• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rumsfeld torture suit

Leif Roar said:
Can't say I've heard any stories of US prisoners of war (unlike agents or members of the resistance) being tortured by Germany in World War II. Of course, in a war that size there's bound to be instances of it, but as a general rule that didn't seem to happen.
Click to expand...

The German military generally respected the rules, even if other parts of the German state did not. An RAF pilot I knew was tortured by the Gestapo during WW2 after he escaped from a POW camp. The Luftwaffe found out the Gestapo had him and demanded custody as they were responsible for POWs in Germany. This almost certainly saved our friend's life.
 
I don't think the US has a particularly good reputation in war. Certainly, paramilitary groups and deeply degenerate governments might be expected to do worse than democratic or even functional autocratic governments. But overall, I think the US comes across as being very cavalier about killing enemy soldiers. Contrary to some popular belief, that is not the objective in war, although it is often unavoidable.

Torture, on the other hand, is definitely below the general US reputation. Yes, the US has historically been deeply complicit in Vietnam, Nicaragua etc. But that has been in war-by-proxy situations, and there is some difference here.

There is everywhere a tendency in war to paint the enemy as pure evil incarnate, irrational and wholly immoral. But it seems to me that with the US, this sentiment has been more likely to affect those in power themselves. It has not just been propaganda for the masses.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Since this is a civil lawsuit and not a criminal case, he cannot possibly be found guilty. And the Obama administration has made it clear that they will not pursue criminal charges on any of these torture cases (despite how flagrant some of them are--including the Diliwar case where a completely innocent man was tortured to death).

And I'm torn as to whether or not I'd like to see a swift decision on this lawsuit or whether it would be somehow fitting for these charges to hang over Rumsfeld's head for years. I'm leaning toward the latter because I suspect they won't be able to get a majority of the jury to find him liable. It's really going to be tough to prove that he knew or should have known what was going on and condoned it even tacitly. There's also the business of the way the U.S. (including the present administration) would re-define torture to include a much more difficult standard (prolonged, for one thing).

In U.S. courts, these issues have never been tested.
Click to expand...
:) Too many boilermakers last night. Which is odd because I don't like boilermakers.

Good post.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
There's also the question of whether or not treaties signed and ratified by the U.S. are worth the paper they're written on. I think some commitment to law and order (rather than just getting away with what we can) is important.

At any rate, I also disagree with Wildcat's narrow point that that particular line of reasoning (that if we commit torture, our own captured troops are more likely to be tortured) is not valid. As I said, I think mutual deterrence is a good alternative to payback and vengeance. Even if there is no evidence that it's happened, I'd say that's because the U.S. also has never been especially fastidious about abiding by the actual terms of the Convention Against Torture.

The unending cycle of reciprocation for atrocities is NOT good policy. And the only way to have a chance at breaking that cycle is for us to join with the nations that obey the law.
Click to expand...

American Slave Trader circa 1750. "Hey, if I don't sell 'em someone else will".
 
WildCat said:
IMHO summary executions are a bit worse than torture... YMMV.
Click to expand...
I'm honestly not sure. I don't think it's so black and white. People being tortured often ask for death. People who suffer torture often suffer terribly the rest of their lives. Not true of all people for sure and certainly death leaves no opportunity for anything. It might edge out torture but I'm not sure how much. Personally I think I'd rather be shot.

But the point still stands.
 
WildCat said:
IMHO summary executions are a bit worse than torture... YMMV.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but they're not evidence of torture and are irrelevant to the point you were attempting to substantiate.

But if you want to start another debate on this new topic, while I don't have a strong opinion, I could play devil's advocate and posit that I personally would probably rather a swift death than at least some of the worst types of torture.

Also, I'd point out that the Germans answered for the crimes you cited (that is, at least some of the responsible parties were charged and convicted of war crimes). So if anything, arguing that these killings are somehow analogous to Rumsfeld's role in torturing the plaintiffs, it sounds like an argument in favor of criminal prosecution or at least holding him responsible in a civil suit.
 
RandFan said:
I'm honestly not sure. I don't think it's so black and white. People being tortured often ask for death. People who suffer torture often suffer terribly the rest of their lives. Not true of all people for sure and certainly death leaves no opportunity for anything. It might edge out torture but I'm not sure how much. Personally I think I'd rather be shot.

But the point still stands.
Click to expand...


Yep, but of course I think the broader point is that the best course would be to abide by the rule of law such that neither summary executions nor torture is allowed to happen without any repercussions.

Wildcat is trying to muddy the waters, I think, by inserting the issue of summary executions. For any of us in favor of holding Rummy accountable for his role in torture--or more generally in favor of the U.S. abiding by the actual terms of the Convention Against Torture-- we need not condone German summary executions at all.
 
RandFan said:
American Slave Trader circa 1750. "Hey, if I don't sell 'em someone else will".
Click to expand...

That's a more apt analogy than I thought at first glance. (I'd say make it circa 1810--some point after the slave trade was abolished even in the British Empire.) They claim that someone else would do it even though most nations in the world weren't doing it.
 
RandFan said:
American Slave Trader circa 1750. "Hey, if I don't sell 'em someone else will".

JoeTheJuggler said:
That's a more apt analogy than I thought at first glance. (I'd say make it circa 1810--some point after the slave trade was abolished even in the British Empire.) They claim that someone else would do it even though most nations in the world weren't doing it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yes, that's fair but my point was that at some time someone has to be the first to stand up and say "this is wrong" before anyone will ever change. If no one will stand up because "well, everyone else does it", then nothing can change.

Further, if we think that we are a shining city on a hill, and that is debatable, but to the extent anyone thinks that then by god we ought to be the first or at least one of the first. 6th? 7th?
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Yes, that's fair but my point was that at some time someone has to be the first to stand up and say "this is wrong" before anyone will ever change. If no one will stand up because "well, everyone else does it", then nothing can change.

