Torture Unrestrained
Many moderates among the chattering classes are now arguing for restraint in prosecuting those in the last administration who authorized or participated in the torture of detainees. The usual argument of these moderates is that, while the torture that occurred is deplorable, prosecuting its perpetrators would be too disruptive and divisive for our nation, particularly at a time like now when we face so many other serious challenges. Many also question whether prosecution of a prior presidential administration by a new one would create a dangerous precedent. And finally, some argue that the prior administration was struggling in good faith to keep Americans safe from a new and not fully understood threat, and so some mistakes should be forgiven given the circumstances.
To those who make these arguments, I have to ask two questions:
First, if we excuse war crimes in situations where there is an exonerating circumstance or when prosecution of the war crime is disruptive to the nation to which the war criminals belong, aren't we simply excusing war crimes in nearly all cases in which high officials of a country are involved? Certainly, the prosecution of high-level officials and prominent political figures is always disruptive to any country. Are we really willing, then, to apply universally to all countries a standard that essentially says war crimes will be ignored if prosecuting them will be inconvenient to the nation whose officials are involved in those crimes? And since war crimes by definition always occur during war and therefore always occur as officials are trying to defend against threats, wouldn't most war crimes automatically be forgiven by the standard being proposed? If we adopt such a lax attitude toward war crimes for ourselves, then we must apply it to the rest of the world. In doing so, we are essentially saying to the international community that war crimes no longer really matter.
Second, if we exonerate the past administration for their war crimes, what message are we sending to future administrations? Is it truly wise to set a precedent that war crimes will be forgiven just because prosecuting them is inconvenient or uncomfortable or otherwise problematic? If we do that, what administration will hesitate to commit war crimes when it believes doing so is politically expedient? Just as war crimes will no longer be taken seriously internationally, so will they be ignored domestically.
The only effective restraint on torturers and other war criminals is the threat of prosecution. If we exercise too much restraint in the prosecution of torture, therefore, we should not be surprised if the result, both at home and abroad, is torture unrestrained.













I've come to the conclusion that it's not "values" that drive these discussions today, but cold political calculations.
1. Prosecutions will turn CIA into the next Wall Street and it may alienate rank-and-file CIA at the time when we are still supposedly fighting terrorism. The result - Obama is triangulating, flip-flopping and some on the yes-men on the left are suddenly OK with selective application of laws (i.e. only to the top brass)
2. Prosecutions will result in revelations that will damage not only Republicans and Bushies but also Democrats (i.e. Pelosi, who was on intelligence committee). Again - the Congress "leadership" is making a deal with their conscience.
3. Prosecutions will result in more partisan acrimony and will be a setback to Obama's grand illusions about health-care and green revolution.
For all their talk about high moral road, the leftists are simply angling for a political calculation with the least possible damage. They are no better than republicans who are just covering their backsides. In fact, because of their hysterical screaming about Iraq and torture during the elections and their posturing right now - they might be even worse, at least Cheney has been consistent to the end.
Just like the Bushies, these Democrats are bunch of lying cynical manipulators led by a flip-flopper president. That's all.
April 25, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Astute observations, Lalo.
April 25, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Who cares? What good is the CIA anyway? We aren't fighting terrorism, we're fighting two wars we've already lost.
2. Who care if it damages Democrats. If it clears out the enablers and the Blue Dogs, hip, hip, hooray!
3. How can you have more acrimony than we've got now? Maybe the best way to dissipate it is to stand up to the Republicans for ONCE.
April 25, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear! Hear!
April 25, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politics is a consideration, not just truth and justice?
Where do you get such wisdom?
April 25, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
at least Cheney has been consistent to the end.
There is absolutely nothing noble about anything Cheney has ever done. He is an argument against cloning, pure and simple.
April 26, 2009 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
(Thanks)
April 26, 2009 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the unitary executive
April 26, 2009 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's wonderful to see all the critics of the "rule of law" flailing around here. From the right and the middle. Because that only shows how powerful is the general public's agreement that crimes should be punished.
What fascinates me, actually, is that all the arguments of those trying to prevent war crimes being investigated and prosecuted are hard to follow. While the idea of "no one being above the law" and "torture is always wrong" - are so simple and easy to follow.
