President-elect Barack Obama appears to be signaling that he is not inclined to investigate crimes committed by the Bush Administration. In an interview with ABC News program “This Week With George Stephanopoulos”, he picked up on the recent Democratic spin that we should all “look to the future and not the past” even if the past happens to contain war crimes committed by his predecessor. I just finished an interview on Talk of the Nation on which I debated the issue with Harvard Professor and former solicitor general Charles Fried. I also discussed the issue on MSNBC Countdown.
Many civil libertarians are concerned that this will be another flip-flop from Obama after he surprised many by voting in favor of telecom immunity. During the campaign, he made it clear that he believed that waterboarding is torture, an inescapable position. Yet, the deductive reasoning is inescapable. If waterboarding is torture and torture is a war crime, then the Bush Administration committed war crimes. Yet, it appears that once again practicalities have proven the enemy of principle. With many insisting that such an investigation would be a distraction. It is the latest spin from democrats. Democrats first insisted that they could do nothing about criminal programs like the torture and surveillance programs because they did not control Congress. Then, when they controlled Congress, they insisted that there was not enough time left in the Administration to investigate and that we would have to wait for the next Administration. Now that they have been given the White House, they are insisting that we need to look forward and not behind.
The latest theme seemed to be what Obama was raising in the interview. When asked about his position, he immediately stated his “belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.” He then defended those who committed the torture: “And part of my job is to make sure that, for example, at the C.I.A., you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got spend their all their time looking over their shoulders.”
No one seriously expects the torturers to be prosecuted, though I have far less sympathy for people who commit torture. In a nation committed to the rule of law, people should be looking over their shoulder when they are contemplating a war crime.
For the interview, click here.
For the full story, click here.
Whatever the merits of punishing the policymakers, perhaps it would be detrimental to the long-term security of the country to prosecute the foot soldiers who merely carried out the orders they were given. CIA is timid and bureaucratic enough; forcing each employee to come to an independent judgment of the legality of each of his official actions would make that even worse.
Mr Turley, Wanted to take a moment to thank you for speaking in opposition to torture with such conviction on NPR today.
If I understand the argument made against your position by Professor Fried, It is that there is no chance of gaining a conviction therefore we must not put the public through the ordeal. If indeed I understand it correctly, I am astonished.
Moreover, I am eternally thankful that the founders of our nation, the proponents of the French revolution and the Creators of the Magna Carta were not dussuaded by this argument. As a layman, I do not understand some of the complexities of the law, but it seems Professor Fried is using the benefit of hindsight to create maxims to support his argument. The realty is that the revolution was in question almost until Cornwallis capitulated at Yorktown.
I belileve we are in the ‘twilight’ justice Dougals Spoke of. I believe we are witnessing an assault by the Bush Administration on 800 years of civil liberties. I also know that history demonstrates that totalitarianian regimes do not arrive on our collective doorstep wrapped nicely with a big red bow with a note reading ‘ totalitarian regime inside’. These regimes use the machinery of free societies to gain control, to undercut, to divide, to create fear and finally to seize power.
In response to a comment by Mr fried, you indicated if only two people in the entire nation are with you that you will press on, that you will continue to stand in opposition to torture, due process violations, and the attack on Habeas Corpus. Mr Turley, be absolutely assured that I will always be with you, behind you and at your side as you press to bring the witting and unwitting proponents of totalitarianism to justice.
I will be the citizen the founders asked for. I will be a defender of the principles set forth in the Constitution. I will be most vociferous when the abusers are those in power.
Obama will not investigate war crimes. He will not close Gitmo for at least two years. He is talking of Iran having a nuclear weapon despite what is written in the NIE.
Pressure needs to be put on him to reverse course immediately. Supporters need to tell him he doesn’t have their support anymore if he maintains these positions. Supporters should not go to his inauguration, not send one dime, not do even one favor of any kind for him until he actually comes through on restoring the rule of law. George Bush is the dictator many of us didn’t like. We need to make certain Obama isn’t the warm and fuzzy dictator we do.
I knew this guy was too good to be true.
It would be interesting to see if he signs his political death certificate by handing out pardons to anyone hauled into state courts for the same crimes.
Pursuing legal accountability for Bush administration officials who violated the US Code would also place Democratic Congressional leaders, particularly memebers of the Gang of Eight, of the 107th through and including the 111th Congress in identical legal jeopardy.
The new administration lacks the moral fiber for that much change.
I continue to be appalled that the Democratic Party seems to think that torture is not worth investigating because it’s in the past. Do they do a lot of investigations of future events?
Torture was done in our names, and until the torturers, and those who ordered the torture who are equally guilty, are brought to justice we are all tainted. Thank you for standing for the Constitution, Professor Turley. I am proud to stand with you.
Dpeifer,
Well Tom Cruise does!
I too want to see vigorous prosecution of the war criminals Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etal. That the Gang of Eight’s complicity would come out and perhaps even lead to their own problems is the natural logical consequence of playing fast and loose with the Constitution. ANYONE who does so should know that they do so at their own peril. I recently read a quote from Congressman Conyers that addressed the issue of Executive branch prosecutions. He said simply “Stay tuned”. I’m sure many of us will.
That said, after reading the article provided by JT above and the comments, I did my customary routine and proceeded from this site to Huffington Post. Just below the headline piece about the decision to seat Roland Burris as the Senator from Illinois (duh!) was this AP piece by Lara Jakes:
WASHINGTON — Advisers to President-elect Barack Obama say one of his first duties in office will be to order the closing of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay. That executive order is expected during Obama’s first week on the job _ and possibly on his first day, according to two transition team advisers. Both spoke Monday on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly……
Assuming the Jakes’ article is true we can at this point say “…Well, at least THAT…”
Jill-
Speaking of Tom Cruise, I hoped that somehow the lawyer Obama would metaphorically confront Cheney (“I want the truth!”)the way Cruise confronted Nicholson’s Jessup, as there are a lot of similarities between Jessup and Cheney, except for the military service part.
Remember: “Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? … I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom… You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.”
Sound like Dick?
David,
Indeed! On some other program there was a crack about Dick having his customary breakfast of human pituitary glands.
rcampbell,
According to Glenn Greenwald today;
“And yesterday — after Obama signaled his reluctance to investigate Bush lawbreaking and explained that he can’t close Guantanamo until there is a new “process” allowing “tainted” evidence to be used — my comment section was full of people explaining why Obama can’t possibly investigate (let alone prosecute) Bush officials for crimes, and that it’s more important to keep Dangerous Terrorists imprisoned than it is to abide by long-standing principles of American law and Western justice which prohibit the use of “tainted” evidence (meaning, at least in part, confessions and other evidence obtained by torture), even though we have repeatedly been successful in obtaining convictions of Dangerous Terrorists in our federal court system both before and after 9/11. Some pro-Obama bloggers echoed those claims.”
Perhaps your article supersedes this information.
“When asked about his position, [Obama] immediately stated his “belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.” He then defended those who committed the torture: “And part of my job is to make sure that, for example, at the C.I.A., you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got spend their all their time looking over their shoulders.”
************
“Do not believe for an instant that the world’s conspiring elite in every nation have so much as a serious quarrel among them. They have just one object: control through tribute. Your slavery, through tribute, and mine… Behind this attack are the self-styled elite, secure in their own power and riches… To be effective we must direct our attacks on the real criminals, the wealthy, and powerful and secret elite of all the world – the conspirators laboring day and night to enslave us.”
Taylor Caldwell, “Captains and the Kings”, 1974
How inspiring Mespo.
I’ll do ya one better:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/history/elecbook/kaye_cardozo/pg1.htm
We need to get moving. Obama had many voters. We the people have the right to demand that our president represent our Constitution, that he fulfill the will of the people. He will take an oath to do so. A lot of voters can translate into a lot of protestors. If he can get elected through the actions of the many, he can get this message the same way. Friends don’t let friends destroy the Constitution!
Jill,
If I’m not mistaken, I think I warned you about this more than half a year ago.
Like I said, the only way to hold the Bush Administration accountable will probably be through state law and the the extent a state constitution sets a higher ceiling than the fed constitution.
“I’ll do ya one better:”
I like that too.
“He also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.”
If Mr. Obama does not pursue Mr. Bush’s war crimes, then he is a hypocrite and he lied to the whole wide world. My vote as a 30-year registered Republican appears wasted on Democrat Obama’s fraudulent pledges.
Prof. Turley,
Is there anyway for WE the PEOPLE to force the Justice Dept. to investigate and prosecute Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld, etc. for all of their injuries to OUR Constitution? I don’t want to bemoan my “wasted vote” – I want all of those responsible for STOMPING on OUR Constitution to suffer serious consequences for their crimes! Thank you for speaking out on behalf of OUR Constitution.
I am not as discouraged as some of you seem to be. I did not like the comment by Obama that everyone is quoting here, but remember that the question was whether he would name a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush felons. He doesn’t need a special prosecutor for the Justice Department under Holder(if confirmed), to investigate. After Conyers gets done with his Congressional investigation(if his bill is approved), Obama is going to have no choice, politically speaking, but to agree with Justice and/or Congress in their investigations.
With that being said, I hope I am right, or I will join Jill in calling for mass demonstrations to force the Dems and Obama to follow the law.
I am so sorry the Khalid Sheik Mohammed was tortured. I can’t sleep at night.
What should we do?
Ask him politely, ‘ah, Mr. Khalid, can you help us? We’re trying to determine, are we going to be attacked again? If so would you be so kind as to tell us when and where? And can we tell the survivors of the people that just wanted to go to work and go home that you murdered that your sorry. Would that be accurate?
rafflaw:
I find investigations are very organic things which develop momentum of their own. If the truth can come out, I think the pressure will build to do something. We know in this Country that “something” usually means a trip to court to decide the issues.
lolydirt:
I suppose you must come from a foreign land where the ends always justify the means. There are always “good” reasons to ignore the rule of law for sake of expediency. The problem is that when you lose respect for law, you have precisely the type of society that Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s advocates for us with his terror. So tell me with your barbarism, what have you actually won? A triumph of the id?
Mespo,
Good response to lollydirt. It amazes me that people can accept a blatant violation of the law by their President, but get upset when s thief “gets off” with a technicality.
I don’t understand the pessimism. Did you all fall for Obama’s head fake? Why in the world would he signal his intention to prosecute torturers BEFORE he takes office?
I also think that if it’s done with politcal savvy it will srengthen Obama politically and utterly decimate the neocon philosophy
There ain’t no way in hell a federal investigation will result in prosecution much less conviction; not as long as SCOTUS can get its filthy hands on it.
Yet another reason why I love New York.
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/history/elecbook/kaye_cardozo/pg1.htm
John Forde,
I hope you are correct that Obama is merely playing his cards close to the vest. If he does end up investigating the Bushites, then the Right will scream that Obama was “lying” about looking forward. If they do, I will love every minute of sticking it to Bush/Cheney et al for ordering torture.
Note that he didn’t talk about their superiors, the ones who did the ordering. His example was the rank-and-file. I’m taking a wait and see attitude. Maybe I’m overly optimistic.
To all:
I just listened to Professor Turley’s “debate” with that crotchety ol’ Professor Fried on “Talk of the Nation.” After hearing Fried’s rather elitist defense against prosecution — that was neatly summarized by JT as “gentlemen do not investigate gentlemen for war crimes” — and comparing Professor’s Turley’s calm, principled,* rational response, I came away very pleased. I cannot say that I approached the issue as a neutral nor an unbiased observer of the participants. What overjoyed me is that after hearing Professor Fried’s extensive Ivy League credentials and his pathetic argument that “not every crime must be prosecuted,” I dusted off my rather pedestrian diplomas and tacked them back up on the wall. If Fried is the best the elite have to offer in defense of barbarism, I have every confidence that our side will win.
“One other memorable Turley quote “since when shouldn’t we have officials of the government afraid of prosecution….”
Mespo,
You are right. I think my John Marshall Law School diploma just got a few more valuable after listening to an Ivy League law professor blatantly give up the Constitution to protect his fellow neocons. I know a JMLS alum would never sell out the country like that.
Mespo,
I think my sinus infection is affecting my typing. The second sentence above should start as follows, I think my John Marshall Law School diploma just got a little more valuable…..
I also want to congratulate Prof. Turley for Frying Mr. Fried.
I just listened to the debate. I was somewhat dismayed that at several times Mr. Fried misrepresented what Professor Turley stated and that he assumed Turley might be biased in his view of who should be prosecuted/investigated (as with Clinton) when he clearly was not.
Regardless, I like this style of debate.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Turley, for your heroic efforts on Talk of the Nation today—it’s shocking that those who understand the difference between right and wrong and have a problem with criminal and incompetent behavior have to keep explaining these most basic issues to people at all levels of society.
