Obama: No charges for harsh CIA interrogation
04-17-2009, 03:28 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Obama: No charges for harsh CIA interrogation
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090417/.../torture_memos
I got a kick out of this line:
Oh sure, it's torture, but we don't want to hold the persons responsible for it accountable. hah.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama absolved CIA officers from prosecution for harsh, painful interrogation of terror suspects Thursday, even as his administration released Bush-era memos graphically detailing — and authorizing — such grim tactics as slamming detainees against walls, waterboarding them and keeping them naked and cold for long periods.
Human rights groups and many Obama officials have condemned such methods as torture. Bush officials have vigorously disagreed.
04-17-2009, 04:10 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090417/.../torture_memos
I got a kick out of this line:
Oh sure, it's torture, but we don't want to hold the persons responsible for it accountable. hah.
I got a kick out of this line:
Oh sure, it's torture, but we don't want to hold the persons responsible for it accountable. hah.
I think it would be a little disingenuous to come into command punish people for following standing orders. I think it would be a reasonable decision to not prosecute in this particular instance since this was the modus operandi for interrogation under Bush's watch. He should ensure it doesn't happen under his own command and consider the issue finished.
04-17-2009, 04:11 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
04-17-2009, 04:45 PM
#5
If you got a new boss, would you expect him to reprimand for doing what your last boss told you to do?
I think it would be a little disingenuous to come into command punish people for following standing orders. I think it would be a reasonable decision to not prosecute in this particular instance since this was the modus operandi for interrogation under Bush's watch. He should ensure it doesn't happen under his own command and consider the issue finished.
I think it would be a little disingenuous to come into command punish people for following standing orders. I think it would be a reasonable decision to not prosecute in this particular instance since this was the modus operandi for interrogation under Bush's watch. He should ensure it doesn't happen under his own command and consider the issue finished.
04-17-2009, 04:50 PM
#6
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
I think it would be a little disingenuous to come into command punish people for following standing orders. I think it would be a reasonable decision to not prosecute in this particular instance since this was the modus operandi for interrogation under Bush's watch. He should ensure it doesn't happen under his own command and consider the issue finished.
It is the duty of each individual to insure that they behave in a moral and law-abiding fashion; deflecting responsibility by saying that someone ordered you to behave immorally is an equivocation and an attempt to circumvent accountability. Even the military's Uniform Code of Military Justice states that any member of the armed forces is allowed to (and should) refuse unlawful orders.
04-18-2009, 08:00 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: I gotta have more cow bell!!!!
Posts: 9,198
Car Info: 05 STi
I know in the Army a soldier has the right to refuse an unlawful order. This is considered standard for an 18 year old straight out of high school. I'd think a CIA operative with at least a bachelors degree would have the mental capacity to be able to draw the line as to "lawful and not". Having said this however, the CIA works under a very different operating posture. The Army operates in the public light where immoral deeds quickly become public knowledge where the CIA is often unseen. I'm not saying it makes it right but they are both given a mission to achieve and are held to totally different standards.
04-18-2009, 09:52 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Northern Bay Area: Larkspur
Posts: 1,004
Car Info: 02 Silver WRX sedan. Eibach springs, Blitz NUR cat back, Rota 17" Attacks, Cobb AccessPort/DP
Cry me a river...
Most of the stuff the media portrays as torture is considered hazing in most frats. I guess our college students are tougher than most according to the media. Ohhhh, getting thrown up against a wall....lol.
"Torture" will always be used as a method to gain information. All the media is going to do is force our government to put certain steps in play to ensure plausible deniability. To protect the good names of our politicians...haha.
I think we need more Jack Bauers out there...
Too many nancy boys in this world.
"Torture" will always be used as a method to gain information. All the media is going to do is force our government to put certain steps in play to ensure plausible deniability. To protect the good names of our politicians...haha.
I think we need more Jack Bauers out there...
Too many nancy boys in this world.
04-18-2009, 11:47 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
I expect people to be held accountable for breaking the law and violating human and civil rights, regardless of who their boss is.
I knew someone would bring up the Nuremberg Defense. "I was just obeying orders" is not a valid excuse for breaking domestic and international law, and has been shot down in both U.S. and international courts, not to mention the fact that it was decided to be an invalid defense by the Allies after World War II.
It is the duty of each individual to insure that they behave in a moral and law-abiding fashion; deflecting responsibility by saying that someone ordered you to behave immorally is an equivocation and an attempt to circumvent accountability. Even the military's Uniform Code of Military Justice states that any member of the armed forces is allowed to (and should) refuse unlawful orders.
I knew someone would bring up the Nuremberg Defense. "I was just obeying orders" is not a valid excuse for breaking domestic and international law, and has been shot down in both U.S. and international courts, not to mention the fact that it was decided to be an invalid defense by the Allies after World War II.
It is the duty of each individual to insure that they behave in a moral and law-abiding fashion; deflecting responsibility by saying that someone ordered you to behave immorally is an equivocation and an attempt to circumvent accountability. Even the military's Uniform Code of Military Justice states that any member of the armed forces is allowed to (and should) refuse unlawful orders.
And it all depends on whether they broke actual standing laws. I'm all to familiar with lawful orders. Unfortunately I'm not a lawyer and don't know what laws if any were actually broken by CIA agents. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.
If they broke laws during these interrogations, then go ahead with the charges.
BTW, harsh interrogation != genocide
04-19-2009, 09:50 AM
#14
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Former Head of the Defense Intelligence Agency Says Torture Produces Unreliable Information
US Experts Say Torture Is Outmoded and Unreliable
Information Secured Through Torture Proved Unreliable, CIA Concluded
I can keep going, but I doubt it'll make a difference.
"[The ticking bomb scenario] falls apart upon careful scrutiny. It assumes that law enforcement has the right person in custody. That is, the suspect knows where the bomb is and when it is scheduled to detonate. What if there is only a 50 percent chance that the suspect knows the information? What if this number is only 10 percent? Second, it assumes that torture will be effective in gaining access to the critical information. In fact, however, torture is notoriously unreliable. What if there is only a 60 percent chance that the suspect will reveal accurate information? How about 20 percent? How low are we willing to go?
04-19-2009, 09:56 AM
#15
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
I only brought that up as it pertained to your comment about obeying orders and illustrated that even an organization as strict as the military requires soldiers to not obey illegal orders.
If they tortured people, then they broke the law. The CIA is not above the law.
I don't know why you brought that up, but I assume it's because I referred to the Nuremberg Defense. The point was not to compare torture to genocide, but to address your comment about them "just obeying orders," which is referred to as the "Nuremberg Defense." It was also to show what happens in the extremes of the "just obeying orders" mentality.
And it all depends on whether they broke actual standing laws. I'm all to familiar with lawful orders. Unfortunately I'm not a lawyer and don't know what laws if any were actually broken by CIA agents. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.
If they broke laws during these interrogations, then go ahead with the charges.
If they broke laws during these interrogations, then go ahead with the charges.
I don't know why you brought that up, but I assume it's because I referred to the Nuremberg Defense. The point was not to compare torture to genocide, but to address your comment about them "just obeying orders," which is referred to as the "Nuremberg Defense." It was also to show what happens in the extremes of the "just obeying orders" mentality.