People may be prone to propaganda at times. But the propaganda the right has to resort to - in this case - (pretzel logic) - just isn't working.
This time the truth is much easier for people to follow. And the truth - more and more coming out - will lead us inevitably to the courts.
April 25, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"all the arguments of those trying to prevent war crimes being investigated and prosecuted are hard to follow. "
- tell that to Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Holder, Rahm and Axelrod.
They have no intention of upholding "no one is above the law".
April 25, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, actually the collective "we" is telling them that. Or hadn't your noticed?
April 25, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
No.
The collective "we" is a dwindling bunch of political junkies who chatter on blogs.
"They" couldn't care less about what "we" think - election is over.
A month from now, "we" are going to white-wash "their" flip-flopping and hypocrisy. Not the first time, not the last.
April 25, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit.
A week ago, no one was talking about this, in the media or on the street. Now everyone is due to 'teh blogs.' Score? Lalo still zero. As in null, as in insultingly stupid and pedantic. You ain't smarter or brighter than everyone you talk down to, but you do have your head stuffed farther up your own nether regions than anyone I've seen so far.
You haven't been right yet with your sour-grapes carping, Lalo, and you won't be right this time either.
At anyrate, your pathetic "wishing" torture would be OK just so you could say "I told ya so," is worse than those apologetics you claim to despise. Do something besides being a gloomy gus that hopes that THIS time his stopped clock is accurately displaying the time. It ain't. Maybe one day you'll get lucky.
OMG!!!! Everyone we are DOOMED! Good God, you'd think Cheney and Bush were still running the country! Get a fargin' grip, dude!
April 25, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooh, I love it when you talk dirty.
April 25, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and remind me to never make that cock mad.
April 25, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dang right I am mad.
(fluffs up alarmingly)
April 25, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A week ago, no one was talking about this, in the media or on the street"
Precisely.
It wasn't the truth-loving bloggers who forced Obama to release the torture memos. It was the choice to comply with court decision or explain the refusal to do so. The truth-loving chickens like you were busy feeling good about trashing Bachmann, teabaggers and Perry, until this happened.
Now the truth-loving chickens like you are going to flail and whine for a little bit, but only until Obama regains the news cycle and throws you a new bone to get all up in arms about.
As for my "pathetic wishing" that torture was OK - you're on the wrong chicken feed today. I want a special prosecutor and I want everyone involved fully accountable, including politicians, lawyers and the CIA.
It won't happen, but you will make piece with it just like you make piece with anything Obama.
April 25, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
How dismissive. I actually was an Edwards supporter, and I didn't see a lick of difference between Hillary and Obama, Lalo. Neither one of those "leftovers" was "left" enough for me. Sorry to burst yer bubble.
Extreme Hillary kool-aid drinkers like you accused me of being for Obama, and extreme Obama kool-aid drinkers like Bluebell accused me of being for Hillary.
It was amusing at the time.
I knew that I'd be here after the election defending the winner against extremists like you guys. The thing is, you want to hold Obama accountable. You miss the whole point.
YOU be accountable. If you aren't doing all you can to get that special prosecutor, then you have no call for assuming others won't, or that Obama won't, if pushed.
In fact, that's is exactly what he told us he wanted us to do. So get to it. Try being FOR accountability instead of AGAINST everything Obama. You might be pleasantly surprised.
April 25, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you've got that one right.
April 25, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What have you done about it? Have you called your Representatives? Have you spoken to your family and co-workers? Or have you, like Lalo, just wrung your hands and said, "I give up."
You go ahead and give up, just don't expect anyone else to.
April 25, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You go ahead and give up, just don't expect anyone else to."
Yeah right! I want to see the Obama worshippers like you repeat the Ford re-electio fiasco, what with your steely will and determination to uphold "rule of law" regardless of the political cost.
April 25, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you, like stupid? The only extremist here, is you.