This revelation is extremely disappointing. Like many Americans I worked for Obama and I feel somewhat betrayed. It’s as if Obama is sewing up the patient without removing the cancer. Silent prayers and then some more.
rafflaw:
I did enjoy one remark of Fried’s however. Fried eschewed any idea of a pardon for war crimes being issued prophylactically by the President. Oh he did not oppose them on principled grounds that they would undermine the rule of law. Our good professor opposed them because they would imply a tacit acceptance that there were crimes committed and thus a prosecution was warranted. Should a prosecution not be in the offing, I would SUPPORT blanket pardons for just this reason. It is axiomatic that innocent men do not need pardons.
mespo
Thanks for the grounded response to lollydirt. I will patiently wait for the president elect to be sworn into office then see how the executive branch acts.
In the mean time I’m considering the most efficient way to get the FFLEO article:‘W. and the damage done’
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/01/08/damage/print.html
to everyone in Washington as FFLEO recommended.
If I had a spare 56K, I could takeout a full page ad in the Washington Post, the way Sean Penn did in 2002.
Mespo,
I did hear the part where Prof.Fried stated that blanket pardons would be a bad idea,but I also disagreed with his approval of Pres. Ford’s pardon of Nixon. I think the Nixon pardon, just like not prosecuting Bush/Cheney et al told the country that if you are high enough on the totem pole, you are above the rule of law. That Nixon pardon burr has been in my saddle for a long time.
rafflaw:
Me too.
In what way is waterboarding torture? You are torturing the English language to believe that a practice like that is consistent with the traditional meaning of “torture”. Let’s call this “torture (version 2)”.
What part of the Constitution prevents torture (version 2) of criminals during war-time anyway? Even if torture (version 2) is unattractive, why is it illegal?
Please base your replies on US law, not World Court or International Red Cross rules or Geneva Convention (which does not apply to these terrorists).
What is the defining moment when people realize that peaceful democracy does not work. As long as we keep talking and voting… these criminals have nothing to worry about. There was a time when armed revolution was the engine of actual change. Now we just run our mouths and hope our rulers don’t screw us too hard. What we have as of right now, today is nothing but a result of that.
http://propagandawerks.blogspot.com
Allan,
Are you serious? Check out the Geneva convention and the US Criminal code. Mespo could probably give you the exact citation. Secondly, if it wasn’t illegal, why did the administration need OLC to give them an faulty opinion that it was legal?
Again, GC won’t apply to non-uniformed combatants.
US criminal code says nothing about waterboarding.
Allen
The Uniform Code of Military Justice is a federal statute.
UCMJ prohibits U.S. armed forces from, among other things, engaging in cruelty, oppression or maltreatment of prisoners (art. 93), assaulting prisoners (art. 128) (a prohibition that includes a demonstration of violence that results in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm), and communicating a threat to wrongfully injure a detainee (art. 134).
Matching orange jump suits for W & Dick.
What is OLC?
Ditto “an fauty”?
Allan:
Why don’t you ask me to prove to you an apple falls to the ground from a tree and exclude any mention of the Newton or his law of universal gravitation, or to calculate the number of molecules in one mole of ideal gas without mentioning Avogadro’s number? Since I have not been called to educate the willfully ignorant, I’ll just give you a few cites to get you started.
18 U.S.C. Sec 2340A, provides the following definitions:
1. “Torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
2. “Severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from -
1. the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
2. the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
3. the threat of imminent death; or
4. the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mindaltering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.
(a) Offense. – Whoever outside the United States commits or
attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to
any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be
punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction. – There is jurisdiction over the activity
prohibited in subsection (a) if –
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States,
irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged
offender.
(c) Conspiracy. – A person who conspires to commit an offense
under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other
than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the
offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
Similarly, General Comment 20 (October 3, 1992) of the U.N. Human Rights Committee, which is the official body charged with interpreting the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has stated its view that the Covenant’s article 7 prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment includes the principle that “States parties must not expose individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of their extradition, expulsion or refoulement.”
See article 130 of the Third Geneva Convention; and article 147 of the Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949.
Article 16, Torture Convention. The European Court of Human Rights has stressed this point. “Even in the most difficult of circumstances, such as the fight against organized terrorism and crime, the [European Convention on Human Rights] prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Aksoy v. Turkey, Case No. 21987/93, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (December 18, 1996).
“[T]he United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’, only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.” U.S. Reservations upon Ratification of the Torture Convention, available at: htttp://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/treaty12_asp.htm (accessed March 7, 2003).
I suppose I don’t need to give you cites for domestic laws against assault, battery, attempted murder, and the like, but maybe I am assuming too much.
Dear Jonathon,
PLEASE do not pass go or collect 200 dollars. Please continue debating this issue at every opportunity. Hammer the press,
get on John Stewart Colbert, Mahr…everywhere you can educate
the audience who seem a little “let it go” The demographic who help elect Barack may be clueless about this issue. ( Toss WWII
along with that, it’s generational) You are building awareness. Don’t stop!
I am a ‘liberal democrat’, of baby boomer generation. All we did
was bitch about Our Constitution being re-written and distorted beyond recognition. Why now, is this issue in danger of swept under the carpet by Obama? We can’t afford it? I’ll bet it’s all economic. TALK ME DOWN !! We have many areas in need of repair, but this is a the crux of our countrys’ ethical infrastructure.
…if the past happens to contain war crimes committed by his predecessor. I just finished an interview on Talk of the Nation on which I debated the issue with Harvard Professor and former solicitor general Charles Fried. I will be discussing the issue again on MSNBC Countdown tonight.
Prof. Turley -
I second what A. Karno and others have said in thanking you for continuing to, at the risk of sounding so cliche-ish, speak truth to power, for promising to keep harping on it, and urging other O voters to raise hell, too. (Go to change.gov, for starters, and sign up to vote on others’ commments and to submit your own on this (and other) topics. Writer your Reps and Sens, too.)
JT, missed you on NPR. Did manage to catch KO and Rachel-second time. Wooooooooohooooooooo! I may watch you again!
‘The road to success is always under construction’
~Lily Tomlin
mespo, I’ll catch up tomorrow, if I can. Stellar comments these days.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/politics/12inquire.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&hp
‘…But it may be difficult for Mr. Obama to resist the pressure for a fuller public accounting, and lawmakers appear ready to proceed even without his support.
The House Judiciary Committee chairman, Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, has already introduced a measure to create a commission to investigate Mr. Bush’s detention, interrogation and rendition policies. Mr. Conyers’s bill would establish a bipartisan nine-member commission with subpoena power and a mandate “to investigate the broad range of policies” undertaken with claims that Mr. Bush’s wartime powers as commander in chief trumped laws and treaties.
The measure by Mr. Conyers is not the only sign that Congress may force the issue. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the second-ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, said such a commission might not be necessary because the panel itself would press the administration to declassify as much information about C.I.A. prisons as possible…’
JT:
You were great with Rachel, Keith, and Dr. Fried;
I share your silent prayer. Thank-you!
mespo727272,
Thanks for the detailed reply.
As I see it, your case rests on the “threat of imminent death” point in the case of waterboarding. Is there really a threat of death if the technique never resulted in death? Is artifice and deception in interrogation outlawed?
Others believe that the “severe” mental pain in the statute requires months of lasting anguish to qualify as “torture”.
Geneva Convention could/should not apply to non-uniformed combatants who follow no rules. It’s meant to be a mutually enforced convention, not one-sided (US only).
The UN is so corrupt that it’s a joke.
I guess you and your buddies feel that staying ignorant of potential future terrorist mass killings by following the letter of the law is preferable to using tough interrogation techniques and thereby saving lives.
And when, finally, we suffer another attack by terrorists that could have been avoided by these techniques, will you be able to look yourself in the mirror and feel good about your actions?
Allan -
“Is there really a threat of death if the technique never resulted in death?”
Your argument here is amusing. Because nobody has died yet means that nobody ever will? And how do you know that this technique has not resulted in any deaths? Because torture-advocates say so?
“And when, finally, we suffer another attack by terrorists that could have been avoided by these techniques, will you be able to look yourself in the mirror and feel good about your actions?”
Really? You think these techniques are what are going to keep us safe? So, in your mind the terrorist network is just one big group. They all talk to each other, everybody is in on the next play, and each ‘terrorist’ knows what every other ‘terrorist’ is up to, and therefore to torture one for information will simply thwart all plots and keep us safe? The James Bond villain fantasy world you live in is mind-numbingly juvenile.
Blah blah blah. You left wing lunatics will soon find Obama, especially once he is privy to what the last Commander in Chief was privy to, could care less about the opinions of America-hating loons like you. And then what will you have to say. He just said what all you idiots wanted to hear to get your votes. Before election: “I’ll close Guantanamo IMMEDIATELY.” After election: I’ll sign the Order to close it immediately but it may take a year or so to implement it.
and this Turley joker on Bathtub Boy and the Dyke show is an idiot. He gives lawyers a bad name. Move to France, and room with a jihadist.
Time to take action it would seem. Torch anyone?
And to you “Rightists”? A hearty fuck you for making me have to get out of my chair in the first place, traitors.
Allen,
YOU ARE DELUSIONAL! As referenced by this statement.
I guess you and your buddies feel that staying ignorant of potential future terrorist mass killings by following the letter of the law is preferable to using tough interrogation techniques and thereby saving lives.
Per the Air Force senior interrogator Matthew Alexander who was on the job in Iraq, torture does not work. There are better ways to get information, article here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html
Allen other than fear what motivates you?
Alan the trolls who followed,
People have already died while in custody of the US and US forces. Over 100 people have died. One person had his legs mutilated from beatings, but there is no imminent fear of dying. If you take the time to actually read a few reports, you will see that the people who have undergone waterboarding or who understand it know it is torture. Here is a link to a BBC interview with Intelligence chief Mike Mcconnell where he states that to him waterboarding is torture. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7185648.stm. Now you know why the CIA was so intent on getting its wtitten authorization from the White House. Because they knew what they were/are doing was/is torture.
That salutation should read:
Alan and the trolls who followed:
Sorry. It is too early I guess.
I wonder why those doing the waterboarding wear masks. I believe they may think that they are breaking the law, so they want to hide their identities.
Allan:
“Torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control…”
****************
Under what construction of language do you conclude that my case “rests on the threat of imminent death?”
Patty C:
I read the article you posted. Very disturbing, if true.
Three observations by a latecomer to the discussion:
1. Let’s wait to see what Obama really does when he takes office. All this pre-inaugural speculation and parsing of his words just falls into the MSM claptrap which is much ado about nothing until the inauguration. If he doesn’t followup with prosecution I’ll gladly and vociferously join the complaining chorus.
2. Prof. Turley kicked ass. As far as having Ivy League degrees George W. Bush has two, what does that prove? Your test as attorneys is your understanding of the law and your ability to articulate it. I have an Ivy League MS and having friends who went to city schools for their Masters I envied the interesting courses and teachers they had, compared to the well-published stiffs at my better reputed school.
3. To Allan and the Trolls who followed. We won, you lost. Your team is bad, our team is good. There, I’ve put it into the kind of phrasing you are capable of understanding. The shame is that life is more complex than rooting for a team and most of it is going on around you while you remain in your propaganda induced fog, drinking fattening alcoholic beverages and “rooting” devoid of knowledge. Sort of like saying “wasn’t that a great pass the guy made, without noticing the offensive line play, lack of defensive coverage and the perfection of the receiver’s route. Real fans and coaches listen with the announcers turned off so as not to be influenced by the blather, you ingest Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly as if they knew what they were talking about.
Mike:
That was a logic tour de force with a sprinkling of troll vernacular. Bravo.
Thank you, Mr. Turley, for giving a mainstream voice to this imperative issue. Just a note to point out that this type of crime does not just go away. A quick look at any country who has been a victim of a regime that tortured and killed people (well-documented cases this side of the world include Argentina, Chile, Spain, Perú, Guatemala…) has continued to pay the price for generations to come, especially if these crimes have been covered up, ignored or pardoned by decree. Horror comes back to haunt the people; it is a moral wound that injures every aspect of society. The Bush-Cheney administration has left a worse footprint that what is right now apparent: it has twisted our ethics and the way we interpret reality and eroded our common sense. At least one generation will carry this damaging -and dangerous- trait. Hopefully, the new administration will enable some kind of healing by prosecuting and convicting these rulers of terror. It is baffling that it is even debated whether to press charges against them. Almost as baffling as the fact that the People let them finish an 8-year regime untouched.
