A Sane Approach on Torture

For once, I can't argue with you.
.
But this needs to be highlighted:
.
My C.I.A. colleagues who balked at the techniques, on the other hand, were instructed to continue. (It's worth noting that when reading between the lines of the newly released memos, it seems clear that it was contractors, not C.I.A. officers, who requested the use of these techniques.)
.
To date I haven't been among those calling for prosecutions but as I noted the other day, its the bad arguments against them that actually create danger of my changing my mind.
.
Particulary the notion, that holding agents accountable for their actions will stymie their willingness to cross certain lines in the future, I can only respond That's the effing point!
.
We need a robust intelligence service but we don't need a bunch of loose cannons confident in the knowlege that they can do no wrong. It's a recipe for disaster.

Moving in such a direction would have a deeply chilling effect on the ability of lawyers in any administration to provide their client — the U.S. government — with their best legal advice,” they wrote.
.
Again. That's the effing point
.
Using the phrase "Best legal advice" to describe absolutely horrible legal advice is quite rich....
.
The point about juries is also very salient. The reason we have jury trials in the first place is to protect against an overzealous reading of the law resulting in unjust convictions. And it's certainly wiothin a prosecuter's discretion to NOT bring charges if that's the likely result.

This is why a truth commission is a good idea. Prosecuting these people isn't a good option. If Congress or the Obama Admin convene a truth commission at least we can document the abuses and make sure history knows how the Bush Admin broke our laws.

Another point worth mentioning. Joe has spoken several times about the difficulties Obama might have with the intelligence services and the Pentagon, with selective leaks undermining his authority or agenda. What better position to be in than "I want to move forward not backward BUT....."
.
How many Republicans have spouted endlessly about the value of leaving nothing off the table?

There are people in jail for torturing people at Abu Ghraib. There is clearly a paper trail leading to approval of torture at GTMO. I really doubt there would be difficulty obtaining convictions up and down that paper trail. And even if turns out that a jury would be too stupid to understand what was going on, or that a judge would disallow evidence that made that clear, that's no justification for not holding trials. People were tortured, illegally, in violation of both US law and treaties bound by US law. That is without doubt.
.
That public officials can exonerate each other by writing secret memos to each other is absurd. The frickin' reason they kept the memos secret is because they endorsed deeply immoral violations of the law. If these opinions were legal, and issued in good faith, there would have been no need to keep them secret. The endless apologists for this very basic violation of law and decency, just because they are public officials living among the Villagers is simply appalling.
.
And, Joe, why are you granting anonymity to these sources of yours? IF they believe these convictions cannot be made, why won't they say so on the record? Moreover, why do you hand them your (and TIME's) credibility?

To P.D. and Jayack: Amen; and thanks.

Prosecuting these people isn't a good option. If Congress or the Obama Admin convene a truth commission at least we can document the abuses and make sure history knows how the Bush Admin broke our laws.
.
neponset,
.
We pretty much did that with Iran/Contra. We knew what some of these bad players did. Nothing happened to them. And now some of them are back giving the same twisted advice, in similar advisory roles.
.
Sooner or later, we are going to have to stop simply "looking forward" and punish some of these people.
.
Otherwise, the cycle continues . . .

A journalist who gives up his sources won't stay a journalist for long, because noone will tell him anything.

neponset--
.
We are not South Africa emerging from apartheid or East Germany tearing down the wall, where both public officials and individual citizens did repellent things in a totalitarian environment, with no real way of ascertaining motive. (see Adam Michnik's essay Maggots and Angels)
.
This regime of torture was entered into by the Bush administration fully aware of what they were doing, of what laws they were violating, and of the need to avoid any public scrutiny. We have laws in place, and we claim to be a nation of laws. This absolutely heinous behavior wasn't forced onto the Bush administration. They went to great lengths to embrace it, excluding expert opinion to the contrary of their claimed goal.
.
Their actual goal, of getting "proof" that Iraq was part of the 9/11 attacks, using methods that have always been used to extract false confessions, is indefensible. It is not enough to find out who is responsible, any more than it was when Japanese officials were tried, and executed, for exactly the same acts.
.
Yes, it will be inconvenient for Joe and his friends. Yes, it will be embarrassing. But it darn well should be embarrassing and inconvenient.

Joe Klein
.
The op ed focuses on an opinion about how difficult it would be to prosecute Bush officials that comes from one Eric Posner. Why is that important you ask? Well lets examine some of the things Posner has said prior to giving his "definitive" opinion.
.
Inherent in the functioning of these powers is a degree of restriction of civil liberties. Critics see the restrictions as excessive, but the rationale for Bush administration's approach is straightforward. The standard package of civil liberties in the United States—including the right to a trial and other elements of criminal procedure and protections against surveillance and searches—makes sense in a society in which the police can provide adequate protection from criminal threats. But, to an extent that is rarely appreciated, this legal regime is contingent on a balance of offensive and defensive technologies. 9/11 made clear that the balance has shifted.
.
Once we understand that the civil liberties a society enjoys reflect a tradeoff between security (including protection from criminality as well as external military threats) and the benefits of freedom, and, further, that security at any point will reflect technological changes that are largely outside of that society's control, we ought to appreciate the Bush administration's impulse to restrict civil liberties after 9/11. The problem to which the Bush administration and Congress responded with laws like the Patriot Act was not so much the threat of al Qaeda itself, but the vulnerability of the United States to destructive weapons in the hands of anyone with hostile intent.
.
Posner thinks the Constitution doesn't matter. The freedoms we enjoy should be predicated on the challenges we face in his opinion.
.
You should also note that Eric Posner is a conservative and the author of a book entitled "Terror in the balance" in which he argues FOR torture/harsh interrogations.
.
http://books.google.com/books?id=iTcLIMooBp0C&dq=eric+posner&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=gTSAV1l1wM&sig=QhfkV8HkwHxBLModbgApsv-ZBm4&hl=en&ei=s3vwSbiRLdywtgfa2rgP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA25,M1
.
Its phucking appalling that the NYTimes presented this guy as a straight shooter on the issue

Both Bob Casey and Casper Weinberger should have been in jail for what they did.
.
They received no punishment or were pardoned. We "moved on". Now, their example has been validated in what is happening now.

The second 2nd and 3rd paragraphs should be blockquoted thusly.
.
http://bostonreview.net/BR34.1/posner.php
.

Inherent in the functioning of these powers is a degree of restriction of civil liberties. Critics see the restrictions as excessive, but the rationale for Bush administration's approach is straightforward. The standard package of civil liberties in the United States—including the right to a trial and other elements of criminal procedure and protections against surveillance and searches—makes sense in a society in which the police can provide adequate protection from criminal threats. But, to an extent that is rarely appreciated, this legal regime is contingent on a balance of offensive and defensive technologies. 9/11 made clear that the balance has shifted.
.
Once we understand that the civil liberties a society enjoys reflect a tradeoff between security (including protection from criminality as well as external military threats) and the benefits of freedom, and, further, that security at any point will reflect technological changes that are largely outside of that society's control, we ought to appreciate the Bush administration's impulse to restrict civil liberties after 9/11. The problem to which the Bush administration and Congress responded with laws like the Patriot Act was not so much the threat of al Qaeda itself, but the vulnerability of the United States to destructive weapons in the hands of anyone with hostile intent.

.

A journalist who grants anonymity for no compelling reason is not a journalist. This is especially true when granting anonymity to a government official seeking to defend illegal acts. I urge you to review the NYT's policies on granting anonymity.

No question that it's hurting Republicans to be so closely associated with Cheney in the torture fight. And besides their distaste for Darth, Americans also are firmly opposed to the techniques he and the GOP are defending.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

FYI: Elliott Abrams was involved in the Iran Contra mess and suffered a brief halt to his career. He ended up in the Bush Admin NSA team looking after Israel's interests: which, of course went right alongside our own. That is what happens when you give these guys a pass to avoid roiling the body politic. They come back to continue their slimy ways. Remember the shameless Oliver North> And G Gordon Liddy: these guys have no shame.

Now that the can of worms has been open. The ONLY recourse is to investigate and if needed hold those accountable for their actions in a court of law.
.
Yes I have changed my opinion on this matter now, simply because with all that is now known, not to investigate it ALL would not be in the best interest of our Nation. Not doing so, would further damage our already damaged reputation as a Nation.
.
Obama has no choice now. I truly believe heads will roll from this, but maybe not the ones so many on this site, including our esteemed writer, Joe Klein THINK will roll.
.
Enjoy your controversy ladies and gentlemen. Enjoy indeed.

As horrific as 9/11 was, to start ripping up your constitution (one of the finest living documents out there, if not the finest) in order to try and help safeguard against another attack is about the most cowardly thing i can think of. This Posner sounds like a Panic Room kind of guy.

Matt, your link didn't seem to match your comment. Is it correct?

Obama has no choice now. I truly believe heads will roll from this, but maybe not the ones so many on this site, including our esteemed writer, Joe Klein THINK will roll.
.
Rusty,
.
You STILL don't get it. If an investigation is conducted and Pelosi or Jane Harman are found to have committed crimes as a result, then they should go to jail. Same for those in the previous admin who ordered the policies that we now know occurred.
.
It speaks volumes that you think we would be against an investigation because it might catch some Dems who assisted or colluded in the process (because that's why you are against it - the partisan political consideration?)
.
You still don't get it . . . it's to prevent ANY of this from happening again on ANYONE's watch.

Let me say this Joe-To prosecute or not prosecute is not up to you. It's not up to your colleagues, its not up to the congress, its not up to the CIA, FBI or Cheney, or Rove, or Obama. Its up to Holder as the AG. That's why we have an independent AG. So my point is you can find all the village consenses you want, but your opinions count for nothing.

What gunny and jay and PD and sgw said. Plus, it seems important ot respond to this sentence: Soufan validates the philosophical split between the FBI and the CIA on interrogation procedures ... Yes, it is important to explore the philosophical split between those with actual, professional interrogation expertise and those with no professional expertise.
.
Also, via sully, this is what the Weakly Standard said in 2004: They have endangered any American unlucky enough to find himself at the mercy of our enemies in the war on terror. They have impeded our progress in that war. More fundamentally, they traduced their mission, betrayed their fellow soldiers, and disgraced their country. Anyone up or down the chain of command who was criminally complicit should be prosecuted, too.[…] There's only one way to drain this poison, and it isn't further breast-beating, from the administration or its foes. Bring on the trials, and the punishment.
.
The Wonk Room asks: So will the Weekly Standard editors stand by their previous assertion that those complicit should be prosecuted? Or are they still happy to let the grunts go to jail while their friends in the Bush administration get off?

I like to also point out that working in the WH, CIA, FBI or any other federal agency is not a "GET OF JAIL FREE CARD" even if in your opinion you are protecting the country.

gunny, totally off topic, but what do you think of this as a solution to the Texas Problem?
.

wvng-don't have speakers watch it when I get home and get back to you. Thanks.

U.S. Soldier Who Killed Herself--After Refusing to Take Part in Torture.

With each new revelation on U.S. torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo, I am reminded of the chilling story of Alyssa Peterson.
.
By Greg Mitchell
.
(April 23, 2009) -- With each new revelation on U.S. torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo (and who, knows, probably elsewhere), I am reminded of the chilling story of Alyssa Peterson, who I have written about numerous times in the past three years but now with especially sad relevance. Appalled when ordered to take part in interrogations that, no doubt, involved what we would call torture, she refused, then killed herself a few days later, in September 2003.
.
Of course, we now know from the torture memos and the U.S. Senate committee probe and various new press reports, that the "Gitmo-izing" of Iraq was happening just at the time Alyssa got swept up in it.
.
Alyssa Peterson was one of the first female soldiers killed in Iraq. A cover-up, naturally, followed.
.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003965876