Read the second article again. It was not limited to waterboarding.
Lawyers for the Bush administration told the CIA in 2002 that its officers could legally use waterboardingand other harsh measureswhile interrogating al-Qaeda suspects, as long as they acted "in good faith" and did not deliberately seek to inflict severe pain, according to a Justice Department memo...
"Other harsh measures" is vague enough to be worthless to government officials who would want to use a "Mistake of Law" defense. The reliance on the advice has to be reasonable and has to go to intent. The inclusion of the language "Other harsh measures" isn't going to let anyone off the hook. Also, that article talked about CIA officials receiving the advice and Judge Crawford said that Qahtani's treatment at Guantanomo was torture. She didn't say that the torturers were from the CIA. Does advice given to one agency mean all other government agencies have been similarly advised? No, I'm pretty sure if Rumsfeld tried to use a "Mistake of Law" defense based on what was in your two articles, that defense would fail. Finally, reliance on legal advice for a "Mistake of Law" defense doesn't meet the requirements for the defense if the advice is mistaken. I think it would be easy to show that, in this case, it was mistaken.
We should have an independent system for legal review. This way, the administration could act without fear of prosecution, but the boundaries would be set by an independent body.
I think my rationale is more effective in the "stop torturing" department. Under my system, lawyers who answer to the potential torturer don't get to provide advice for the torturer to hide behind.
While it's easy to say "stop torturing", I think you're forgetting that we had a law that said just that.
Until and unless we categorize every possible interrogation technique, we ought to have a neutral overseer of techniques that are used.
Anytime you leave wiggle room, you increase the odds of the undesired activity. That's bad.
While it's easy to say "stop torturing", I think you're forgetting that we had a law that said just that.
Just because a law has been broken doesn't mean that it's ineffective. This law has not been broken until now. No one has had a problem following this law before, and once the current bunch of trogloditic neandethals is out of office, it's most likely that no one will have trouble following this law in the future.
The actors who broke this law should be prosecuted. We don't need a new system. We need to enforce what we already have. The problem of lack of interest doesn't reside with the public. The public would love to see justice done here. The problem is that politicians underestimate the willingness of the public to pursue justice.
Anytime you leave wiggle room, you increase the odds of the undesired activity. That's bad.
There's no wiggle room. "Stop torturing" leaves no wiggle room.
There's no wiggle room. "Stop torturing" leaves no wiggle room.
C'mon, you're a lawyer. You know better. There's always wiggle room.
I laugh to think that a person who is advocating torture is telling me that I should "know better".
Did I ever advocate torture? Please show me where.
Oh, I'm sorry. Were you arguing against torture? If so, you had a funny way of going about it. Most of what you've said so far in this thread sounds pretty torture-y.
I'm going to play the devil's advocate here and ask some questions, because in honesty I am of two minds on the issue:
Go to it, people. Convince me.
I told you up front that I am of two minds on the issue, and then continued to ask probing questions. Reading comprehension is key. Don't pull a Nineless, here.
I'm going to play the devil's advocate here and ask some questions, because in honesty I am of two minds on the issue:
Go to it, people. Convince me.
I told you up front that I am of two minds on the issue, and then continued to ask probing questions. Reading comprehension is key. Don't pull a Nineless, here.
I'm definitely with you on the emotional front of "I would kill a person to find my wife," but does that necessarily make it right? I'm not inclined to think that everything I want to do is necessarily the right thing to do.
Jason, "being of two minds" on this issue is a lot like "being of two minds" on the issue of spouse abuse, or child abuse. Would you cut me any slack if I started asking whether spouse abuse is ever justified?
Rym and Mr. Shark have it right. There's nothing to "be of two minds" about. It's wrong.
I'm definitely with you on the emotional front of "I would kill a person to find my wife," but does that necessarily make itright? I'm not inclined to think that everything Iwantto do is necessarily therightthing to do.
