Obama's Justice Department declines to prosecute torturers

[carlfense]

We are supposed to be better than this.

Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the closing without charges of the only two cases under investigation relating to the US torture program: one that resulted in the 2002 death of an Afghan detainee at a secret CIA prison near Kabul, and the other the 2003 death of an Iraqi citizen while in CIA custody at Abu Ghraib. This decision, says the New York Times Friday, "eliminat[es] the last possibility that any criminal charges will be brought as a result of the brutal interrogations carried out by the CIA".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-department-immunity-bush-cia-torturer%20

[Comish]

In the conversation for worst A.G. ever........

[carlfense]

In the conversation for worst A.G. ever........

That'd be a long list.

[JJ Husker]

We are supposed to be better than this.

 

 

I didn't read the link nor do I know the specifics of these particular cases and I would not condone real torture in virtually all cases. However, having said that, I'm not convinced it is absolutely necessary to be "better than this". I'm fairly satisfied being way better than our enemies while still allowing a limited number of gray area indiscretions.

[carlfense]

We are supposed to be better than this.

 

 

I didn't read the link nor do I know the specifics of these particular cases and I would not condone real torture in virtually all cases. However, having said that, I'm not convinced it is absolutely necessary to be "better than this". I'm fairly satisfied being way better than our enemies while still allowing a limited number of gray area indiscretions.

You should read the article.

 

Torturing prisoners to death isn't exactly a gray area in my book.

[JJ Husker]

We are supposed to be better than this.

 

 

I didn't read the link nor do I know the specifics of these particular cases and I would not condone real torture in virtually all cases. However, having said that, I'm not convinced it is absolutely necessary to be "better than this". I'm fairly satisfied being way better than our enemies while still allowing a limited number of gray area indiscretions.

You should read the article.

 

Torturing prisoners to death isn't exactly a gray area in my book.

Yeah, those don't sound good. I'm still not convinced the correct way forward is not just to make sure it isn't happening anymore. We have to hold rogue elements accountable for their actions but, if it was part of an approved interrogation plan, I think it best not to keep up the witch hunt. I guess in this respect I like Obama's approach. I think it does more harm than good to perpetuate the lib mantra that Bush/Cheney were war criminals. And, you sure can't hold a lower level guy responsible for following orders. To a certain extent, we have to have our own guys backs, even on the few occasions it may come at the expense of what is morally right. The most important thing is to stop the continuation of these types of actions and I think they have done that. Case closed and glad that is behind us.

[carlfense]

We have to hold rogue elements accountable for their actions but, if it was part of an approved interrogation plan, I think it best not to keep up the witch hunt.

it's not a witch hunt . . . people died as a result of being tortured by the US of A. A "witch hunt" would imply that it's chasing after something that didn't happen for political gain.

 

I think it does more harm than good to perpetuate the lib mantra that Bush/Cheney were war criminals.

The shoe certainly seems to fit.

 

And, you sure can't hold a lower level guy responsible for following orders.

You most certainly can. We've done it with criminals from other countries . . . apparently we apply a different standard for our own people.

 

To a certain extent, we have to have our own guys backs, even on the few occasions it may come at the expense of what is morally right.

No . . . if it's wrong for the Taliban to torture US troops . . . it's wrong for the US to torture prisoners. You can't just support torture done by our side. If torture is legitimate for us . . . it's legitimate for everyone.

 

Me . . . I'll side against torture.

[walksalone]

Carl, we've gone round and round in the past over a multitude of different topics, and I respect your stance on this.

 

But if we're to play by the rules that no one else is adhering to, and it's impeding us from victories, then a moral flexibility may be necessary.

[sd'sker]

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

--nietzsche

 

i am not convinced torture is necessary, let alone effective. it only motivates those who hate us to hate us that much more and we end up creating martyrs.

 

i do not see how it impedes are victories. and the lowest common denominator should never be our standard. we shall strive for victory, and when we victorious, we will celebrate the accomplishment knowing that of all the sacrifices we have made, our integrity was not of those.

[Enhance]

The United States has tortured countless people in the last 100 years, and these tortures have led to information resulting in the protection/saving of thousands of American lives. Although I believe all forms of torture to be morally wrong, there's no denying it has proved beneficial to American interests. To be clear, I do NOT condone torturing.

 

That said, let's be drastic for a moment. Say the person you love most in this world was kidnapped last night. You don't know who did it, exactly when they did it, where they've taken your loved one, or what they plan to do with them. However, you know (or at least, suspect) a certain person to have information about where your loved one is. This person is in your custody but refuses to speak. You have absolutely no leverage over them. Do you go to any means necessary to retrieve that information? Do you forget your own morals to extract anything that could help you find this person?