JT,
Your having this blog is good for many reasons but one of them really shined in your debate with Mr. Fried. It was obvious that he had never really confronted people, in a deep and repectful manner, who disagreed with him. One of the things I value on this blog is the chance to read the reasoned opinions of people who feel very differently from how I do about a topic. We have superb writers/thinkers on this blog, and many of them don’t agree with you on this topic. Because you are a person who actually considers what others have to say, it makes your own arguments stronger and authentic. He tried every cheap debating tactic in the book, red herrings, straw men, personal attacks– you handeled them all with aplomb. You totally smoked Fried!
I expected this from Hillary. I thought Obama would have some balls. I’ve had nothing but disgust for that spineless-hack Pellosi for her years of inaction against a transparently fascist administration. More than shoes need to be thrown at these assholes.
Somebody needs to throw the God damned book at these Saudi-loving, torture-loving, fake-Christian, closeted-homo (not that there’s anything wrong with that), corporate wellfare-loving, ass-weasels.
Let’s prey that some crazy French bastard engages in some extraordinary rendition and brings the lot to face charges in the Hauge. We’re sure as Hell not going to do iot here.
Jill:
Very insightful commentary on advocacy. You did omit one glaring debater’s trick employed by the ex-Solicitor General: the “wait a minute I didn’t follow what meant by that” gambit. Fried tried that twice and JT handled it very nicely by saying, without a hint of chiding, “that’s what I am explaining right now.”
mespo.
Thanks. I caught that also, along with his use of several false analogies. He basically brought out the big book of specious argumentation, and you’re right, JT handled every one of them!
seamus,
I’m sensing anger from you. Usually you’re so reticent in speaking your mind. Some would even call you a wallflower!
Mike,
“Let’s wait to see what Obama really does when he takes office.”
—————————————————————-
I disagree with you on this point. I have never believed that Obama was other than a center right extremely savvy politican. You know that I have expressed worries about him many times before on this blog. One of my main concerns has always been that Obama seems to have followers, not citizen voters. I thinking having followers is dangerous. It inflates the ego of the “leader” and keeps people from thinking about what the “leader” is actually saying and doing. The main stream press has done very little questioning of Obama. Mostly they have been his insipid cheerleaders. They seem completely in accord with him on prosecution for war crimes, and most of his cabinet picks. (Mike, I could be really off on that because I don’t have a lot of contact with MSM but when I have, this seems to be the case.)
In my mind, Obama has benefited from good hearted but desperate followers who do not want to question what he is actually doing, because they want him to be a certain way. They want him to make things right again, and to question him would expose this belief to doubt.
Two days ago Obama renounced the NIE on Iran and said they have a nuclear weapon. I want to know why he believes this and what this belief portends. I want Obama to get the message that “we the people” are looking over his shoulder, and he needs to do the right thing. He has shown some very poor judgement in votes and appointments. Citizens should question their president, making their own thoughts and demands known, not in the future, but right now.
For the supporters of Prof Turley… lets back him on all fronts.
From an advoacy site, our ‘signatures’ and outrage are being heard
“So we need your help again to continue our efforts to persuade President-elect Obama to appoint a Special Prosecutor. Please vote for our question again at a great independent website called change.org (not Obama’s change.gov):
http://tinyurl.com/5ohjyl
You can also vote for 9 other questions. We hope you’ll also vote for “Get FISA Right, repeal the PATRIOT Act, and restore our civil liberties.”
http://tinyurl.com/8ovtnt
Voting closes Thursday at 5 pm and the the top 10 finishers will be announced at the National Press Club on Friday – so please vote today.
Thanks all for your articulate insights and willingness to
think rather than just reacting.
A Karno
–First, this is from http://www.nysun.com/national/tenet-aggressive-interrogations-brought-us/53222/
A CIA program to administer aggressive interrogations to top Al Qaeda leaders brought America more valuable information about planned terror plots than all of the government’s other intelligence gathering efforts, a former director of central intelligence, George Tenet, has declared.
Mr. Tenet said the program was needed to deal with threats that emerged after September 11, 2001, including reports that there might be nuclear bombs in New York.
“I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots,” Mr. Tenet said in a “60 Minutes” interview set to air Sunday before the release of his new book. “I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us,” he said.
–Second, Condoleeza Rice testified that the use of waterboarding in 2002-2003 was legal and useful.
–Third, to mespo…you asked:
“Under what construction of language do you conclude that my case “rests on the threat of imminent death?””
It is clear from the definition of “mental pain or suffering”, (which you conveniently failed to cite). Go back and read the definition and you will see my point. None of the other examples of pain and suffering fit the case.
I point out that “mental pain and suffering” means something quite different to a law scholar who has grown up in a genteel society under the protection of the armed forces of the US than it does to a terrorist or a war-fighter in the field. It’s probably mental pain and suffering to such a legal scholar to miss the latest episode of SNL.
–Fourth, is it valid legal argument to revert to ad hominem attacks, such as calling me a “troll”, accusing me of relying on “fattening alcoholic beverages” or being “delusional”?
–Fifth, I would not and am not trying to justify the Abu Graib disaster, nor the techniques used there. I doubt that these techniques will be traceable to the President for war crimes, however. Some of these techniques were undoubtedly torture, as they physically maimed and psychologically destroyed some prisoners.
Jill,
I appreciate, empathize with and share some of your trepidation. I certainly couldn’t prove you wrong right now and i wouldn’t try to. However, my perspective, possibly paranoid is that under bush the country has come perilously close to fascism; our MSM for the most part has very little more credibility than did Pravda during the heyday of the USSR and probably now; the crazies in this country get taken seriously (see Ann Coulter), and those with true power can react viciously when that power is threatened(see the Kennedy’s, M.L King, Malcolm X, etc.). While you might answer that how come if this is true we’re allowed to speak as we do and I would answer that you and I and others don’t really threaten the power structure. A new President, especially a very smart one, with no fully defined history is a different matter. So far I am judging Obama by how he’s led his life and what his past priorities have been. I believe that he might be smart enough and committed enough to pull off real change like FDR did. If that is true though, he needs to watch his back and keep his own counsel. That being said it very possible i’m far wrong and far too idealistic. It wouldn’t be the first time.
Mike,
I absolutely agree that we are perilously close to facism, if not already there. Many people believe Obama is staying silent until he gets into power. That argument doesn’t hold water for me because these people could order whatever they like, whether they are in office or not. Remember, they are connected to the intelligence community and private contractors through and through. Holding office doesn’t really matter. In addition when I look at Obama’s voting record and other decisions I don’t see a rebel. I see a person who’s statements and appointments do not deviate from his past, often authoritarian decisions. I worry that people will keep giving Obama the benefit of the doubt when he doesn’t deserve it. We will fall all the way into fascism without a clear eyed understanding of our political “leaders” and this includes Obama. I just read the following from Glenn Greenwald. In case you didn’t already read it I excerpted some from his column.
