US torturers to go free

[paximperium]

Because this is about politics not the rule of law. It would be politicaly inconvient to prosecute them so they are not going to be prosecuted. This was their genius in destroying visual evidence of what they did, otherwise they might have been in the same grouping with the Abu Graib people. The photos produced the political will to bring them to trial.

But the big difference is that the Abu Ghraib activity was not in accordance to military rules and was done by the guards due to poor oversight.

The issue with persecuting CIA or military agents involved with "torture" was that not only were they told it was legal, the US government specifically backed up their activities by changing rules and law. I don't consider it fair to retroactively persecute your own agents when you change something that was once legal to illegal.

 

[ponderingturtle]

But the big difference is that the Abu Ghraib activity was not in accordance to military rules and was done by the guards due to poor oversight.

Yes and no. They were also encouraged to soften up the prisoners before the questioning. So they understood that what they were doing was what was wanted of them.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I don't consider it fair to retroactively persecute your own agents when you change something that was once legal to illegal.

It's fair if you're EJ as prosecutor and 'Usians' are the accused.

 

[paximperium]

Yes and no. They were also encouraged to soften up the prisoners before the questioning. So they understood that what they were doing was what was wanted of them.

They did that on their own. They were encouraged by military intelligence and CIA agents. It was never an order and it occurred because their leadership did not put a halt to it.

There was a wink-wink and likely tacit endorsement from some of the higher ups. So yeah, it was a "yes and no" situation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

They did that on their own. They were encouraged by military intelligence and CIA agents. It was never an order and it occurred because their leadership did not put a halt to it.

There was a wink-wink and likely tacit endorsement from some of the higher ups. So yeah, it was a "yes and no" situation.

They were not explicitly ordered by their chain of command, their chain of command was a total failure though as it did not make it clear that such things were not part of their job.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Try this on for size, if you think that "moral authority" and a dollar gets you anything more than a cup of coffee when you also have a coupon.

Numerous non Americans disliked America before the Abu Ghraib and Gitmo deals went down.

Numberous non Americans dislike America since Abu Ghraib and Gitmo deals went down.

What's the big deal? All that is sought is an excuse. This latest jag is excuse du jour. There will be another next year ...

DR

Ah, when in crisis, reach for the comfort blanket. Bless.

Have you ever sat down and considered that one of the reasons people complain about US torture is because the USA - ahem - actually tortured people?

Have you ever sat down and considered the possibility that the reason many people are concerned at the USA allowing Usian torturers to go free is because that makes the US look hypocritical as it goes around the world telling people to - ahem - not torture people.

The USA will be taken more seriously when it stops redefining the word 'torture' to suit itself.

The USA, whether you like it or not, unfortunately is a country that let a group of torturers carry blithely on and on and on, until the end of their second term in office and whose military meekly laid back and thought of the USA while they were right royally rogered by Bush and Cheney and Rice while their facilities were used for torture.

I am very pleased with a lot of what Obama has done but letting the actual torturers and now the people who legally justified the torture go free is frankly sickening - if sadly predictable, as the USA has form in the area of human rights abuses.

Luckily, if any of the torturers visits decent democratic countries they run the risk of being tried and jailed for their crimes - even if the USA, under Barack Obama won't stand up for justice.

 

[Donal]

Why would they be jailed and tried for "crimes" committed on US soil?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

...So with that breath, I must ask if your mother knows where you are EJ, and if it isn't time for your nap yet?

You win. Hurling personal abuse as a substitute for rational argument always wins. I bow to the greater thinker. Not.

I would say that takes a maturity you lack with your "na-na, everything amrikkkan is torture and bad! boo" posts.

But this is another lie isn't it - because you just made this up.

I have never made that statement as you know. In fact if I had ever stated what you claim I had stated you would be able to find where I said it but you didn't because you can't and you won't because, as the other quote showed, you think that personal abuse wins the argument. I am more than happy to highlight the sort of person you are.

Don't you guys get it yet. When you put something in quotes and ascribe it to me when I didn't say it, the technical term for that practice is 'lying'.

When you guys learn to stop lying about me you might begin to be taken seriously. When you start to provide some - or even any - of my words to support your claims instead of just making them up, you might begin to be taken seriously.

Until then...

Pip pip.

PS

Given the USA has a very recent history of torturing people, is that a good basis for lecturing other countries about obeying the law?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Because this is about politics not the rule of law. It would be politicaly inconvient to prosecute them so they are not going to be prosecuted. This was their genius in destroying visual evidence of what they did, otherwise they might have been in the same grouping with the Abu Graib people. The photos produced the political will to bring them to trial.

I guess this is the most honest assessment of the situation. I would use a number of other words or phrases than 'genius'. Perhaps 'mendacity', skullduggery' or even my favourite 'perverting the course of justice'.

The question though is that given they have possibly avoided justice by illegally destroying evidence does the USA now have any moral authority to demand any other country obeys the law?

Luckily Obama has no authority to pardon anyone under international law, which hopefully, will take its rightful course.

 

[cwalner]

Why would they be jailed and tried for "crimes" committed on US soil?

In all fairness to EJ the alleged torture did not neccisarily take place on US soil. This also ties in to the secret prisons overseas and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. In neither case do those facilities constitute sovereign US soil. I beleive the only location that torture allegedly took place on that was technically US soil would be Guantanamo Bay.

In the case of milatary prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can't imagine the individual nations of the EU having any jurisdiction (Iraq or Afghanistan would but I don't see the current recognized government of either wanting to do so nor that being what EJ meant by 'decent democratic countries', being puppets of the US and all), but an international court may be able to establish such. In the case of the secret prisons, I could see the country that the prison was located in having jurisdiction, but none other.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

I think he was just pointing out that you made up the 'quote'. That of course makes the 'very famous playwrite' appeal to authority all the more silly as it 'might' have been said but 'actually' wasn't.

I think that if you read the words of mine he quoted you will spot a number of clues.
1/ The word 'might' is an important clue to the effect that a playwright - in fact any playwright - did not actually use those words.
2/ The cultural reference to a very well known quotation. I deliberately set my cultural sights as low as possible to avoid my missiles flying above peoples' heads. I clearly failed but I will try and take the wheels off my cannon in future to lower the sights even further and avoid repeating my basic error.

I am glad that you have taken the time to explain my joke to me. Thanks.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

But the big difference is that the Abu Ghraib activity was not in accordance to military rules and was done by the guards due to poor oversight.

The issue with persecuting CIA or military agents involved with "torture" was that not only were they told it was legal, the US government specifically backed up their activities by changing rules and law. I don't consider it fair to retroactively persecute your own agents when you change something that was once legal to illegal.

There is a legal precedence for what to do in these circumstances, as demonstrated by the USA not so many years ago.

Immediately after WWII US prosecutors were sent to Nuremberg to try Germans who had redefined what they could and couldn't do in their country against international law. They US prosecutors tried many leading Germans for crimes against humanity.

Torture of people you don't like is a crime against humanity, as is incarcerating them outside the law, refusing to tell them for years what they were actually charged with, illegally transporting people to secret gulags for torture by proxy, denying them basic human rights in the process and setting up shotgun trials.

Luckily Obama has absolutely no authority under international law to pardon those who were engaged in crimes against humanity, including those who actually tortured people and those who authorised the torture regime by redefining torture to mean not torture. I look forwards to all the guilty people involved being invited to answer for their crimes against humanity in a properly constituted courtroom, should they ever travel to decent democratic states outside the USA.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

It's fair if you're EJ as prosecutor and 'Usians' are the accused.

I believe in international law and am very happy to allow international law to take its course against all those who tortured people and all those who authorised, organised and knowingly provided facilities for the torture and abuse of human rights.

I guess people who don't want to obey the law will tend to be against that happening.

PS
I use the word Usian as it is the most appropriate to accurately describe who I am talking about. American is clearly not appropriate as that includes other people who are not from the USA, both north and south. North American is not appropriate as that includes Canadians who I am not talking about.

I am however open to suggestions for an appropriate, snappy and accurate alternative, if you, or anyone would care to suggest one.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Why would they be jailed and tried for "crimes" committed on US soil?

1/ The crimes were actually committed around the world as well as in Guantanamo Bay. The people were incarcerated in the Guantanamo concentration camp for the very reason that it was not subject to normal US laws.
2/Torture was organised by proxy in secret gulags organised by the CIA. Apparently the CIA itself has publicly announced that not all those secret gulags have been decommissioned yet.
3/People were illegally kidnapped and transported through many other country's airspace in an abuse of their human rights. Those flights have been documented by many photographers around the world and tied to the abuse of human rights of certain people.
4/ The USA signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and participated in the trial of people who committed crimes against humanity at Nuremberg.
5/ The ICC is authorised to take action in appropriate cases. This is irrespective of any US law including the USA's Hague invasion law. Should the USA want to enact that law and invade the Hague in the defence of people being tried on suspicion of crimes against humanity please feel free to try.

 

[paximperium]

Luckily Obama has absolutely no authority under international law to pardon those who were engaged in crimes against humanity, including those who actually tortured people and those who authorised the torture regime by redefining torture to mean not torture.

Luckily the "international community" has no power to persecute anyone within US soil.

When you actually define "torture", perhaps people here will take your rants as being half sincere and not just another anti-american tirade.

I look forwards to all the guilty people involved being invited to answer for their crimes against humanity in a properly constituted courtroom, should they ever travel to decent democratic states outside the USA.

Since the international court does not seem interested in pursuing this at all, you'll be looking forward to it for a very long time. Why aren't you angry at the Hague for not persecuting them?

 

[Donal]

1/ The crimes were actually committed around the world as well as in Guantanamo Bay. The people were incarcerated in the Guantanamo concentration camp for the very reason that it was not subject to normal US laws.

Actually, the CIA handed the detainees over to the authorities in the countries they were shipped to. For the very reason so our guys wouldn't be directly involved.

Also, those people were incareated because they were not subject to normal US laws.

2/Torture was organised by proxy in secret gulags organised by the CIA. Apparently the CIA itself has publicly announced that not all those secret gulags have been decommissioned yet.

See above. We can't close what isn't ours.

3/People were illegally kidnapped and transported through many other country's airspace in an abuse of their human rights. Those flights have been documented by many photographers around the world and tied to the abuse of human rights of certain people.

which countries?

4/ The USA signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and participated in the trial of people who committed crimes against humanity at Nuremberg.

And the US was very careful how it defines things.

5/ The ICC is authorised to take action in appropriate cases. This is irrespective of any US law including the USA's Hague invasion law. Should the USA want to enact that law and invade the Hague in the defence of people being tried on suspicion of crimes against humanity please feel free to try.

You know, it doesn't say much for you when you act like a keyboard commando with another country's security. I don't think the Dutch would be too happy with you daring the USN to send a carrier group into their ports.

Besides, the ICC is a joke. The members don't even recognize its authority.

And since the US has not signed the Rome Statute, why do we give a damn what it says?

This is also a multinational issue. Several countries, including prominent members of the ICC, participated.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

When you actually define "torture", perhaps people here will take your rants as being half sincere and not just another anti-american tirade.

You sure shot that messenger!

Now there's no more need to think about the issue.

 

[tyr_13]

I think that if you read the words of mine he quoted you will spot a number of clues.
1/ The word 'might' is an important clue to the effect that a playwright - in fact any playwright - did not actually use those words.
2/ The cultural reference to a very well known quotation. I deliberately set my cultural sights as low as possible to avoid my missiles flying above peoples' heads. I clearly failed but I will try and take the wheels off my cannon in future to lower the sights even further and avoid repeating my basic error.

I am glad that you have taken the time to explain my joke to me. Thanks.

If you read the words of mine that you quoted, you'll see that I said the same exact thing as your 'point 1'.

And are you actually insinuating that we didn't get the, "Rose by any other name," reference? For serious? It is really sad that you need to make yourself feel better by imagining that we didn't get it.

It wasn't your joke, it was the fact that we all understood what you meant but were picking on you for it that I was explaining to you. You're welcome.

A very famous play write might have once said, "An EJ by any other name sounds just as inane." See, that's how you do it, it even has a slant rhyme.

 

[tyr_13]

You sure shot that messenger!

Now there's no more need to think about the issue.

If you want to think about the issue, why not add or comment on the serious points brought up by other posters? Do you believe the 'grunts' who were assured what they were doing was legal and they would be protected should be arrested? Do you have some proposal on getting charges for the higher ups? Do you just want to take pot shots at anyone who dares side with the US when the word, 'torture' is mentioned?

Add to the conversation then yourself pot.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

If you want to think about the issue, why not add or comment on the serious points brought up by other posters? Do you believe the 'grunts' who were assured what they were doing was legal and they would be protected should be arrested?

I believe that "he said it was legal!" is not usually an effective legal defence against charges of rape, murder, torture and so forth. However they should have the option of running that line past a judge and jury to see what they think of it, just the same as a civilian who tortures someone.

The same goes for the "I was just following orders!" defence.

Do you have some proposal on getting charges for the higher ups?

What's the hold-up, other than lack of political will? I don't think there's any lack of evidence that torture was sanctioned policy, for the definition of torture used by Amnesty International (as opposed to the definition cooked up by the Bush White House).

If you're asking me how to solve the problem of lack of political will, beats me. I guess it's not very pragmatic to hope that enough US citizens will all just say to themselves "Torture is really horrible, and illegal too, we really should punish torturers in accordance with the law even if they are in the army or in politics".

Do you just want to take pot shots at anyone who dares side with the US when the word, 'torture' is mentioned?

Add to the conversation then yourself pot.

So now you shoot the guy who brought the message that you were shooting the messenger? If I was in a hole like that I'd stop digging.