• 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

I don't see any problem with Rumsfeld being tried for the torture he authorized
 
Brainster said:
More details here. The story as written there is very troubling indeed, and I would welcome the facts being determined in court. That said I suspect that Rumsfeld is too far removed from the actual circumstances to be personally liable.

Still, a very troubling case.
Click to expand...

The broad principle at stake here is of course that of the inherent rightness of any actions taken on America's behalf. We can't hold people who did the actions accountable as they were only following orders, we can't hold the those who issued orders accountable either. The only way someone gets held accountable is if they are unlucky low level people to get caught in a public **** storm like in Abu Graib. Then because of the bad publicity that is the only way to get the courts to act after all.

So the moral of the story is, don't let pictures get leaked to the media.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I think it should be done dispassionately--not out of revenge or outrage or anger.
Click to expand...

But outrage and anger are the only things that will get politicians to act, see the differences between candidate Obama and President Obama for this clear distinction.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I keep going back to the way torture is defined (in the CAT and in U.S. law), which includes that it be done by government officials. The obvious intent of the law is to prohibit governments from committing torture. (Non government torture, is a matter for state criminal law, and in general it is considered an aggravating circumstance in the commission of other crimes.)

So how can they possibly argue that Rumsfeld is somehow immune due to his position? That is exactly the situation the laws envisioned.
Click to expand...
And remember, we don't want other nations torturing our troops. He is entitled to a fair trial and presumption of innocence. I doubt that if he is guilty (and I think he is, we are entitled to form an opinion we just can't serve on a jury if we do) he will be found so. He has a lot of powerful friends.
 
RandFan said:
And remember, we don't want other nations torturing our troops.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that our enemies in every war we've ever fought torturesd our captured troops. Treaties don't seem to affect that at all.
 
WildCat said:
I'm pretty sure that our enemies in every war we've ever fought torturesd our captured troops. Treaties don't seem to affect that at all.
Click to expand...

so when they do it, its ok for you to do it?
 
WildCat said:
I'm pretty sure that our enemies in every war we've ever fought torturesd our captured troops. Treaties don't seem to affect that at all.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DC said:
so when they do it, its ok for you to do it?
Click to expand...
I didn't say that. I said they'll do whatever they want regardless of what we do. It's not like we're going to war with liberal democracies.

I just find that line of reasoning unrealistic, with no real-world evidence to back it up.
 
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...
Are you kidding? There are many examples of allied soldiers summarily executed by German soldiers upon capture. Examples include the Malmedy massacre, the d'Ardenne massacre, Le Paradis massacre, the Wormhoudt massacre, etc etc. Probably much more nobody knows about.
 
WildCat said:
I didn't say that. I said they'll do whatever they want regardless of what we do.
Click to expand...

And I think you're wrong. I think payback and vengeance actually happens, as does mutual deterrence.

And I think for most nations, there is a strong will to abide by the rule of law, including treaties, rather than might makes right.
 
WildCat said:
Are you kidding? There are many examples of allied soldiers summarily executed by German soldiers upon capture. Examples include the Malmedy massacre, the d'Ardenne massacre, Le Paradis massacre, the Wormhoudt massacre, etc etc. Probably much more nobody knows about.
Click to expand...

And summary execution, while also deplorable, is not torture.
 
WildCat said:
I'm pretty sure that our enemies in every war we've ever fought torturesd our captured troops. Treaties don't seem to affect that at all.
Click to expand...
Ah, tu quoque So we should just be barbaric as any other nation and not appeal to other nations not to torture our prisoners because the lowest common denominator is best. BTW: The North Vietnamese stopped torturing American POWs in 1969 when pressure was brought to bear on them.

How could we in the future expect such a thing if we don't hold such ideals ourselves?
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
And remember, we don't want other nations torturing our troops. He is entitled to a fair trial and presumption of innocence. I doubt that if he is guilty (and I think he is, we are entitled to form an opinion we just can't serve on a jury if we do) he will be found so. He has a lot of powerful friends.
Click to expand...

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.
 
WildCat said:
I didn't say that. I said they'll do whatever they want regardless of what we do. It's not like we're going to war with liberal democracies.

I just find that line of reasoning unrealistic, with no real-world evidence to back it up.
Click to expand...

but he said "we don't want other nations torturing our troops." and i think this is very correct. you really don't want that.
 
RandFan said:
Ah, tu quoque So we should just be barbaric as any other nation and not appeal to other nations not to torture our prisoners because the lowest common denominator is best. BTW: The North Vietnamese stopped torturing American POWs in 1969 when pressure was brought to bear on them.

How could we in the future expect such a thing if we don't hold such ideals ourselves?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom