Barack Obama hints that George Bush 'torture lawyers' may be prosecuted

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i wonder what they will be charged with?

Violating the relevant sections of the Geneva convention to which US is signatory and has incorporated into CFR - for one.

where in the CFR? is there a criminal statute involved? is there a part of the geneva convention providing for criminal penalties?

The US signed the geneva convention in 1882.


According to the Supremacy Clause all treaties signed by the US become the law of the land.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: SirStev0
Why would they be charged? They were under orders. The problem with this country is we have no problem beating up on the people doing their jobs, yet the people making the orders are old asshole buddies so we can't touch them.

not that I don't disagree with you, but unfortunately, with the precedent set by the Nuremburg trials, just "following orders" is no longer an acceptable excuse.

In a system like the military, those who follow orders should not be prosecuted. Those who gave immoral or illegal orders should. That's how I've always felt, from the members of the SS to the Abu Ghaib prison scandal.

Your position leads to too much wrongdoing. If you want to prevent the next holocaust, or lesser but still immoral problem, you need to expand, not contract, responsibility.

One problem though, absent a more universal role for the Hague, is the inconsistent, 'might makes right' application where only the losers are held responsible.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I haven't read these memos but from what I understand the lawyers would simply write 'Based on THIS I believe you can legally do THAT'. Someone can go to jail for misinterpreting something they read? Disbarred? Yeah... but jail? Really?

I'm actually with Cheney for once too. If you're going to release one half of the story you might as well release the other half to show just what 'good' came out of this 'bad'.

Dick is full of shit. If these memos existed he would have declassified them and made copies before leaving office.

I don't agree - he may well have decided that both sets of memos were better left classified for his own interests, and hoped they would be.

Only now that the more incriminating memos are released, does it become worthwhile to him to look for anything he can try to use in his defense.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Europeans usually try to do that stuff with poorer countries that they think they can colonize with brutal methods. It would be especially ridiculous for Spain to do it considering what they do in their own country to migrants and separatists. If it goes forward, hopefully Obama would retaliate against any European aggression.

Spain waterboards migrants? We know you're an ignorant Europe-hater, but do you even know where Spain is? Are you confusing it with Texas, perhaps? Spain has one of the most liberal immigrant policies, so much that they antagonized the EU (which could tell you something if you weren't a closed-minded bigot).

Spain did what one of Bush's ideological fathers (Pinochet) thought never would happen: he got indicted, arrested and humiliated and died despised by everyone. Sure, it took some time, but it happened in the end. Many people hope that this is what would happen eventually to Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and company. You can bet that a lot of the Bush junta are now looking over their shoulders when they travel, or don't travel at all (like some Israeli generals).

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: SirStev0
Why would they be charged? They were under orders. The problem with this country is we have no problem beating up on the people doing their jobs, yet the people making the orders are old asshole buddies so we can't touch them.

not that I don't disagree with you, but unfortunately, with the precedent set by the Nuremburg trials, just "following orders" is no longer an acceptable excuse.

In a system like the military, those who follow orders should not be prosecuted. Those who gave immoral or illegal orders should. That's how I've always felt, from the members of the SS to the Abu Ghaib prison scandal.

Your position leads to too much wrongdoing. If you want to prevent the next holocaust, or lesser but still immoral problem, you need to expand, not contract, responsibility.

One problem though, absent a more universal role for the Hague, is the inconsistent, 'might makes right' application where only the losers are held responsible.

The problem is that humanity is predisposed to follow authority. And if one person won't follow orders, another will. You think the SS was short of guards? Of course not. There were many conscientious objectors to guarding the concentration camps and yet the SS found enough people to fully staff each concentration camp. Those objectors didn't face ridiculous punishments either, at least if they were Aryan.

The same would go for any hierarchal system. When the orders come from up top, there will always be grunts to follow the orders. It's the same wherever you are, whether it's a law firm sandbagging a client, a corporation telling a middle-manager to lay off thousands, the military telling grunts to torture suspects or the Schultzstaffel telling men to oversee these prisoners. Unfortunately, moral authority has to come from the top, if it's corrupted there, then there is nothing you can do about the rest of the structure.