Torturegate

[Dan~]

The manifestations of human stupidity are never-ending.

We tend to blame intelligence for crimes and wrong-doing, because of the whole free-will idea.
But if suffering mainly comes from poor little weakness itself,
And from the impulsive choiceless non-freedom of the mental poverty which we all share,
Then what?

Wars dont happen because everyone is being smart and choosing morals.
The idea that shooting people is saving lives, is sophism.

In the end we get a few slaps in the face which dont make us any smarter.
Civil justice can be reduced to the most infantile essence of the discharge of a mindless frustration.

[Faust]

There was no "must" involved. They freely undertook an unnecessary war that had nothing to do with an immanent threat. You have already admitted that yourself.

Again, do you really think that Bush and Cheney are going to take the fall for this? I was speaking about everyone else involved.

Who is this "we"? It never included me.

Nor me. I was against this war before it started. But the electorate spoke - and even re-elected Bush after it was abundantly clear that this was not going to be a Saturday night beat-down, but a real war, where hundreds of thousands would die over nothing.

Therefore, a war should not be entered into lightly. These civilian leaders who have spent their lifetimes avoiding danger had no qualms about sending other people's children into combat from which they and their cronies would profit. Same as it ever was.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Right. Bush used to say "We're working hard for you" repeatedly so it must be true. Only he set a record for the most time a president spent on vacation let alone during war time. As for Cheney, and Rumsfeld, Rice etc.they were doing the heavy lifting pushing toy soldiers around on a map in the war room. My heart goes out to them.

But even they are not going to take the heat for this, just as they took no real heat for Abu Ghraib.

Well that's YOUR lawn. In what metaphorical sense are we talking about YOUR lawn?

It was, I believe, my apathy you were referring to.

I don't disagree with your sentiments, felix. I just don't want to see a bunch of congresspeople clogging up Cnn for a year and a half, grandstanding for the folks at home (who were, at one time, all about kicking some towelhead ass), just to see soldiers who were doing their jobs stripped of their honor, freedom, and/or retirements.

[Liteninbolt]

Liz Cheney, Defends Her Father's Torture Policies

[Peter Kropotkin]

Faust:
I don't disagree with your sentiments, felix. I just don't want to see a bunch of congresspeople clogging up Cnn for a year and a half, grandstanding for the folks at home (who were, at one time, all about kicking some towelhead ass), just to see soldiers who were doing their jobs stripped of their honor, freedom, and/or retirements."

K: and no one is talking about soldiers getting the shaft either. The responsibility and blame always goes to the leadership of any
organization. And the blame here belongs squarely on bush, Chaney, rumsfeld.
as far as congresspeople clogging up CNN, that is what they do best anyway, might as well give them a reason to clog it up.

Kropotkin

[Faust]

But Bush and Cheney will enjoy their multi-million dollar retirements without penalty either way. They will pay no price. Democrats and liberals will be able to say: "They got away with it legally, but we sure embarrassed them!"

Big deal.

[felix dakat]

Liz Cheney, Defends Her Father's Torture Policies

Right, no family bias there. Like her father, Liz argues that the extreme techniques Cheney approved were acceptable because of the valuable information produced. Humorist Tom Bodett compared that argument to a shoplifter who upon getting caught is accused of stealing. His reply: “Well, call it what you want but look at all this great stuff I got.” It's the old "the ends justifies the means" argument. I'm sure Dick is proud of Liz as would be Machiavelli if he were alive.

[felix dakat]

But Bush and Cheney will enjoy their multi-million dollar retirements without penalty either way. They will pay no price. Democrats and liberals will be able to say: "They got away with it legally, but we sure embarrassed them!"

Big deal.

Cynically you may be right. But I will do what I can to prevent that outcome by continuing to support such legal actions are available to hold them accountable.

[d0rkyd00d]

I don't know if I buy the, "We become barbarians by torturing barbaric criminals," line.

[felix dakat]

I don't know if I buy the, "We become barbarians by torturing barbaric criminals," line.

We become barbaric by torturing a rabid pit bull or a child eating alligator, or an insect. How much more are we barbaric if we torture a human being? There is no justification for cruelty except that it is part of the natural repetoire of animal behavior. Humans acting purely as animals are barbarians.

[felix dakat]

Why We Must Prosecute
Torture Is a Breach Of International Law

By Mark J. McKeon
Tuesday, April 28, 2009

On Sept. 11, 2001, when the twin towers were hit, I was sitting in a meeting in The Hague discussing what should be included in an indictment against Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes in Bosnia. I was an American lawyer serving as a prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and there was no doubt that Milosevic should be indicted for his responsibility for the torture and cruel treatment of prisoners. As the head of state at the time those crimes were committed, Milosevic bore ultimate responsibility for what happened under his watch.

While at The Hague, I felt myself standing in a long line of American prosecutors working for a world where international standards restricted what one nation could do to another during war, stretching back to at least Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg trials. Those standards protected our own soldiers and citizens. They were also moral and right. So I didn't understand why, a few months after the attacks in 2001, the Bush administration withdrew its consent to joining the International Criminal Court. Wasn't accountability for war crimes one of the things America stood for? Although staying with the court did mean that the United States would be subject to being charged in that court, how likely was that to happen? Surely we would never do these things. And, in any event, the court could only assume jurisdiction over a person whose own government refused to prosecute him; surely, that would never happen in the United States.


And yet, seven years later, here we are debating whether we should hold senior Bush administration officials accountable for things they have done in the "war on terror."

In 2001 and the following few years, we at the international tribunal built a strong court case against Milosevic. We presented evidence that he had effective control over soldiers and paramilitaries who tortured prisoners, and did worse. We brought into court reports of atrocities that had been delivered to Milosevic by international organizations to show his knowledge of what was happening under his command. And we watched as other heads of state were indicted for similar crimes, including Charles Taylor in Liberia and, of course, Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

At the same time, I watched with horror the changes that were happening back home. The events are now well known: Abu Ghraib; Guantanamo; secret "renditions" of prisoners to countries where interrogators were not afraid to get rough; secret CIA prisons where there appeared to be no rules. I tried to answer, as best I could, the questions from my international colleagues at The Hague about what was happening in and to my country. But as each revelation topped the last, I soon found myself without words.

I hope that the United States has turned the page on those times and is returning to the values that sustained our country for so many years. But we cannot expect to regain our position of leadership in the world unless we hold ourselves to the same standards that we expect of others. That means punishing the most senior government officials responsible for these crimes. We have demanded this from other countries that have returned from walking on the dark side; we should expect no less from ourselves.

To say that we should hold ourselves to the same standards of justice that we applied to Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein is not to say that the level of our leaders' crimes approached theirs. Thankfully, there is no evidence of that. And yet, torture and cruel treatment are as much violations of international humanitarian law as are murder and genocide. They demand a judicial response. We cannot expect the rest of humanity to live in a world that we ourselves are not willing to inhabit.

The writer was a prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia from 2001 to 2004 and a senior prosecutor from 2004 to 2006.

[Faust]

Cynically you may be right. But I will do what I can to prevent that outcome by continuing to support such legal actions are available to hold them accountable.

Oh. You'll prevent that outcome. The real bad guys will suffer, and the people doing as they were told will be okay.

I'm glad you're there, felix. I feel a whole lot better about it, now.

[felix dakat]

Cynically you may be right. But I will do what I can to prevent that outcome by continuing to support such legal actions are available to hold them accountable.

Oh. You'll prevent that outcome. The real bad guys will suffer, and the people doing as they were told will be okay.

I'm glad you're there, felix. I feel a whole lot better about it, now.

Ha! I'm not saying I will prevent your predicted outcome. But if we all do nothing, your prediction is more likely to be fulfilled. I am doing what I can. As individuals most of us cannot accomplish much on a national political level. One way to increase one's political impact is to participate the work of a organization who's views you support. I don't agree with MoveOn about everything, but I think they got it right on this petition.

[felix dakat]

"Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, has testified to Congress that more than 100 detainees died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, with up to 27 of those declared homicides by the military. They were allegedly kicked to death, shot, suffocated or drowned. Look, our people killed detainees, and only a handful of those deaths have resulted in any punishment of U.S. officials."

Source: Tom Friedman, New York Times

[Faust]

A few more were killed by gunfire, rocketfire, air-to-ground missiles, tanks - it's a war. Once you're dead, it doesn't matter how you died.

I am not understanding how this point seems unimportant to you, felix.

[felix dakat]

A few more were killed by gunfire, rocketfire, air-to-ground missiles, tanks

Were they? How do you know?

It's a war.

Is torture and murder OK when you call it "war"? I don't think so.

