhaps mystery and violence) in certain unfortunate and hopefully rare circumstances.

So, how about we have a special court, like the FISA wiretap court, that could authorize “unlimited” treatment? The President could apply to this court, in certain very rare circumstances, for approval to treat a particular person in any means deemed necessary by the President. The target individual would have to be named.

The law would be written so that this could not be applied to any U.S. citizen, nor against anyone to whom the Geneva conventions apply.

The members of this court themselves would be subject to sanction (up to for example charged with homicide) if the Supreme Court found that they were discharging their duties improperly.

To further limit abuse, perhaps the members of this court could be chosen randomly from among appeals court judges, and perhaps they couldn’t serve for very long, like for say 1 year.

This would give a legal mechanism to treat some folks badly, when necessary, and to put fear into others of what might actually be doable to them.

Perhaps the court would be required to release the names of the folks so declared or perhaps the number of folks so declared each year.

You could write into the law that the President could be held liable for inappropriate declaration, and that this would not be pardonable by a subsequent President.

[beachlover]

Thanks to everyone for sharing your views. It’s interesting reading. I’ll share my views.

The USA has condemned torture through out our history. In addition to the Geneva Convention I would suggest reading the UN Convention Against Torture that the US signed. And if you have any doubt that waterboarding is torture, trying googling ‘is waterboarding torture’ for some interesting reading.

Many have stated that these individuals, set on destroying our country and killing as many of our citizens as possible, deserve to be tortured. Frankly, I don’t think we can debate this point.

Either the US endorses and practices torture or we don’t. We either agree to stand behind the conventions we sign and endorse or we don’t. The circumstances cannot justify the ends no matter the enemy.

My view is on principle. Not if we waterboarded someone 83 times or 183 times or 1083 times. My view is… is waterboarding torture. Yes. Does it violate US and International laws that we have signed. Yes. Can it be justified because we were attacked. No.

But, that’s my opinion and this forum welcomes different thoughts.

[beachlover]

Thanks to everyone for sharing your views. It’s interesting reading. I’ll share my views.

The USA has condemned torture through out our history. In addition to the Geneva Convention I would suggest reading the UN Convention Against Torture that the US signed. And if you have any doubt that waterboarding is torture, trying googling ‘is waterboarding torture’ for some interesting reading.

Many have stated that these individuals, set on destroying our country and killing as many of our citizens as possible, deserve to be tortured. Frankly, I don’t think we can debate this point.

Either the US endorses and practices torture or we don’t. We either agree to stand behind the conventions we sign and endorse or we don’t. The circumstances cannot justify the ends no matter the enemy.

My view is on principle. Not if we waterboarded someone 83 times or 183 times or 1083 times. My view is… is waterboarding torture. Yes. Does it violate US and International laws that we have signed. Yes. Can it be justified because we were attacked. No.

But, that’s my opinion and this forum welcomes different thoughts.

[beachlover]

Thanks to everyone for sharing your views. It’s interesting reading. I’ll share my views.

The USA has condemned torture through out our history. In addition to the Geneva Convention I would suggest reading the UN Convention Against Torture that the US signed. And if you have any doubt that waterboarding is torture, trying googling ‘is waterboarding torture’ for some interesting reading.

Many have stated that these individuals, set on destroying our country and killing as many of our citizens as possible, deserve to be tortured. Frankly, I don’t think we can debate this point.

Either the US endorses and practices torture or we don’t. We either agree to stand behind the conventions we sign and endorse or we don’t. The circumstances cannot justify the ends no matter the enemy.

My view is on principle. Not if we waterboarded someone 83 times or 183 times or 1083 times. My view is… is waterboarding torture. Yes. Does it violate US and International laws that we have signed. Yes. Can it be justified because we were attacked. No.

But, that’s my opinion and this forum welcomes different thoughts.

[beachlover]

Thanks to everyone for sharing your views. It’s interesting reading. I’ll share my views.

The USA has condemned torture through out our history. In addition to the Geneva Convention I would suggest reading the UN Convention Against Torture that the US signed. And if you have any doubt that waterboarding is torture, trying googling ‘is waterboarding torture’ for some interesting reading.

Many have stated that these individuals, set on destroying our country and killing as many of our citizens as possible, deserve to be tortured. Frankly, I don’t think we can debate this point.

Either the US endorses and practices torture or we don’t. We either agree to stand behind the conventions we sign and endorse or we don’t. The circumstances cannot justify the ends no matter the enemy.

My view is on principle. Not if we waterboarded someone 83 times or 183 times or 1083 times. My view is… is waterboarding torture. Yes. Does it violate US and International laws that we have signed. Yes. Can it be justified because we were attacked. No.

But, that’s my opinion and this forum welcomes different thoughts.

[Author]

Posts