 

I know all torture is not for the sake of information. There are plenty of cases where people were tortured just for the sake of torturing them and breaking their will to live. But, I don't think it's right for people to get on a high horse and proclaim torturing is completely wrong when you don't consider that, sometimes, ends do justify means.

 

I don't like to say it that way but I think it's only fair. If you're not in the position, how can you be 100% of what would you do or what you wouldn't do to protect lives or get information. It's not happy to think about.

[walksalone]

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

--nietzsche

 

 

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

 

~ Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus

[sd'sker]

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

--nietzsche

 

 

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

 

~ Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus

i agree, but i prefer intel over counterproductive torture.

[sd'sker]

The United States has tortured countless people in the last 100 years, and these tortures have led to information resulting in the protection/saving of thousands of American lives. Although I believe all forms of torture to be morally wrong, there's no denying it has proved beneficial to American interests. To be clear, I do NOT condone torturing.

 

That said, let's be drastic for a moment. Say the person you love most in this world was kidnapped last night. You don't know who did it, exactly when they did it, where they've taken your loved one, or what they plan to do with them. However, you know (or at least, suspect) a certain person to have information about where your loved one is. This person is in your custody but refuses to speak. You have absolutely no leverage over them. Do you go to any means necessary to retrieve that information? Do you forget your own morals to extract anything that could help you find this person?

 

I know all torture is not for the sake of information. There are plenty of cases where people were tortured just for the sake of torturing them and breaking their will to live. But, I don't think it's right for people to get on a high horse and proclaim torturing is completely wrong when you don't consider that, sometimes, ends do justify means.

 

I don't like to say it that way but I think it's only fair. If you're not in the position, how can you be 100% of what would you do or what you wouldn't do to protect lives or get information. It's not happy to think about.

i am not judging the troops, i am judging the policy makers. i believe torture is the fastest way to misinformation or disinformation. that i just my stance. it is a matter of pragmatism as much as humanity. (i do think it is immoral and that should be enough of a reason not to do it, but the argument can focus on efficacy equally as well).

[Enhance]

i am not judging the troops, i am judging the policy makers. i believe torture is the fastest way to misinformation or disinformation. that i just my stance. it is a matter of pragmatism as much as humanity. (i do think it is immoral and that should be enough of a reason not to do it, but the argument can focus on efficacy equally as well).

I agree with what you're saying. I think there's a lot of gray area in torture. I was reading an article the other day (forgive the general overview - don't remember specifics) about a man who was interrogated about the death of I believe his wife. Anyways, he proclaimed his innocence from the start, but after nine hours of intense interrogation, he cracked and admitted to killing her. The admission played an integral role in his conviction as the prosecution had little physical evidence.

 

After the admission, he began to profess his innocence again. He was eventually released for some reason (I believe new evidence), and he sued the state for improper imprisonment or something along those lines. Point is, he cracked, and told the interrogators exactly what they wanted to hear to get them off his back. This is a form of torture, and highlights how information can often be terribly wrong.

 

At the same time, information gained by torture can be precise. That's why it's so difficult to judge it. I think it's morally wrong, I think the information gained can be wrong, but I also think it, unfortunately, sometimes serves a useful purpose.

[sd'sker]

i am not judging the troops, i am judging the policy makers. i believe torture is the fastest way to misinformation or disinformation. that i just my stance. it is a matter of pragmatism as much as humanity. (i do think it is immoral and that should be enough of a reason not to do it, but the argument can focus on efficacy equally as well).

I agree with what you're saying. I think there's a lot of gray area in torture. I was reading an article the other day (forgive the general overview - don't remember specifics) about a man who was interrogated about the death of I believe his wife. Anyways, he proclaimed his innocence from the start, but after nine hours of intense interrogation, he cracked and admitted to killing her. The admission played an integral role in his conviction as the prosecution had little physical evidence.

 

After the admission, he began to profess his innocence again. He was eventually released for some reason (I believe new evidence), and he sued the state for improper imprisonment or something along those lines. Point is, he cracked, and told the interrogators exactly what they wanted to hear to get them off his back. This is a form of torture, and highlights how information can often be terribly wrong.

 

At the same time, information gained by torture can be precise. That's why it's so difficult to judge it. I think it's morally wrong, I think the information gained can be wrong, but I also think it, unfortunately, sometimes serves a useful purpose.

i agree, it is gray and imprecise. the stakes are unimaginably high when talking about national security.