I am not understanding how this point seems unimportant to you, felix.

I don't understand why labeling violent acts as "war" justifies the suspension of ethics or morality. That seems like a semantic game and double-speak to me.

For sure, the ruling elite engage in that game, want people to accept the game, and through the use of powerful propaganda tools have persuaded much of the American people to accept the game. Thus, they kill masses of innocent civilians under the sematic cover of "collateral damage" and people accept that that's the way it has to be. I don't.

[Faust]

Well, all those Iraqis that we have killed in the course of this war, as you mention. I mean just your average, everyday combat operations. You know, Iraqi soldiers. Iraqi women. Iraqi children. What is your moral justification for this? National defense?

My question is "How are the deaths of a few detainees of a different moral character from all those other deaths?"

It's as if you want to prosecute a serial killer for theft because he took the wallet of one of his victims.

[felix dakat]

Well, all those Iraqis that we have killed in the course of this war, as you mention. I mean just your average, everyday combat operations. You know, Iraqi soldiers. Iraqi women. Iraqi children. What is your moral justification for this? National defense?

I have stated that I was against the invasion of Iraq before it occurred and have remained so. Why would I justify the killing of innocent civilians in Iraq?

My question is "How are the deaths of a few detainees of a different moral character from all those other deaths?"

I don't know if there is a difference. Most of the detainees were never tried. For all we know they may not have committed any crime.

[felix dakat]

In his book, Torture Team, British attorney Philippe Sands makes a case that high-ranking members of the Bush administration were responsible for instituting harsh interrogation tactics against detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Sands' book played a role in the Spanish court's recent decision to investigate the role six Bush Administration officials played in creating the legal framework for harsh tactics. The officials under investigation are: former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; David Addington, chief of staff and the principal legal adviser to Vice-President Dick Cheney; John Yoo, a former Justice Department lawyer; Douglas Feith, former Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy; and lawyers Jim Haynes and Jay Bybee.

Sands is an international lawyer at the firm Matrix Chambers, and a professor and director of the Centre of International Courts and Tribunals at University College London.

Source: Terry Gross, Fresh Air, NPR

[Faust]

My problem is this - why should the torture be the crime, and not the war itself? What is so special about torture?

[Xunzian]

Can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Move-On and other similar organizations have called for pressing charges regarding the war. But they never caught on with the average American voter, despite how unpopular the war has become. Going against torture, on the other hand, has gained some momentum.

We arrested Capone on tax evasion charges, but we arrested him and punished him. The other option was to let Capone go free.

[felix dakat]

My problem is this - why should the torture be the crime, and not the war itself? What is so special about torture?

The war was a crime. Who is saying it wasn't?

[Peter Kropotkin]

Faust: My problem is this - why should the torture be the crime, and not the war itself? What is so special about torture?"

K: I have stated this time and time again, it is in violation of the Geneva convention to which we agreed to, which meant
we not only violated national law, but international law. National law because treaties agreed to must pass the senate and be signed by
the president which gives them the force of national law. International law because the Geneva convention is part of international law
agreed to by over 100 nations.

Kropotkin

[Faust]

Peter - here's the fist five items of Ch I Art. 2 of the UN charter:

# The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
# All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
# All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
# All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
# All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

Which of these did we not violate in attacking Iraq? Either of us could fine maybe one hundred provisions of treaties and agreements that the US is signatory to that were violated the minute we first attacked Iraq.

So I ask again - what's so special about torture?

[Peter Kropotkin]

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

HJ 114 EH

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 2002.

Attest:

Clerk.

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

K: I tried to pull out the important paragraphs. Bush lied about the reasons for the war, which makes it an illegal war, the problem
is, who would prosecute? I would prosecute bush in a second for an illegal war if I could get somebody to go for it, but no one wants to
go there because countries want the option to go to war without being prosecuted. The torture question is easier because it doesn't
involve a whole country, it just takes the prosecution of about 10 people and it is far easier to prove.

Kropotkin

[d0rkyd00d]

I don't know if I buy the, "We become barbarians by torturing barbaric criminals," line.

We become barbaric by torturing a rabid pit bull or a child eating alligator, or an insect. How much more are we barbaric if we torture a human being? There is no justification for cruelty except that it is part of the natural repetoire of animal behavior. Humans acting purely as animals are barbarians.

Rabid pitbulls are not conscious of their decisions, nor do they have possibly important and life saving information. Your metaphor is way off.