commondreams.org — I would recommend that anyone who thinks it is a ?stretch? to prosecute lawyers who provided legal justifications for torture to read the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which was signed by President Ronald Reagan.
May 7, 2009 View in Crawl 4
doxocopaMay 8, 2009
Just like the Nuremberg trials:"We were obeing orders"
jeremyduffyMay 8, 2009
So the government wants people to stop panicking and hating them for everything? Maybe the government needs to show us that when they abuse power, they aren't going to pretend it never happened.
frsrblchMay 8, 2009
Drowning... that's not suffering AT ALL.
ajgasperMay 8, 2009
To me, the discussions need to be based upon deep rooted ethical and moral convictions and tempered by pragmatism.The Nuremberg Trials were a show trial. It may well have been a “Corporate Scam”. It may also have been the means to cleanse the soul, so to speak, for letting it happen. Sort of like what happened after the Oklahoma City Bombing.One aspect of military leadership relevant to keeping the door open on torture. One leadership trait is courage. There is physical courage, and moral courage. Smedly Butler exhibited these qualities with his two Congressional Medals of Honor, and his subsequent campaign against the military/industrial complex. Keeping the door open on torture reinforces inappropriate behavior. If someone is incompetent, negligent, or even psychologically off balance their recourse is torture to cover their deficiencies. If the government’s intelligence collecting apparatus is so willfully inadequate; then torture may well be the only available avenue in times of “National Crisis”.On the other hand, the argument for keeping the door open seems to be fighting evil with evil. For example, the German Police Officer resorting to torture of a suspect in a child abduction case. The results are immaterial (child found/not found). What is important is he analyzed the situation, made a decision, and was willing to accept the consequences of that decision. Moral Courage.I suppose this has more to do with the homo sapient's need to feel secure. Having a rule (law) that can be followed provides some sense of well being. What comes into play are the insistent number of situations that are not black and white. It also reinforces attitudes about accountability and responsibility. If it’s not a law, I’m not responsible; and if it is a law, I’m not accountable.To move the moral and ethical context of US Society back to center ground, high US Officials should be investigated; and if appropriate, prosecuted. The investigation and prosecution of guards only reinforces perceptions of special classes and groups, and of a government out of control to the detriment of its citizens.
oldhickMay 8, 2009
Seriously, can someone explain how you can be prosecuted for presenting a legal argument? The lawyers didn't enact policy. They provided an opinion that the executive then used. Why wouldn't you prosecute those who made decisions and who enacted policy?