I think that's the basic problem with the entire question. Sometimes you have to choose between morally justifiable and utilitarian. Just because something is disgusting doesn't mean you won't have to do it. You also have to consider to whom do you have the greater moral responsibility: the alleged perpetrator or the victim?
I've seen about 10 minutes of any of the Saw movies, and I wouldn't consider watching any more. But this seems the perfect application for their carry-over theme: Can you justify doing horrific things in order to save yourself and others?
I feel like I'm not articulating this very well, but as I said in my very first post, which Joe apparently skipped, my feelings are very mixed here. And unfortunately, I think the entire answer does hinge on that nasty ticking time bomb scenario. If there is a dirty nuke hidden in New York, is your greater moral responsibility to the person who planted the bomb or to the millions of people who the bomb could suddenly, painfully destroy? My gut says to go with Spock on this one.
My other issue is that Rym and others' assertion that "torture is never acceptable, ever" is a moral absolute, and that makes me queasy in an age of moral relativism. These are some of the reasons I've been asking probing questions in this thread in an effort to tease out both sides of the argument for comparison, Robert.
Jason, "being of two minds" on this issue is a lot like "being of two minds" on the issue of spouse abuse, or child abuse. Would you cut me any slack if I started asking whether spouse abuse is ever justified?
Let's take it even further. Is murder never justified? What if a woman murders her husband to end 40 years of physical and mental abuse? What if she's tried going to the police and nobody believes her? Do you think you could get a jury to let her go?
Sometimes exceptions prove the rule. Sometimes they disprove it.
And unfortunately, I think the entire answer does hinge on that nasty ticking time bomb scenario. If there is a dirty nuke hidden in New York, is your greater moral responsibility to the person who planted the bomb or to the millions of people who the bomb could suddenly, painfully destroy? My gut says to go with Spock on this one.
My other issue is that Rym and others' assertion that "torture is never acceptable, ever" is a moral absolute, and that makes me queasy in an age of moral relativism.
I don't know why you can't accept that the "ticking time bomb" is fiction. I know it's fun to pretend, but we might as well discuss what we'd do if Andrew turned out to be a cylon. There is no "ticking time bomb". There will never be a "ticking time bomb". It's fiction.
Finally, there are moral absolutes. It is always wrong and never right to own a slave. It is always wrong and never right to commit genocide. It is always wrong and never right to abuse your spouse or to abuse any child. If you want to argue the other sides of these issues in the name of relativism, be my guest. Similarly, it is always wrong and never right to torture people.
The problem with torture is that it the information obtained is unreliable, unless independently confirmed. The tortured person will say anything he or she thinks you want to hear to stop you from torturing them. This especially fails in the ticking time bomb scenario because you have no time to cross-confirm the claim made and there is of course the highly probable scenario that you got yourself a martyr on your hands who will willfully mislead you so you don't find the ticking bomb.
Anyways, back on topic: Doesn't the government swear an oath to uphold the constitution, which is the purpose of the government? The constitution explicitly forbids torture, meaning that officials under this oath ordering torture are committing treason. It's as simple as that. Ordering torture is treason on the U.S. constitution.
I'm all about moral relativism. Techincally, I have a 100% amoral view of reality; cultures completely define the operating morality of those within them. It's essentially the complete antithesis to Ayn Rand.
However, I'm of the mind that if we at all want to get anywhere as humans, we need to define SOME loose global moral standards: the respect for individuality and self-determination (even if it doesn't really exist) and so forth. Torture sort of goes very much against the principles of human decency.
Torture sort of goes very much against the principles of human decency.
It does. Look, I agree with you that it is completely reprehensible. My problem isn't with the morality of torture. My problem is in saying that it can never, ever, ever be justified no matter what the circumstances. There is a nagging voice in the back of my mind that says, "But what if millions of lives are at stake?"
I think murder is horribly wrong. It is disgusting. It is morally unacceptable. But if you could go back in time and assassinate Hitler, would you?
That's my issue here. I have a beastly dread that some unspeakably horrific acts are sometimes necessary to prevent worse ones.
After a thorough and sober reading of the ticking time bomb literature provided by Joe, I agree that the scenario is flawed to an extent that it is no longer useful.
If you "break someone" then they will say anything and are unreliable. If you threaten their family, they will say anything and are unreliable. Torture gets you unreliable info.
Just because a law has been broken doesn't mean that it's ineffective.
You said that nobody would be prosecuted. You yourself illustrated how ineffective this law is. This is because the law allows the fox to guard the henhouse. Just get your own lawyer to issue an opinion and you've negated any criminal intent! I'm frankly shocked that you feel that this law is effective after acknowledging that nobody will be prosecuted.
We don't need a new system. We need to enforce what we already have. The problem of lack of interest doesn't reside with the public. The public would love to see justice done here. The problem is that politicians underestimate the willingness of the public to pursue justice.
Ouch. Somebody is out of touch. Look at this poll.Or this poll. At best the public is split right down the middle. Hardly the safety net that politicians desire.
That's why we have to shield this offense from politics. My proposal does just that by providing for independent review. It's MUCH easier for a politician to authorize prosecution of a willful violation of a bipartisan ruling.
You said that nobody would be prosecuted. You yourself illustrated how ineffective this law is.
I never said anything was wrong with the law. You're really reaching.
This is because the law allows the fox to guard the henhouse. Just get your own lawyer to issue an opinion and you've negated any criminal intent!
As I wrote earlier, your idea that there's a valid mistake of law defense here is not well founded.
We don't need a new system. We need to enforce what we already have. The problem of lack of interest doesn't reside with the public. The public would love to see justice done here. The problem is that politicians underestimate the willingness of the public to pursue justice.
Ouch. Somebody is out of touch.Look at this poll.Or this poll.At best the public is split right down the middle. Hardly the safety net that politicians desire.
One of those polls is more than three years old. The other is reported in a Thai newspaper, of all things. Neither are persuasive. Sorry.
One of those polls is more than three years old. The other is reported in a Thai newspaper, of all things. Neither are persuasive. Sorry.
Please cite a study or poll to back up your original contention.
The other is reported in a Thai newspaper, of all things.
Had you set aside your xenophobia, you would have seen that the Thai "newspaper" was not the source of the survey - the website was merely a news aggregator. The survey in question was cited by the United Nations on the eve of UN International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. Surely a survey that the UN finds persuasive carries at least a little weight with you?
You have yet to provide any proof that "the public would love to see justice done here." The only evidence so far is that a sizeable minority of 44% believes otherwise. Hardly a lovefest. Even Obama understands this.
In my opinion, the reason nothing will happen is because the Democrats don't want to show how complicit they were. The Armed Services Committee punted. The candidates were wishy washy. Even Amy Goodman isn't feeling the Democrat love.
Had you set aside your xenophobia, you would have seen that the Thai "newspaper" was not the source of the survey - the website was merely a news aggregator. Thesurvey in questionwascited by the United Nationson the eve of UN International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. Surely a survey that the UN finds persuasive carries at least a little weight with you?
Thanks for the ad hominem attack. I guess that's what you do when you're on the losing side of an argument.
Of the two of us, I suspect I am very much less xenophobic. One doesn't have to be xenophobic to be suspicious of the Thaindian News' credibility. I read the whole article and I know what they said the poll said and the supposed provenance of the poll. I just don't believe it. Also, the poll didn't ask whether people would want to see a prosecution if the odds were that the prosecution would be succesful. I said the people want to see justice. Is that an extraordinary claim?
Oh yeah, in terms of credibility, Alternet and ConsortiumNews aren't much better. You must know your position is a little fringe-y if those are the only sources you can find to support you. So you have a Thai newspaper and a couple of websites that are just this side of tje tin hat brigade. That's not very persuasive.
It's an exttraordinary claim to say democrats were "complicit" in any way. You have provided absolutely no proof of that claim. I have proved pretty conclusively that the GWB administration tortures. I know it must be upsetting to you to know that your party is going to be known as the party of torture, but this is not a democrat/republican issue. If that's how you see it, then I'm very sad for you. If the GWB administration was democratic, whig, or tory, they're still wrong to torture.
Thanks for the ad hominem attack. I guess that's what you do when you're on the losing side of an argument.
It wasn't. Your comment was xenophobic. You completely ignored the source of the data and made a sweeping generalization as to its reliability based solely on the geography and/or ethnicity of its source. Sorry, but that's not acceptable to me.
You made the claim. Now please cite a poll showing that the majority of Americans want to see Bush and/or Cheney prosecuted. You said there would be "love." Just show me a majority. I'm not saying that you're wrong. Who knows? So far the data is not on your side. So just give me some data to back up what you said.
Here is some proof as to the complicity of Democrats. The Senate Armed Services Committee reviewed the practices used and admitted that it was harsh, but would not say it was torture. The committee has a majority of Democrats. Some very powerful Democrats. And yet. having confidential access to what happened, they would not say that torture was used.
Take a look at this article. Even if you ignore what Cheney said, there is evidence of complicity. Right now, people aren't focusing on that. That's why the Dems don't want this brought back into the limelight.
I'm giving good strategy for the Dems and Joe is fighting it? The world has turned upside down.
Let me recap for those of you just checking in at this point.
Joe: An administration official said that Bush used torture! Torture is bad.
Me: Torture should not be tolerated. The law has a huge loophole. (Get your own attorney to say it's okay and then pardon them.) I proposed a change to the law to eliminate the loophole and help take politics out of the decision to prosecute.
Joe: You just shouldn't torture.
Me: Uh... yeah... I think we agree here. That's why I advocate that we look at what went wrong, and make changes to ensure that it doesn't happen again. This is especially true given signals from the Obama camp that they won't prosecute those who were responsible. Why are we fighting over the little things?
Personally, I'm offended that you have to resort to attacking me for being xenophobic. That's an ad hominem attack, but I guess that's all you have.
As for your article, I saw some allegations that democrats were complicit in wiretapping. I knew about that. I don't like it, but you know what? That doesn't let the administration off the hook. That's the childish argument of "other kids were doing it too". As I said earlier if there's any actual proof that democrats tortured, they should be prosecuted as well. It's a little disgusting that you seem to want to turn this into a partisan argument, and more than a little cynical and hypocritical, but that's what I've come to expect from you.
Personally, I'm offended that you have to resort to attacking me for being xenophobic.
It wasn't an attack, it was an observation. Dismissing a source based solely on its ethnicity is xenophobic and wrong. Period. Had you offered another reason to distrust it, I would have understood. I submit that attacking someone for pointing out an incident of xenophobia is wrong.
After the things you've said about HMTKSteve, I'm shocked that you would take offense in this situation.
I knew about that. I don't like it, but you know what? That doesn't let the administration off the hook.
Legally, you are right. But because of politics, it may very well let the administration off the hook. That's my whole point here. There is a problem.
It's a little disgusting that you seem to want to turn this into a partisan argument
Uh.... I'm the only one here who has proposed a system that would take the partisan politics out of the equation. Have you not read what I've written?
I haven't turned this into a partisan issue. I'm merely pointing out that there are partisan issues at work. I'm the one trying to make it non-partisan! Please go back and re-read what I've written.
For example:
Yet another reason why this two party system of ours is so frustrating.
Or...:
We should have an independent system for legal review. This way, the administration could act without fear of prosecution, but the boundaries would be set by an independent body.
Or...:
we ought to have a neutral overseer
Or...:
That's why we have to shield this offense from politics. My proposal does just that by providing for independent review. It's MUCH easier for a politician to authorize prosecution of a willful violation of a bipartisan ruling.
Torture should not be tolerated. The law has a huge loophole. (Get your own attorney to say it's okay and then pardon them.) I proposed a change to the law to eliminate the loophole and help take politics out of the decision to prosecute.
That's not a loophole in the law. A loophole is some ambiguity or omission in a law that leads to a method of avoiding compliance. There is no such ambiguity or omission in the torture statute. It's very clear.
As I pointed out earlier, but you seem to be ignoring, getting "your own attorney to say it's okay" won't even lead to a defense of mistake of law. It's absurd to think that this is a problem with the torture statute, because, if your "method" worked, any administration could flaunt any law simply by having "your own attorney say it's okay". That's not a problem or a loophole in the torture statute. That's a problem with your flawed understanding of the mistake of law defense.
Comments
While it's easy to say "stop torturing", I think you're forgetting that we had a law that said just that.
Until and unless we categorize every possible interrogation technique, we ought to have a neutral overseer of techniques that are used.
Anytime you leave wiggle room, you increase the odds of the undesired activity. That's bad.
The actors who broke this law should be prosecuted. We don't need a new system. We need to enforce what we already have. The problem of lack of interest doesn't reside with the public. The public would love to see justice done here. The problem is that politicians underestimate the willingness of the public to pursue justice. There's no wiggle room. "Stop torturing" leaves no wiggle room.
Rym and Mr. Shark have it right. There's nothing to "be of two minds" about. It's wrong.
I've seen about 10 minutes of any of the Saw movies, and I wouldn't consider watching any more. But this seems the perfect application for their carry-over theme: Can you justify doing horrific things in order to save yourself and others?
I feel like I'm not articulating this very well, but as I said in my very first post, which Joe apparently skipped, my feelings are very mixed here. And unfortunately, I think the entire answer does hinge on that nasty ticking time bomb scenario. If there is a dirty nuke hidden in New York, is your greater moral responsibility to the person who planted the bomb or to the millions of people who the bomb could suddenly, painfully destroy? My gut says to go with Spock on this one.
My other issue is that Rym and others' assertion that "torture is never acceptable, ever" is a moral absolute, and that makes me queasy in an age of moral relativism. These are some of the reasons I've been asking probing questions in this thread in an effort to tease out both sides of the argument for comparison, Robert.
Sometimes exceptions prove the rule. Sometimes they disprove it.
Triple post FTW.
Finally, there are moral absolutes. It is always wrong and never right to own a slave. It is always wrong and never right to commit genocide. It is always wrong and never right to abuse your spouse or to abuse any child. If you want to argue the other sides of these issues in the name of relativism, be my guest. Similarly, it is always wrong and never right to torture people.
Anyways, back on topic: Doesn't the government swear an oath to uphold the constitution, which is the purpose of the government? The constitution explicitly forbids torture, meaning that officials under this oath ordering torture are committing treason. It's as simple as that. Ordering torture is treason on the U.S. constitution.
However, I'm of the mind that if we at all want to get anywhere as humans, we need to define SOME loose global moral standards: the respect for individuality and self-determination (even if it doesn't really exist) and so forth. Torture sort of goes very much against the principles of human decency.
I think murder is horribly wrong. It is disgusting. It is morally unacceptable. But if you could go back in time and assassinate Hitler, would you?
That's my issue here. I have a beastly dread that some unspeakably horrific acts are sometimes necessary to prevent worse ones.
BTW, Godwined, bitches.
That's why we have to shield this offense from politics. My proposal does just that by providing for independent review. It's MUCH easier for a politician to authorize prosecution of a willful violation of a bipartisan ruling.
You have yet to provide any proof that "the public would love to see justice done here." The only evidence so far is that a sizeable minority of 44% believes otherwise. Hardly a lovefest. Even Obama understands this.
In my opinion, the reason nothing will happen is because the Democrats don't want to show how complicit they were. The Armed Services Committee punted. The candidates were wishy washy. Even Amy Goodman isn't feeling the Democrat love.
I'm avoiding the question, aren't I?
Of the two of us, I suspect I am very much less xenophobic. One doesn't have to be xenophobic to be suspicious of the Thaindian News' credibility. I read the whole article and I know what they said the poll said and the supposed provenance of the poll. I just don't believe it. Also, the poll didn't ask whether people would want to see a prosecution if the odds were that the prosecution would be succesful. I said the people want to see justice. Is that an extraordinary claim?
Oh yeah, in terms of credibility, Alternet and ConsortiumNews aren't much better. You must know your position is a little fringe-y if those are the only sources you can find to support you. So you have a Thai newspaper and a couple of websites that are just this side of tje tin hat brigade. That's not very persuasive.
It's an exttraordinary claim to say democrats were "complicit" in any way. You have provided absolutely no proof of that claim. I have proved pretty conclusively that the GWB administration tortures. I know it must be upsetting to you to know that your party is going to be known as the party of torture, but this is not a democrat/republican issue. If that's how you see it, then I'm very sad for you. If the GWB administration was democratic, whig, or tory, they're still wrong to torture.
You made the claim. Now please cite a poll showing that the majority of Americans want to see Bush and/or Cheney prosecuted. You said there would be "love." Just show me a majority. I'm not saying that you're wrong. Who knows? So far the data is not on your side. So just give me some data to back up what you said.
Here is some proof as to the complicity of Democrats. The Senate Armed Services Committee reviewed the practices used and admitted that it was harsh, but would not say it was torture. The committee has a majority of Democrats. Some very powerful Democrats. And yet. having confidential access to what happened, they would not say that torture was used.
Take a look at this article. Even if you ignore what Cheney said, there is evidence of complicity. Right now, people aren't focusing on that. That's why the Dems don't want this brought back into the limelight.
I'm giving good strategy for the Dems and Joe is fighting it? The world has turned upside down.
Let me recap for those of you just checking in at this point.
Joe: An administration official said that Bush used torture! Torture is bad.
Me: Torture should not be tolerated. The law has a huge loophole. (Get your own attorney to say it's okay and then pardon them.) I proposed a change to the law to eliminate the loophole and help take politics out of the decision to prosecute.
Joe: You just shouldn't torture.
Me: Uh... yeah... I think we agree here. That's why I advocate that we look at what went wrong, and make changes to ensure that it doesn't happen again. This is especially true given signals from the Obama camp that they won't prosecute those who were responsible. Why are we fighting over the little things?
As for your article, I saw some allegations that democrats were complicit in wiretapping. I knew about that. I don't like it, but you know what? That doesn't let the administration off the hook. That's the childish argument of "other kids were doing it too". As I said earlier if there's any actual proof that democrats tortured, they should be prosecuted as well. It's a little disgusting that you seem to want to turn this into a partisan argument, and more than a little cynical and hypocritical, but that's what I've come to expect from you.
After the things you've said about HMTKSteve, I'm shocked that you would take offense in this situation. Legally, you are right. But because of politics, it may very well let the administration off the hook. That's my whole point here. There is a problem. Uh.... I'm the only one here who has proposed a system that would take the partisan politics out of the equation. Have you not read what I've written?
I haven't turned this into a partisan issue. I'm merely pointing out that there are partisan issues at work. I'm the one trying to make it non-partisan! Please go back and re-read what I've written.
For example: Or...: Or...: Or...:
As I pointed out earlier, but you seem to be ignoring, getting "your own attorney to say it's okay" won't even lead to a defense of mistake of law. It's absurd to think that this is a problem with the torture statute, because, if your "method" worked, any administration could flaunt any law simply by having "your own attorney say it's okay". That's not a problem or a loophole in the torture statute. That's a problem with your flawed understanding of the mistake of law defense.