“Politicians, by definition, respond to political pressure. Those who decide that it’s best to keep quiet and simply trust in the goodness and just nature of their leader are certain to have their political goals ignored. It’s always better — far better — for a politician to know that he’s being scrutinized closely and will be praised and supported only when his actions warrant that, and will be criticized and opposed when they don’t.
Right this moment, there are enormous pressures being exerted on Obama not to make significant changes in the areas of civil liberties, intelligence policy and foreign affairs. That pressure is being exerted by the intelligence community, by the permanent Pentagon structures, by status-quo-loving leaders of both political parties, by authority-worshipping Beltway “journalists” and pundits (such as the ones who wrote the wretched though illustrative “What Would Dick Do?” cover story for this week’s Newsweek).
If those who want fundamental reform in these areas adopt the view that they will not criticize Barack Obama because to do so is to “help Republicans,” or because he deserves more time, or because criticisms are unnecessary because we can trust in him to do the right thing, or because criticizing him is to “tear him down” or “create a circular firing squad” or “be a Naderite purist” or any of those other empty platitudes, then they are ceding the field to the very powerful factions who are going to fight vehemently against any changes. Do you think that those who want the CIA to retain “robust” interrogation powers and who want the federal surveillance state maintained, or want a hard-line towards Iran and a continuation of our Middle East policies, or who want to maintain corporate-lobbyist-domination of Washington, are sitting back saying: “it’s not right to pressure Obama too much right now; give him some time”?
It’s critical that Obama — and the rest of the political establishment — hear loud objections, not reverential silence, when he flirts with ideas like the ones he suggested on Sunday. This dynamic prevails with all political issues. Where political pressure comes only from one side, that is the side that wins — period.”
* * * * *
I am extremely disappointed in Obama’s attitude towards not looking back or holding these people accountable for their crimes. We just lived through 8 years of an administration that never looked back and never learned from its mistakes. How many times did we hear, “I/we can’t comment on an ongoing investigation.” And then when the investigation was over and there was a conviction, it was time to “move on” – case closed. We can’t move on from illegal wars and torture in the eyes of the world unless we apologize and punish those responsible. We NEED to look back to move forward.
‘I have never believed that Obama was other than a center right extremely savvy politican. You know that I have expressed worries about him many times before on this blog. One of my main concerns has always been that Obama seems to have followers, not citizen voters. I thinking having followers is dangerous. It inflates the ego of the “leader” and keeps people from thinking about what the “leader” is actually saying and doing.’
———
This from the ‘citizen voter’ who didn’t even know if she was properly registered right up until the day of the most important election of the century, much less if her votes were counted during the last two, but who supported Cynthia McKinney as her President
- despite McKinney being considered, by many from her own district, one outburst short of being fitted for a straightjacket.
Obama was not my first choice, but I don’t regret voting for him over McCain. Although he will be missed in the Senate, I’m delighted Joe Biden will be ex officio President of the Senate. He’s bound to get an earful and listen, unless I miss my guess.
mespo, the NYT article is the same one Buddha posted. I pasted one of the encouraging parts from it. And I agree with Michael S. and the few others who posted here, as I’ve stated repeatedly to counter ‘the negativity factor’, I am prepared to wait until after the swearing in ceremony.
Along with JT, seeing Obama with his hand on the Bible, I’ll be saying a silent prayer for ‘Principle’. Without that, it don’ mean a thing…
In the meantime, lotsa noise, please, in your own States would be most helpful.
Jill,
I understand your worries, but I think you have to look at what the Democratic Congress is suggesting when it comes to investigations. I think Conyers bill is only a start. Secondly, I still believe that Obama will investigate Bush and Cheney’s crimes when it comes to torture, at least. I say this because of who he has appointed to head the OLC. Dawn Johnsen(I think I have the spelling correct) is a very outspoken critic of the illegal actions taken by Bush. Now, the tough questions is what is going to be her influence on Obama. I think she will have an influence and I also think the Congress will be forcing the action as well. I know that sounds strange when I suggest that Congress is going to do the correct thing and induce Obama to investigate, but that is what I see so far. (I have my fingers crossed, as well!)
Alan,
You may want to actually see what the FBI thinks of the success of torture in producing actionable intelligence instead of looking at people who were part of the decision to torture and use them as evidence. What do you expect Tenet and Rice and Bush and Cheney to say about it, other than it was legal and we saved lives? The weakness of your argument is magnified when you use the torture authorizers as evidence. Here is a link to a CBS report quoting FBI director Mueller stating that the FBI removed its interrogators on a number of occasions when it deemed the tactics as illegal. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/national/main4039946.shtml.
In this Washington Post article, the following quote discusses the FBI agents opinion of the success of the torture:”In another e-mail, dated Dec. 5, 2003, an agent complained about military tactics, including the alleged use of FBI impersonators. “These tactics have produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature to date and . . . have destroyed any chance of prosecuting this detainee,” the agent wrote. “If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will be not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [by] the ‘FBI’ interrogators.” ‘ http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14936-2004Dec20?language=printer.
Finally, Alan, even though the FBI didn’t think torture works, it is still torture and still illegal, even if it “works”! However, it is a shame for you and other neocons that not only is it blatantly illegal, it is non-productive.
Jill,
If I’m not mistaken, I think I warned you about this more than half a year ago.
Like I said, the only way to hold the Bush Administration accountable will probably be through state law and the the extent a state constitution sets a higher ceiling than the fed constitution.
——–
If it happens, the credit for this belongs to JT.
Jonathan Turley, “From Pillar to Post”: The Prosecution of American Presidents, 37 American Criminal Law Review 1049, 1064-66 (2000)
What does Cuomo’s office say?
I will try this response again since my first attempt is mired awaiting moderation:
Jill,
I understand your worries, but I think you have to look at what the Democratic Congress is suggesting when it comes to investigations. I think Conyers bill is only a start. Secondly, I still believe that Obama will investigate Bush and Cheney’s crimes when it comes to torture, at least. I say this because of who he has appointed to head the OLC. Dawn Johnsen(I think I have the spelling correct) is a very outspoken critic of the illegal actions taken by Bush. Now, the tough questions is what is going to be her influence on Obama. I think she will have an influence and I also think the Congress will be forcing the action as well. I know that sounds strange when I suggest that Congress is going to do the correct thing and induce Obama to investigate, but that is what I see so far. (I have my fingers crossed, as well!)
Alan,
You may want to actually see what the FBI thinks of the success of torture in producing actionable intelligence instead of looking at people who were part of the decision to torture and use them as evidence. What do you expect Tenet and Rice and Bush and Cheney to say about it, other than it was legal and we saved lives? The weakness of your argument is magnified when you use the torture authorizers as evidence. Here is a link to a CBS report quoting FBI director Mueller stating that the FBI removed its interrogators on a number of occasions when it deemed the tactics as illegal. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/national/main4039946.shtml.
In this Washington Post article, the following quote discusses the FBI agents opinion of the success of the torture:”In another e-mail, dated Dec. 5, 2003, an agent complained about military tactics, including the alleged use of FBI impersonators. “These tactics have produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature to date and . . . have destroyed any chance of prosecuting this detainee,” the agent wrote. “If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will be not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [by] the ‘FBI’ interrogators.” ‘ http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14936-2004Dec20?language=printer.
Finally, Alan, even though the FBI didn’t think torture works, it is still torture and still illegal, even if it “works”! However, it is a shame for you and other neocons that not only is it blatantly illegal, it is non-productive.
Allan:
I love the way you approach waterboarding as if it were some modern and novel form of torture of which we knew nothing before 9/11. I have no doubt that the “know-nothings” of the Bush Administration knew very little about history before taking office. However, the rest of us do read and have lived outside of the elitist or evangelical bubbles that crippled this latest version of the “Republicans who couldn’t shoot straight.”
Waterboarding has been regarded as torture since the 14th Century (tormenta de toca) and, in our country, since at least the Spanish American War (In re: Courts Martial of Major Edwin Glenn), and we have prosecuted Japanese soldiers for this practice during WW2 (e.g. U.S. v. Yukio Asano-15 years hard labor). To pretend there is some debate over this point aligns you squarely with the sophists even now are trying to keep the Bush/Cheney mob out of prison. Like most smokescreens this one will blow away, but I fear not before deluding impressionable and “useful idiots” like yourself. As a famous person once said, “quit peeing on my leg and trying to convince me its raining,” or, as in your case, trying to convince me that peeing is some new revelation to mankind.
Mespo,
I have attempted twice to respond to Alan, but my responses are awaiting moderation, but I couldn’t have said it any better than your response. You are spot on when you talk about the attempt by the neocons to claim that there is a legitimate scholarly disagreement concerning waterboarding. The only thing that I would add is that the FBI considers waterboarding as torture and even pulled its people out of Gitmo when they witnessed torture.
rafflaw:
The neo-cons define scholarly disagreement as finding one would-be felon with a college degree who can put together two sentences of English which attempt to convince the rest of us that what we clearly see before our eyes is false. When I was a kid we called these people carnys with their shell games –or con men selling “money making” machines.” Now we call them the Cabinet.
Mespo,
One clarification. We call them the Bush Cabinet!
rafflaw:
Duly noted.
“FM34-52 relected a stong and modern commitment by the U.S. miltary to apply these international rules of law {Geneva Conventions}…It prohibited the use of force…including “physical or mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to inhuman treatment as a means of or aid to interrogation’…And tho avoid any doubt, FM34-52 made it clar that the barbarity of the enemy did not justify using illegal methods.” from Torture Team by Philippe Sands.
I don’t believe these are only Bush’s crimes. There is areason why Obama did not consult with Rockefeller and Finestein,when picking Panetta for the CIA
SWG,
You may be on to something. Panetta was chosen, I believe, because he did not have any serious ties to the Intelligence community so that he could look into the torture situation without any bias. I am still hopeful that Obama and/or his administration and Congress will investigate the primary Bush felons.
I now concede, based on the cited references, that waterboarding is considered to be torture. I appreciate the time you took to respond with citations that I researched.
I still think it is a mistake to try to prosecute a president who sincerely tried, and largely succeeded, to provide defense against some very, very nasty enemies. This can only have a deterrent effect on future presidents who may hesitate to provide effective protection due to the possible consequences from the protected classes.
After all, what is the payback for this course of action? Better PR with European elites? Better press from our sunshine “allies”? Ideological purity for academics? These theoretical results cannot compare to a terrorist attack on our soil.
Finally, I point out that many of the criticisms of left wing bloogers that I hear from the right wing blogs have been proven to be true through my very short sojourn on your blog: the left bloggers attack the writer with obscene and unwarranted name-calling, adding nothing to their persuasiveness. And, no, I will not pee on your leg for fear of being accused of water torture.
Alan, I think your question of payback for these actions is something to consider.
a. The greatest recruitment tool for al qaeda and non-affiliated terrorists has been Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, This government’s actions have made us less safe, not more safe. It’s not payback, it’s blowback that the US has to worry about. While I’m glad the U.S. hasn’t been attacked on home “soil”, I do not find the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan acceptable. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. This war was entered under false pretenses and our people, along with many Iraqi civilians have payed the price. Had we focused our attention in Afghanistan and not moved onto Iraq it is possible that we may have accomplished some good there. As is was/is we are woefully understaffed and underequipped to fight in that country. This leaves our soldiers more, not less vunerable. While soldiers may not be located on US soil, they are still American citizens and their life should mean something to us all. In short, the decisions of bush and cheney have exposed our people to great harm.
b. By violating our Constitution this administration has taken away many of the very liberties it claims to protect. They have violated seperation of powers and many of the rights that once were guaranteed to us as citizens by the Constitution. This is not keeping the populace safe. This is a naked grab for power by the executive over the people. No true conservative would approve of this idea. Our nation is a nation of laws. To torture is a war crime. If we will not hold our leaders accountable when they break the law, we cease to be a nation of laws. We enter into a dictatorship, where the executive chooses which laws he will obey and which he will discard. No true conservative would contenance this idea.
Allan:
Sorry for the stern treatment but you should know that wars of ideas and beliefs have real consequences and invoke real passions. Thus the reason for the bluntness in getting your attention. It is not demeaning to the advocate to point out logical flaws or patently silly arguments. This is the essence of the Socratic method that has served Western civilization well for centuries. Mealy-mouthed defenses or assertions interest no one, and you will not find that here. As my Con Law Professor used to say, sharp minds are only caused by friction, and that’s not an entirely bad thing. A sharp wit can sting but maybe you will agree that it produced some advancement of the knowledge of the other side’s point of view, and left you with at least one vivid mental image. I know it has done so for me.
Allan
Bear with me, I’m about to let you into one of the dark rooms in the back of my head. In 1998 after the Taliban Islamic fundamentalist attacked two embassies in East Africa (Kenya and Tanzania). President Clinton ordered cruise missile attacks on Taliban sites in Afghanistan. Based on U.S. intelligence, six locations were targeted.
I remember being in the Treasury bond pit at the CBOT reading the wire that our retaliatory attack against bin Laden failed to kill him. I remember thinking they missed the mother fucker, now they’re going to attack us back, I wonder how?
September 2001, came the answer, Al-Qaeda hijacks four commercial flights. Turning the aircrafts into missiles. (I don’t know how the Trade Towers collapsed, or building Seven. That’s a whole other matter.)
Allan my point is this; there is universal law which we are all taught. You reap what you sow. Whatever energy we put out, that’s what we get back. Simplistic but it can’t be any other way.
Professor Turley provides this magnificent forum. And the competencies of the people who post regularly are brilliant. Stellar actually, (no more lists.)
Calling you delusional for this statement (I guess you and your buddies feel that staying ignorant of potential future terrorist mass killings by following the letter of the law is preferable to using tough interrogation techniques and thereby saving lives.) is an ad hominem attack. Guilty as charged. But you’re old enough to know the universal law, so how can you logically say that?
The U.S. could have bought Iraq in a leveraged buyout the way West Germany did East Germany and it would have been cheaper! Watch the documentary ‘No End in Sight’ we’ve completely destroyed the Iraqis society. It’s truncated, decimated leveled, for what? And the human cost to the people that serve in our military is incalculable.
When you request, please base your replies on US law, not World Court or International Red Cross rules or Geneva Convention (which does not apply to these terrorists). You’re missing the perspective that these terrorists are human, torturing humans is immoral and finally torture is a fear based reality that brings humanity down collectively.
Allen you knew at some level that water boarding was torture. Now we know you know, because you said so. Writing is damn maddening, verbal communication is 40% body language.
There is no right or wrong only choices that lead to more choices. This country needs leadership committed to evolving beyond an eye for an eye, a bomb for a bomb.
CCD,
That first sentence was priceless! No End in Sight is a great documentary. Chalmers Johnson explained how the Taliban was created in the first place in his book, Blowback. Very important reading.
CCD-
Bravo for your patient and succinct reply to Allen.
For the record, CCD,may I point out something about the
distorted “eye for an eye thing”? Before Hebrew,
the scrolls ( laws Torah et al) were written in
Aramaic. Then, the text was translated into Hebrew-
a fine point just simply to underscore the issue
of semantics, meaning and laws and language and body language.
More accurately the phrase is translated to mean:
” the value of an eye for the value of an eye.”
Meaning, if you inadvertently hit and kill one of my
milk cows with your Escalade, you must reimburse me
for the financial worth of my cow…so I may
buy another to replace it, or simply purchase
something useful for the farm…like Tivo.
But I may NOT kill your beloved Daisy, to get ‘even.’
Revenge and bombs were never in the subtext,
litigious activity maybe, but not justifiable murder.
There is no right and wrong, only choices.
I am ashamed that we made the inhuman choice.
In addition, in pure Christian -Judeo theology
it is a sin to rejoice in the misfortune
of our enemies. CCD, your writing got it
across beautifully.
A.
CCD:
That reply to Allan was meaty, moral, and magnificent.
CCD -
There are many good and valid points you raised in that post.
CCD,
Nice post. It’s nice to see you follow Homer Simpson’s advice to Lisa after she built a perpetual motion machine. “We obey the laws of thermodynamics is this house, young lady!”
Way to gather Steam Prof. Turley
Forgive and Forget?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 15, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/opinion/16krugman.html
( excerpt)
Now, it’s true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll guarantee that they will happen again.
Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it’s probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he’s going to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient.
I think it was John Dean who said “Leading Democrats is like herding Cats.”
Jack Kirkpatrick: “Shanna, they bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let ‘em crash.”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080339/quotes
Hi Jonathan- I saw you tonight as I do often on “Countdown” with Keith Olberman. I’m listening closely to your view regarding “our” war crimes and you are giving me hope.
It seems like you and Rachel M. and Keith O. are zooming in on this critical and urgent issue which sits like an elephant in our new administration’s room.
We must address these war crimes now, and I am wondering how this needs to happen.
As a grassroots person is there something(s) you would recommend I do.
Also who do you think we need to petition and how? I don’t want to sit by and watch this go under the rug and taint the hope I have for a new beginning on Jan.20th.
Please give me your input.
Thanks.
And thanks for bringing such clarity to this tremendously urgent and important issue.
To Nancy S.
In the event Mr. Turley cannot take time to suggest specific
action, here’s a quote and a list of action sites.
“Change can only happen when citizens stand together and take ownership over their government, their country, their communities and themselves. Our work does not end with a campaign, but rather
begins with a new President, a new government.”
Nancy, can find an list of orgs. To choose from at
http://neoalertz.blogspot.com/2005/07/progressive-activism-sites.html
This will link you to all kinds of orgs, among them:
Democracy for America.org
The peoples network.org
DNC.
ACT for Change
Common Cause ( holding power accountable)
John Conyers Blog
Democrats.com/unity
There is a lot you can do. I don’t have half the education
of most the contributors on this blog, but it takes more than
agreeing with a cause. It takes involvement. Democracy is a verb.
Trust your own abilities to fight for justice with your community
and do not rely on s ‘leader’ to guide you to action in an era where we have so much at our finger tips. We the PEOPLE. Don’t forget the
“me” in we. ( sorry, that *was* a bit new agey)
respectfully,
A. Karno
A. Karno
Thanks for your insightful words. ‘It takes involvement. Democracy is a verb.’
I also appreciated the Paul Krugman article, Forgive and Forget?
The next few days and weeks will indicate what new direction our elected leaders want to take. The course correction will be too much for some, not enough for others. And those creating fear in there lives will definitely have the roughest ride. I never get tired of thanking the individuals who post here with such talent and clarity. Your grounded voice is among them.
I would remind Chris, that his “I was only taking orders” argument was defeated at the trials of Nazi war crimminals at the end of World War Two.
Obama and Hillary are already War Criminals! Have been for years!!