Further, if we think that we are a shining city on a hill, and that is debatable, but to the extent anyone thinks that then by god we ought to be the first or at least one of the first. 6th? 7th?
Click to expand...

And if they remove the scales from their eyes they might recognize that if we don't become among the last of western democratic nations to reject torture, we will become a rogue nation that gets away with it simply be dint of might.

But yeah, I don't mind if they want to pretend that we're a moral leader on this. But sadly, that isn't happening. The Obama administration has pretty completely flip flopped on his campaign rhetoric wrt torture. Not only has he decided not to press criminal charges in these cases, he has also issued executive orders further authorizing the practice of extraordinary rendition (a practice also prohibited by the CAT).
 
Regardless of whether he will receive a fair trial (I am guessing not) I welcome this news because of the hope that it will drive a wider and more serious public discussion about the morality of torture against presumed enemy combatants. That is, if the media does their job (a stretch, I know.)
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Yep, but of course I think the broader point is that the best course would be to abide by the rule of law such that neither summary executions nor torture is allowed to happen without any repercussions.
Click to expand...

If we can agree on rules for war, couldn't we just agree not to have wars?

By insisting on defense of torture the U.S. definitely ceded whatever moral capital we might have had in the "War on Terror." I wonder if torture works. Kindness might actually be more productive.

Thinking we can go to war and then set terms for what is "allowed to happen" - I'm not sure that's realistic.
 
Minoosh said:
Thinking we can go to war and then set terms for what is "allowed to happen" - I'm not sure that's realistic.
Click to expand...

Why not?

We made treaties with the USSR during the Cold War. How is the Convention Against Torture any different?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Why not?

We made treaties with the USSR during the Cold War. How is the Convention Against Torture any different?
Click to expand...

The Cold War was cold for a reason, apparently MAD wasn't an attractive option and bizarrely, "cool" head prevailed.

On the ground, in a battlefield ... I just kind of think, all bets are off. It takes on a life of its own.

Within a government, yes, I could say, we will hold our troops accountable. But if the Germans in WWII summarily executed an escaped POW - they could see it as entirely justified, an unacceptable risk, and I'm not sure I would call it a war crime.

Or if the Americans nuked Japan saying that was the only way to end the war and 100,000+ civilians died how are our actions not a war crime?

It's fine for me to see the suit against Rumsfeld go forward.
 
Minoosh said:
The Cold War was cold for a reason, apparently MAD wasn't an attractive option and bizarrely, "cool" head prevailed.

On the ground, in a battlefield ... I just kind of think, all bets are off. It takes on a life of its own.

Within a government, yes, I could say, we will hold our troops accountable. But if the Germans in WWII summarily executed an escaped POW - they could see it as entirely justified, an unacceptable risk, and I'm not sure I would call it a war crime.

Or if the Americans nuked Japan saying that was the only way to end the war and 100,000+ civilians died how are our actions not a war crime?

It's fine for me to see the suit against Rumsfeld go forward.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you say here, but none of it supports your argument that we shouldn't have a Convention Against Torture, or that it's somehow unrealistic.

FWIW, war crimes are about violence against non-combatants during times of war (see the 4th Geneva Convention), whereas the Convention Against Torture applies at all times. I think maybe you are imagining that torture is a war crime, and that's why you think it's silly to make rules of war.

The Convention Against Torture is an agreement among signatory nations not to commit torture, which is defined as the intentional infliction of pain (physical or mental) by an agent of the government on a person in custody for the purpose of punishment or to extract a confession or other information. Whether or not we are war, cold or hot, is irrelevant.

I was merely comparing the deterrent effect with MAD during the Cold War. It is possible to make and abide by treaties and conventions with people we consider "enemies". In fact, those are by far the most important ones to make! The mutual deterrent is what makes such adherence to these agreements such a good idea.

And I think it's perfectly realistic to think that nations, especially our own, should abide by the terms of these treaties.

The biggest problem I see with the Convention Against Torture is that it was non self-executing and required signatory nations to pass their own laws within a period of time that would execute the terms of the treaty. In doing so (in U.S. signing and ratification reservation statements as well), the U.S. effectively re-defined torture.

Even so, plenty of what has gone on would still satisfy even the narrower definition. (According to Dubya's legal advisors, the definition required pain that was equivalent to that of organ failure and death, for example. Since some of the people were tortured to death, we have violated even this definition.)

So the biggest problem is that criminal prosecution still requires the political will to do it. Obama and A.G. Holder are unwilling to investigate and prosecute those who clearly violated the CAT.

So the best we can get are civil suits, meaning Rumsfeld will never be found guilty of the crime of torture, and will never face prison for that crime.
 
Minoosh said:
Or if the Americans nuked Japan saying that was the only way to end the war and 100,000+ civilians died how are our actions not a war crime?
Click to expand...
IMO the bombing of civilian cities was a crime. Imprisoning Japanese Americans was a war crime. The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were war crimes. Perhaps in the grand scheme of things there were valid arguments for doing so. It's not absolutely black and white.

I don't think Rumsfeld actions are the equivalent. We had no compelling argument to torture. There was no finger on a nuclear trigger. No significant threat was identified.

It's one thing to act when you are at war and there is a reasonable expectation of risk because there is a hostile enemy engaged in military action against you. It doesn't justify any and every act but it's more reasonable.
 
I thought this was going to be about clothes somehow too...
Like when I was a little kid in the 60's and for my birthday one year, my grandmother bought me a pink suit. Then to make matters even worse, my mother made me wear it to school once. That, my friends, was a torture suit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom