Chances of "Bush's men" going to prison went up today

[ChickenHawk]

War crimes are war crimes, even if the President commits them, and torture is a war crime.

The only problem with that is that you have to find the law that was broken. What law of war was actually broken? I haven't heard a solid argument for this.

 

[thasre]

I doubt Rumsfeld called up Abu Ghraib and said "hey why don't you parade these guys around naked and laugh at them. It will be fun". It seems it was more like a tolerance of general mistreatment from the top down. Clearly a terrible injustice was done, but I doubt anything will ever be done about it.

It's my understanding that the situation WAS that people like Rumsfeld did JUST that... "micro-manage" is the expression I once came across in terms of their handling of torture issues.

Look at this report from a year ago:

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/waron...was_approved_at_highest_levels_of_bush_admin/

The title of the article comes from a statement John Ashcroft is alleged to have made during a meeting in which they - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, and Powell (and Ashcroft) - discussed, at length and in detail, torture methods that were to be used. It's sickening. And what's most sickening is that it was John Friggin' Ashcroft, and only him, of all people, who expressed even the faintest moral concern.

 

[Indy4Chng]

It is my understanding that the supreme court did not determine these devices torture till much after the fact and what they were doing was ok'd by congress in 2002. In addition how can you prosecute people for giving advice (even if it's bad advice). This to me is no different then prosecuting the AIG execs after the fact. Bad public policy is not a crime. Tell me exactly what law they broke that they should be punished for.

 

[ChickenHawk]

An example, if Bush top aides were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques like nude pyramids, fake electric shocks, unmuzzled dogs, stress positions to gain more information about their roles IF they were prosecuted, that will not be considered "torture" by you?

We come from different worlds then.

Sure I would consider it to be a form of torture. If they were captured on a battlefield by the enemy I would expect they would probably be treated that way. I would not expect the enemy to prosecute their own people for treating them that way though.

What happened at Abu Ghraib was not good but I don't consider it the kind of thing people should go to prison for. If those things had been done to prisioners of war or someone arrested in the US on criminal charges that would be a different story.

 

[Liberty Star]

In addition how can you prosecute people for giving advice (even if it's bad advice). This to me is no different then prosecuting the AIG execs after the fact. Bad public policy is not a crime. Tell me exactly what law they broke that they should be punished for.

Now this just an example and a very radical one to make a point, so don't assume that Bush is being compared to Hitler.
Which law had Hitler's aides broken when they were prosecuted by US few decades ago?

 

[thasre]

The only problem with that is that you have to find the law that was broken. What law of war was actually broken? I haven't heard a solid argument for this.

These are US laws on torture:

(from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html)

As used in this chapter—
(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—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) 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;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

(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.

___________________________________________________________

The clause about "whoever outside the US" renders it a little problematic, but the fact that the Bush Administration was conspiring within the US to commit the act of torture outside the country seems to cover it from my perspective. There are also international laws against this sort of thing, including treaties to which we are parties and are bound legally to follow. I don't know how they try these sorts of international crimes, but I don't think it matters because it seems clear to me that our own laws were broken.

 

[ChickenHawk]

Now this just an example and a very radical one to make a point, so don't assume that Bush is being compared to Hitler.
Which law had Hitler's aides broken when they were prosecuted by US few decades ago?

That is why "war crimes" are so stupid. A war crime is essentially just all the stuff the loser did that the winner didn't like. War is about destroying the enemy using any means necessary. Adding "crimes" to the equation just detracts from the seriousness of it all.

 

[ChickenHawk]

These are US laws on torture:

US law and "war crimes" are different. There may well have been violations of US law but I don't think there were any war crimes.

 

[thasre]

That is why "war crimes" are so stupid. A war crime is essentially just all the stuff the loser did that the winner didn't like. War is about destroying the enemy using any means necessary. Adding "crimes" to the equation just detracts from the seriousness of it all.

War crimes are not a stupid policy. I've posted our own law on torture, which I think was clearly violated. But even if that weren't our law, there are still crimes that are committed that are not even REMOTELY necessary to the causes of a war. "By any means necessary" is not something I remember from just war theory. It would be a war crime, for example, to occupy a city and then go in and rape all the women... rape would be a crime anyway, but it becomes a war crime when it's done by soldiers representing a government and ostensibly under the government's direction during a time of war. How can you be so dense as to not realize something like that?

There are all sorts of atrocities that should NEVER be committed during a war. Internment camps designed to remove "undesirable" civilian populations (like Japanese Americans in WWII) come to mind. Attacking hospitals is another one. If you really think such things don't constitute war crimes, you're really not worth continuing to engage in debate with. You'd have to have a mind in order for me to change it.

 

[thasre]

§ 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
(d) Common Article 3 Violations.—
(1) Prohibited conduct.— In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act 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 for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control. [...]
_____________________________________________________

Again, from the same site, a section on US law regarding war crimes, which include provisions recognizing international law. Don't tell me what Bush & co. did doesn't fall under these laws.

 

[ChickenHawk]

War crimes are not a stupid policy. I've posted our own law on torture, which I think was clearly violated. But even if that weren't our law, there are still crimes that are committed that are not even REMOTELY necessary to the causes of a war. "By any means necessary" is not something I remember from just war theory. It would be a war crime, for example, to occupy a city and then go in and rape all the women... rape would be a crime anyway, but it becomes a war crime when it's done by soldiers representing a government and ostensibly under the government's direction during a time of war. How can you be so dense as to not realize something like that?