BTW
Edwards 2012
April 25, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, old Norm has denied me a Senator so my influence is even less than usual. Senator Amy is a centrist dontcha know which means she doesn't listen to anything but the results of nuanced focus groups providing her with safe sound bites that guarantee that never under any circumstances will she be held accountable for anything. Congressman Keith is a true blue liberal Muslim but the powers that be usually have him go stand in the corner and shut up less any centrists figure out they've let a Muslim into the Democratic Party.
April 25, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if you can understand just how pathetic and Whiney you sound. It's familiar. Oh, yeah, I was just at Stop and Shop and a Four-Year-old whined continuously about how she "didn't want to be here."
Yeah, that's what you sound like. Get off your butt, Bluebell.
April 25, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And do what? You mean like when I went out in the frigid February night to vote for Obama because he was against the war in Iraq! HA! Ha! Joke on me! At least I'm willing to admit I fell for that! And I didn't make the mistake of voting for Senator Amy. I'm not whiney. I have high standards. After all, I have voted for Paul Wellstone. And if I am whiney, it's because I've been at this for a long time. After all, I voted for George McGovern. And we're STILL at war!
April 25, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
At one time, I was uncertain about the wisdom of prosecutions for those who created our illegal torture policy. Although convinced that officials of the Bush administration had broken the law, I had fears of the sorts of outcomes that lalo outlined above, and concerns about how such a public airing might affect the relationships with foreign governments and our overseas reputation that Obama is trying so hard to repair. I worried about whether the prosecutions of the guilty would create such a huge distraction that Obama's ambitious and desperately needed agenda would be stopped in it's tracks.
But now, after watching and listenting to Cheney try to rewrite history, I'm convinced we have no choice but to go forward with an investigation and prosecution. However painful, the truth is always better than lies.
For anyone who may still have doubts, you might want to read this: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003965876
(Thanks, Purple State.)
April 25, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
For a short time, I was almost buying those arguments too. They can seem, when spoken by an Obama or a David Gergen, so sensible, so reasonable, so practical.
But wait a minute . . . doesn't it all boil down to a simple fact: We've made a rule that anybody who does x must go to jail. We've sent others to jail following that rule. Now we too have done x and, suddenly, we realize that going to jail is rather an inconvenience. So being practical people, we've decided we should just ignore the fact that we did x and skip jail. It's all so reasonable, isn't it?
If only every other criminal could do the same . . .
And who knew, punishment is really punishing . .
April 25, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, this tendency to cloak simple issues in layer after layer of bogo-complexities is really irritating.
In the case of torture it's nauseating.
And yes, shame on those that do so!
What in the hell are they THINKING?
April 25, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are making "hell" palatable. And we are saying, that is hell. And now there's hell to pay!
April 25, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's nutz, Thera. On the one hand you have the sheep that refuse to hear one bad thing about their precious Obama (an insult to Obama, surely), that have decided to put their fingers in their ears and sing "la, la, la, la...let's pretend it didn't happen...."
On the other, you have the pathetic doomsayers who think that their ugly cynicism somehow gives them a pass on actually doing something about it. It doesn't. In fact, they're even worse than the former and a lot more offensive. They moan about the President and the nebulous "centrists" and "democrats" when they are actually the ones who refuse to be accountable.
Never mind the small but irritating minority that drive the debate with the layers of obscure questions like "how much torture IS torture?" They aren't what worries me. That nonsense is easy to refute. The other stuff is far more harmful.
April 25, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have e-mailed John Cornyn so many times that his office has stopped sending me hate mail extolling the virtues of missle shields and such.
April 25, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do hope you're right TheraP. It does seem that average Americans really are bothered by this. Maybe we haven't lost all our principles after all. Maybe we still have a sense of decency.
April 25, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most folks can't bring themselves to contemplate torture or what it really means. But when it gets into the news, when the MSM simply cannot hold back the floodgates... and I think we're already there now, then ordinary people will "see" the torture. Especially on May 12 when thousands more photos come out. And by then we may already have had the report of the Senate intelligence committee. When the news has to speak of Americans being spied on and Americans torturing, your average ordinary American is going to have his or her conscience shocked.
Look at folks right here at TPM. Some on this very thread are admitting they didn't think this was such a big deal or that prosecutions were not necessary. Obie has admitted as much on his blog, just below this. You're seeing people reaching tipping points right and left.