There are all sorts of atrocities that should NEVER be committed during a war. Internment camps designed to remove "undesirable" civilian populations (like Japanese Americans in WWII) come to mind. Attacking hospitals is another one. If you really think such things don't constitute war crimes, you're really not worth continuing to engage in debate with. You'd have to have a mind in order for me to change it.

"War crime" is generally a reference to international law. It is certainly possible that a soldier could commit a crime while fighting a war and be prosecuted by their own government. That is not what I was referring to.

Japanese internment was actually not a crime. It was authorized by executive order and upheld by the supreme court. I'm not saying it was right, but it technically was not a crime.

 

[thasre]

"War crime" is generally a reference to international law. It is certainly possible that a soldier could commit a crime while fighting a war and be prosecuted by their own government. That is not what I was referring to.

Japanese internment was actually not a crime. It was authorized by executive order and upheld by the supreme court. I'm not saying it was right, but it technically was not a crime.

It's not strictly an issue of international law... I posted US law regarding war crimes. And I realize the Japanese internment wasn't illegal at the time, but if we were to do something similar under current law it would be... well, I'm not even entirely sure of that, so I'll say at the very least it *should* be.

 

[devil21]

I don't think that prosecuting a lawyer for giving an opinion, regardless of how wrong it is, is a good idea. It just makes it too easy to use the law to punish political enemies. The only people that should be prosecuted are people who actually broke the law.

You can sue a private attorney for legal malpractice. Attorneys aren't untouchable. If you get arrested for DWI and your attorney advises you to just not appear for court, he is an accessory simply because his legal advice tells you to break the law. This isn't really any different in principle. Just because an attorney writes a memo stating his "legal opinion" doesnt mean his opinion is correct, legal, or constitutional.

 

[Objectivist]

Interesting tidbit, Panetta worked for Clinton about the time Tenet did and Berger stole some documents that he shoved down his pants, why? Clinton was pulling off rendition and torture in 1995 and said to the person in charge that he didn't care what was done. Now Panetta who is a few sandwiches short of a picnic is CIA Director. Holder worked for Reno under Clinton and made much of this possible for Bush to engage in. Nice set up!

Will Holder be put on trial? How about anyone under Clinton?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/15/panetta-faces-rendition-queries/
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Will Holder be put on trial? How about anyone under Clinton?

Yea, that is the only thing that bothers me in this whole setup. How many of the assholes with (D) next to their names are gonna get taken down? My guess would be none, which really pisses me off. I don't like it when one 'side' gets to hypocritically get away with shit. Its like giving Obama a free pass for bad behaviour because Bush did it.

Personally, I want all these assholes taken down, Republican and Democrat. In a perfect world, it would be a cascade affect from the first prosecution that would bring them all down. I dearly hope they go after them and they squeal to high heaven.

 

[angelatc]

I don't think that prosecuting a lawyer for giving an opinion, regardless of how wrong it is, is a good idea. It just makes it too easy to use the law to punish political enemies. The only people that should be prosecuted are people who actually broke the law.

I agree. His license to practice can be reviewed though.

 

[paulitics]

It's possible but I don't think it would happen. The Abu Ghraib case is odd because it seems that it's not really about torture. More like just general humiliation and abuse. There may have been some incidents that could be considered torture but not the most publicized ones. Also, the prisoner abuse didn't seem to really have any intelligence value. It wasn't like they were trying to get information out of these guys by making naked pyramids. I doubt Rumsfeld called up Abu Ghraib and said "hey why don't you parade these guys around naked and laugh at them. It will be fun". It seems it was more like a tolerance of general mistreatment from the top down. Clearly a terrible injustice was done, but I doubt anything will ever be done about it.

Being forcd to commit unnatural sex acts with other men is torture. Being hosed down naked with ice cold water is torture. Naked pyramids are torture. I've heard of much worse that if I find the link I will post it. You can look at those Abu Graib pictures and actually say that is not torture? You must be watching too many grotesque horror movies that has desensitised you, if you are thinking hmmmmm......these pictures look like fraternity games gone bad. Either that or you listen to Rush because this is something I heard him say something absurd like that.

As far as why they did it? The techniques that were used had to be from the top down. Their purpose is purely speculative, but I can think of a few different reasons that I don't want to debate.

There have been plenty of injuries and deaths in Gitmo. We have kidnapped hundreds if not thousands of people in the dark of night and sent them to othere countries to be tortured ordered by the CIA. There are books out there that docuement some of this, but keep in mind most everything truly horrible is declassified, therfore we only know the tip of the iceberg.

 

[nsellers]

Convicting JOD lawyers

If I were on a jury, I'd convict those constitution-breaking lawyers in a New York minute.

No way they will ever be prosecuted and even if they were they could never be convicted. Especially the lawyers. How on Earth can you even take seriously the idea of prosecuting someone for a legal opinion?

 

[shenlu54]

I think United States should be the model of the world in this case.

I have talked with many people about this issue,but no single person can believe that American have the guts to prosecute their former president.I think if US can do this unprecedented prosecution,many many ordinary Chinese's negative attitudes to this country will be changed.

 

[TastyWheat]

Lovely thought, but it won't happen. At best they may prosecute some middle-of-the-totem-poll scapegoat you've never heard of.