When you go "out and about" - talk to people about this. Ask them how they feel about maybe having torturers living among them? When you put it that way, many folks will go... OMG!
April 25, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because, in the minds of many a hero doesn't need to follow any law - he/she is a always right. I think reasoning is the poisoned root of the arguments made by those who object to prosecution of the torturers. They were so valiant in their efforts at protecting us that any legal infractions are 'just technicalities'. Unfortunately these technicalities are some of the foundation of our country.
April 25, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
that they created more enemies through their policies than we had to begin with!
that they broke the financial systems of the nation and the world - the very objective of Bin Laden!
that they undermined the very rule of law that made this nation a beacon of hope for many!
that they destroyed the very ideals they sought to protect!
And on and on.....
April 25, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Soon they will wrap themselves in false martyrdom and claim that history will vindicate their actions - like Cheney has recently.
April 25, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple, these two questions would almost seem to be rhetorical because there are no convincing responses to counter them, only pretexts. You’ve cut to the core.
I’d also ask a moral question. How can we demand justice for our own, for a mother or brother or friend who has suffered from violence, but not for those we’ve maliciously abused ourselves? How can we prosecute the guy that steals food to feed himself or family, but not those who swore oaths to uphold the constitution?
If we cannot, then we must admit that we do not stand for equality; people are not equal. The poor here and the Muslim there are considered lesser people if that’s the case.
April 25, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
And isn't this exactly the Bush administration attitude: when we do it (or when the President does it) it's not a crime.
In this world view there really are no crimes, there are just criminals and not-criminals. Actions of the not-criminals, by definition, cannot be crimes, whatever those actions may be. But the same actions, done by the criminals, must be crimes.
In the past, we had GWB to tell us who were the evildoers and to assure us, no matter what we did, that we were always among the righteous.
Now everything is muddled and uncertain.
Moral clarity was so much easier . . .
April 25, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is the crux of the matter. All persons are equally valuable and worthwhile. All persons are sacred. Not just Americans. Not just white people. Not just the educated. Not just people who speak English. ALL PERSONS deserve respect and dignity - even if captured on a battleground or incarcerated for any crime.
Once to "get" that all persons have human dignity and worth - there is no way you can condone torture.
Those who want us to betray our ideals and the Rule of Law want us to somehow believe that some persons are better than others, that some persons don't have to obey the law or face consequences. And that others are worth less (worthless). We can't go there. Because the next thing you know WE might be defined as "lessor" - as a target to be devalued, discarded, abused, tortured, destroyed.
We're either all equal. In the entire world. Or we've doomed ourselves to a degraded existence. The fate of all of us is bound up with the fate of each. This is the teaching of every sacred tradition. It is the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence. Equality before the law derives from this basic equality and dignity as humans. No exceptions!
April 25, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with both- no exceptions to the law (prohibit all torture) or from the law (prosecute all violators)!
April 25, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post Purple !
As Anhirsch said previously in a TPM Reader posting: "The argument against torture is simple: It's wrong. It is against the law, against common sense, and against common decency."
April 25, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excusing torture is an immoderate position. Period.
April 25, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. My comment is directed at the self-described "moderates," Purple. However, to you I would say let's stop defining people as moderate when they are in fact radical.
April 25, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos! Cosign!
April 25, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll second that. It's indeed scary how easily we can slip into the moral abyss when seemingly respectable and moderate people lead us to its edge.
April 25, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The past administration even had the nerve to prosecute the Abu Ghraib guards who were carrying out their policies claiming they were the "few bad apples". If Graner and England deserve jail time then so do those CIA operatives and everyone else who instituted this torture policy, not to mention the principles who sanctioned it. They new it was illegal or else why did they destroy the video evidence, and attempt to quash inconvenient memos.
A special prosecutor needs to be named, or else the myth of the "rule of law" is dead.
April 25, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The hypocrisy - of calling them "bad apples" - when they were simply carrying out govt policy - reprehensible as it was!
April 25, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well my question is that if water boarding really isn't torture when the CIA does it to "terrorists," then why would it be cruel and unusual punishment for local police to do it to "criminals?"
The argument for impeaching Jay Bybee is that the 9'th Circuit contains the Los Angeles Police Department, which has proudly served as the national example for what's unconstitutional. It also contains Maricopa County (Phoenix) Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who sells himself as "America's Toughest Sheriff" and has a long history of humiliating prisoners and riding the lawsuit publicity to reelection.
Jay Bybee needs to be impeached and removed before he gets a chance to rule on the next Rodney King beating or web-cams in the holding-cell scandal. Because if water boarding isn't torture, then how do we know it isn't cruel and unusual?
April 25, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What message are we sending our collective conscience?
"You are useless, for even when you are in shock, you're being unreasonable."
Is that what we want to say? Forget future presidents or future crimes. To not investigate torture is to tell the human conscience it serves no purpose.
April 25, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy, now there's a truth!
April 25, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice demo of the necessity of the strawman (and other fallacies).
There's smoke. No question. But is there fire or just people blowing smoke? That calls for investigation, not prosecution much less conviction before trial.
It doesn't look like vaudeville when done seriously. Spice it up if you're kidding around. Or, if you're serious, try to get it right and keep it as real as possible.
April 25, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, the moral hazard of not punishing this wrongdoing is great, and would encourage future adminsitrations to do this kind of stuff in a "crisis". (There's always a "crisis")
I think the implications of torture are very grim, and get worse than many have imagined. For instance, Yoo's rationale apparently would make it legal to torture the family and children of a terror suspect. If we don't put a stop to this NOW, it is only a matter of time before we end up doing far worse things than we already have.
(I talk about this more here: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/observer2/2009/04/the-ticking-timebomb-fallacy.php)
April 25, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some who feel Religion has no place on TPM have criticized me.
This torture debate gives me an opportunity to give an example of the role Religious values can have on complex issues.
Think of a compass. We use it to find direction.
What if that compass was broken? The same could be said of the moral compass, being broken.
Neglected or ignored, it is of no use if not followed.
Our nation has been seduced. We have lost our moral compass in favor of listening, To the man speaking perverse things, 13 from those leaving the paths of uprightness to walk in the ways of darkness, 14 from those who are rejoicing in doing bad, who are joyful in the perverse things of badness; 15 those whose paths are crooked and who are devious in their general course
(Proverbs 1:10-2:22) 10 My son, if sinners try to seduce you, do not consent. 11 If they keep saying: “Do go with us. Do let us lie in ambush for blood. Do let us lie in concealment for the innocent men without any cause. …15 my son, do not go in the way with them. Hold back your foot from their roadway. 16 For their feet are those that run to sheer badness, and they keep hastening to shed blood. ………. 20 True wisdom itself keeps crying aloud in the very street. In the public squares it keeps giving forth its voice.
21 At the upper end of the noisy streets it calls out. At the entrances of the gates into the city it says its own sayings:
22 “How long will YOU inexperienced ones keep loving inexperience, ….and [how long] will YOU stupid ones keep hating knowledge? 23 Turn back at my reproof. …… 24 Because I have called out but YOU keep refusing, I have stretched out my hand but there is no one paying attention, 25 and YOU keep neglecting all my counsel, and my reproof YOU have not accepted, 26 I also, for my part, shall laugh at YOUR own disaster, I shall mock when what YOU dread comes, 27 when what YOU dread comes just like a storm, and YOUR own disaster gets here just like a storm wind, when distress and hard times come upon YOU.
28 At that time they will keep calling me, but I shall not answer; they will keep looking for me, but they will not find me, 29 for the reason that they hated knowledge, …….. 30 They did not consent to my counsel; they disrespected all my reproof. 31 So they will eat from the fruitage of their way,
and they will be glutted with their own counsels. ………..” 2 My son, if you will receive my sayings and treasure up my own commandments with yourself, 2 so as to pay attention to wisdom with your ear, that you may incline your heart to discernment; 3 if, moreover, you call out for understanding itself and you give forth your voice for discernment itself, ……… 9 In that case you will understand righteousness and judgment and uprightness,
the entire course of what is good.
10 When wisdom enters into your heart and knowledge itself becomes pleasant to your very soul, 11 thinking ability itself will keep guard over you, discernment itself will safeguard you, 12 to deliver you from the bad way, from the man speaking perverse things,
Our leaders and those who support them have replaced the best Wisdom and knowledge, for their own compromised, adulterated, twisted and failed ideas. That is why some will torture, and start wars based on lies and then leave it open for debate or compromise. The only thing compromised was our conscience, and a watered down application of the LAW of righteous principles. Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Is it necessary to say THOU SHALT NOT TORTURE?
Have the people lost or forgotten the knowledge and wisdom, the principles of the law? Is it no longer taught or EXPECTED OR REQUIRED?
WHO CAN STAND UP TO THE LEADERS OF THE REBELLION?
When the majority of the people have found they too, don’t like the laws and they too are a part of the rebellion, picking and choosing which laws to observe? Having no moral authority left to invoke, or check the Dark side.
So we are left with the mess we are in. Those loyal to a moral conscience, are now the minority. Only to be ridiculed.
Is it all about the degree or the level of the violation? We will accept this or that, but Not that, or will we as a Nation, strive to perfect our conduct, requiring all to live by the principles of the law, so the Nation as a whole benefits? Willful Ignorance is not a valid excuse.
April 25, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
DUDE!
Morality drives Religion. It's not the other way around. Don't cram yours down peoples throats. Speak simply and from the heart in words that appeal to all.
April 25, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
For me it comes from inside. Not from a group, a creed, a book or fables.
April 25, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is just how it should be.
April 26, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks
April 26, 2009 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but the development of your insides comes from books, creeds, and fables ... and the group which acculturates you as a child.
April 26, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The irony here is that many of the people who want to turn a blind eye to the torture issue are those who claim to be religious and moral. I have yet to hear rush, or sean or sarah or rick warren or james dobson or pat buchanan or michelle bachman or ANY of the religious right call for bush et al to be prosecuted. Or ANYONE to be prosecuted. Did I just miss that?
What we have done is so reprehensible that I understand how hard it is to own up to it. Those in our government, Republicans and Democrats alike, who knew about this, must be having a hard time sleeping at night. Not because of the torture occurring, but because they are beginning to understand that they ALLOWED this, and it is possible they will have to answer for it.
I don't care if you were one of those who was screaming and yelling the whole time against this, or if you were one who just ignored it. This was done in OUR name. AMERICA did this. The collective WE is shamed by this.
To be honest, I'm not sure why the rest of the world isn't screaming about it. The only thing I can think of is that they want us to do it, so they can, too...
I commented a few days ago that the whole thing just makes me sad. That sadness is giving way to anger. I don't know if a mad Stilli is as scary as a mad Bwak, but I know its not a good thing...
April 25, 2009 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't stop asking myself - What were they thinking?
Were they under the assumption that some good would come of this that would exculpate them?
Were they anticipating the imposition of a police state wherein they would not be held to account?
Were they insane?
I am sure that we will never have a straight answer, but put yourself for a moment in the shoes of one of the controllers of this. Would you think even for a moment 'What the hell am I doing?'
Or was it some kind of mass hysteria or psychosis?
Perhaps it was the most simple answer: The monsters were in control and saw nothing wrong with doing what they did. And they see nothing wrong now, except that they may be prosecuted for it.
Monsters.
April 25, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goota answer those questions for you, adelfarb, or at least what I think are the answers.
I believe they thought some good CAME of it and it will exclupate them. I believe they were on their way to a police state, but knew they were not ready to hold down the fort to protect themselves from resistance. I know they are crazy. I believe they are psychotic. To me, this equates with monsters. I can give them that. I am so relieved we have a chance to right the ship, but it will take all hands on deck, as Bwak extols people in her comments above to get busy!
April 26, 2009 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good, I have started posting links, add if you feel the need.
But really, put yourself in their shoes. Assume that you followed the party line. How could they suspend reality and endorse torture. It boggles me. Perhaps they are some different sub-species. Homo amoralis?
April 26, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I visited the UN soon after they opened it after 9/11. I went on a tour with groups from other countries. You better believe the PEOPLE were calling for it. Families, the 13 year olds were posing some hard questions. It blew me away.
The guide explained that the UN wouldn't waste time on an action that the US would take off the table with its veto, (and the few countries, er lapdogs, we needed to carry it through).
Just as they ignored us, other governments ignored their own citizens. I don't think, that a sense of the awesome responsibility to the rest of the world the U.S. position on torture carries, has penetrated every skull by a longshot. Although it appears to me that those that are not of unusual thickness are coming round to sanity...
We WROTE the geneva conventions. We prosecuted for it. If we allow our leaders to get away with it, it's saying the rule of Law means NOTHING. This is, as the pug said, VERY IMPORTANT. We can do this. Start pestering your reps.
Yes. We. Can. Make this world a better place. If we all become accountable.
April 26, 2009 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
from Torture, American-Style by David Luban 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/25/AR2005112501552.html
We are ethically obligated to bring forth to the public's eyes and investigate these War Crimes and prosecute the criminals. We can do it!
April 26, 2009 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nazis did the same thing to justify the execution of escaped POW. Sad how we have fallen in with them in so many ways.
April 26, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
substitute tragic for sad
April 26, 2009 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, tragic and sad. But justice is possible.
April 26, 2009 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Posted by Bwakfat “Morality drives Religion. It's not the other way around. Don't cram yours down peoples throats. Speak simply and from the heart in words that appeal to all.
Just as I wrote and of course your response is characteristic of those who reject the superior wisdom “Don’t cram”
It used to be, ones adherence to faith promoted morality. That was before some of our neighbor citizens, mocked the VALUABLE INSTRUCTIONS in the ways of GOOD moral conduct. Some rejected the Idea that good moral values were essential to a healthy society, they no longer wanted it "Crammed down their throats."
Those verses I quoted did come from the heart. And they were written by No less than a King whose Wisdom was world-renowned. Solomon recognized, A Nation was dependant upon all it’s citizens being Instructed and it was paramount, the Laws of Morality had to be equally recognized by both servant and those in high places.
Members of the Bush Administration felt it didn’t need to answer to a higher source. In it’s twisted mind, IT was the higher source, Rejecting the thought that it was answerable for it’s conduct, just as I expect you are of the same attitude?
What? You feel you’re qualified to determine what is of value, you alone and maybe a few others because it's wats inside you? You and others like Dick Cheney don’t’ need no stinking laws governing GOOD moral conduct?
Do you ever wonder why the Social fabric in the World has deteriorated? Your answer?
Let me give you a clue. Having no sense of the source of INSTRUCTION of GOOD moral values, in contrast to whatever.
(Ephesians 4:17-19) 17 .... that YOU no longer go on walking just as the nations also walk in the unprofitableness of their minds, 18 while they are in darkness mentally, and alienated from the life that belongs to God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the insensibility of their hearts. 19 Having come to be past all moral sense, they gave themselves over to loose conduct to work uncleanness of every sort with greediness.
Darkness mentally, loose conduct, insensibility, unprofitableness, ignorance. Surely defines a World I see around me. How about you? Or are you blind to the reality.
You totally missed the point of what the writer wrote because I am of the opinion you and others think YOU don’t need INSTRUCTIONS
Then another suggests that because some claim to be Christians, makes one a Christian.
Boy, I wouldn’t brag about being too bright. Do I have to explain more; Saying and doing are two different things. Or did you perceive that they were not adhering to the standards they teach? Where did you learn such things?
It’s more likely YOU personally feel you should be exempt from observing Good moral conduct, but Cheney should not be exempt. Hypocrite!
April 26, 2009 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
A passage in the Bible that now frightens me is:
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for you reap whatever you sow." (Gal. 6:7)
We have not yet fully repudiated a policy that says that violence and cruelty are acceptable, and we wonder why people are walking into schools and offices with automatic weapons and opening fire.
A teacher of mine sometimes said that "the only way to stop a behavior is to stop the behavior." What does that mean in real life?
It means that we can’t teach kindness by practicing cruelty.
We can’t instill a sense of mercy by acting mercilessly.
We can’t establish a rule of law through lawlessness.
We can’t expect justice by administering injustice.
We can’t create peace through war.
And we can’t stop terrorists through terrorism.
April 26, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink