Should we prosecute torture as a war crime?

DrewDad wrote:

Doesn't change the fact that he deliberately lied. Nice attempt at deflection, though.

Well... not really.

Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying

Quote:

Summary
The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.

Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

* A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
* A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
* Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
* Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said " that Iraq sought uranium " is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.

Huh. I guess that goes back to repeating a lie long enough, you will eventually believe it...

* A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”

* A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.

* Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.

* Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

Quote:

I believe that torture was authorized by senior persons in government agencies, but I doubt that Mr. Bush knowingly authorized anything that I would consider torture.

In order for an act to be prosecutable, you also need to state which law it violates.

This is a good start. Who in the Bush admin authorized this, if it wasn't Bush himself? Why didn't the president know about this?

As for the laws,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-terror/reports-statements-and-issue-briefs/torture-and-the-law/page.do?id=1107981

The acts which make up torture are all clearly illegal, and we are signatories to anti-torture international laws; those laws legally bind us from engaging in torture.

Cycloptichorn

First of all, you cannot prosecute crimes based on saying "it must have been him." To ask who authorized it if it wasn't Mr. Bush is equivalent to saying that you have no evidence that it was him. This is pretty much "game over" all by itself, even if you can prove that the acts were illegal. To prosecute him in court, you have to be able to show that he committed them, that is, authorized them in writing.

Secondly, the eighth amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishments for crimes, and torture for interrogation is not a punishment for a crime. I do not mean this to imply that I personally condone torture. I'm talking about the law.

Finally, the US is certainly not bound to obey Amnesty International, and I doubt that everything the UN passes has the force of law for the US courts.

47. In 1994, Congress enacted a new federal law to implement the requirements of the Convention against Torture relating to acts of torture committed outside United States territory. This law, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2340 et seq., extends United States criminal jurisdiction over any act of (or attempt to commit) torture outside the United States by a United States national or by an alleged offender present in the United States regardless of his or her nationality. The statute adopts the Convention?s definition of torture, consistent with the terms of United States ratification. It permits the criminal prosecution of alleged torturers in federal courts in specified circumstances. [p. 13]

Yeah, I am sure you believe that factcheck.org is wrong. I mean how DARE they disagree with liberal dogma, those bastards.

You sound like one of those 9-11 guys now. Damn any thing that shows that you might be wrong!

What you're suggesting is akin to saying Mob Bosses cannot be tried for murders their subordinates carried out, because hey - they didn't do it themselves. Right?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What you're suggesting is akin to saying Mob Bosses cannot be tried for murders their subordinates carried out, because hey - they didn't do it themselves. Right?

Are we discussing moral responsibility, or are we talking about what can be successfully prosecuted?

Successful prosecutions of mob bosses generally rely on tax evasion or RICO. Proving that they gave the order to have someone whacked is pretty difficult.

McGentrix wrote:

Yeah, I am sure you believe that factcheck.org is wrong. I mean how DARE they disagree with liberal dogma, those bastards.

You sound like one of those 9-11 guys now. Damn any thing that shows that you might be wrong!

Nothing they have listed is backed up with fact, but only assertions from various groups. Can you present any actual facts? Or is it assertion only to support your case?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Yeah, I am sure you believe that factcheck.org is wrong. I mean how DARE they disagree with liberal dogma, those bastards.

You sound like one of those 9-11 guys now. Damn any thing that shows that you might be wrong!

Nothing they have listed is backed up with fact, but only assertions from various groups. Can you present any actual facts? Or is it assertion only to support your case?

Cycloptichorn

You don't find it all odd that you have presented no facts and are using assertion only to dispute what you are arguing against?

My assertions are better then yours, so nyah!

Imagine factcheck.org not actually using any facts... What's the group consensus on factcheck.org these days?

Why don't you point to the part of the Factcheck.org post you linked to and tell us which piece of evidence they gave was, indeed, a fact, and not an assertion. I'd be really interested to see if you have the capability of correctly identifying a fact when asked to do so.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why don't you point to the part of the Factcheck.org post you linked to and tell us which piece of evidence they gave was, indeed, a fact, and not an assertion. I'd be really interested to see if you have the capability of correctly identifying a fact when asked to do so.

Cycloptichorn

Why should I bother? You will only say something to the effect of "Oh sure, you mean the same people that backed Bush into the illegal war and are just covering their asses?" or some other nonsense.

I do not believe that you have either the desire nor integrity to believe anything that I would post rebutting the fact that you believe Bush lied. It wouldn't matter to you as you have it firmly ingrained into your grey matter that Bush lied.

You are quite able to read the link for yourself and determine what the facts are.

But, I doubt they get through the **** colored glasses, or monocle in your case I suppose, you see the world through though.

Quote:

First of all, you cannot prosecute crimes based on saying "it must have been him." To ask who authorized it if it wasn't Mr. Bush is equivalent to saying that you have no evidence that it was him. This is pretty much "game over" all by itself, even if you can prove that the acts were illegal. To prosecute him in court, you have to be able to show that he committed them, that is, authorized them in writing.

This is why I asked whether or not you think the Buck stops at the top. It clearly does. Mr. Bush was responsible for all actions officially sanctioned by the executive branch. As the leader of the Exec branch, he cannot push responsibility onto his subordinates; at the end of the day, it is he who told them what to do and they who did it. That is how the Exec branch works and how the responsibility chain works.

What you're suggesting is akin to saying Mob Bosses cannot be tried for murders their subordinates carried out, because hey - they didn't do it themselves. Right?

Quote:

Secondly, the eighth amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishments for crimes, and torture for interrogation is not a punishment for a crime. I do not mean this to imply that I personally condone torture. I'm talking about the law.

This is immaterial. If we are detaining people illegally and subjecting them to torture without a trial, we are still engaging in the same behaviors which are prohibited. The fact that we have chosen to ignore the law by not trying these people does not give us license to ignore other areas of the law; what you are talking about is a legal dodge that wouldn't last 5 seconds in front of a court.

Quote:

Finally, the US is certainly not bound to obey Amnesty International, and I doubt that everything the UN passes has the force of law for the US courts.

We most certainly are bound to follow the international treaties on torture that we have signed.

I suggest you actually read the AI link I provided, specifically -

Quote:

47. In 1994, Congress enacted a new federal law to implement the requirements of the Convention against Torture relating to acts of torture committed outside United States territory. This law, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2340 et seq., extends United States criminal jurisdiction over any act of (or attempt to commit) torture outside the United States by a United States national or by an alleged offender present in the United States regardless of his or her nationality. The statute adopts the Convention?s definition of torture, consistent with the terms of United States ratification. It permits the criminal prosecution of alleged torturers in federal courts in specified circumstances. [p. 13]

Go look up the law if you don't believe me.

Cycloptichorn

Well, despite the evidence and the logic, you can't prove that Bush authorized torture, so he categorically did not do so.

May 21, 2009
Cheney and the Iraq-Torture Link
By Joe Conason

Defending their record in office these past eight years, figures from the last administration seem especially touchy on the subject of torture. Led by the former vice president, Dick Cheney, they have argued that there was no torture, preferring more vague and delicate terms such as "enhanced interrogation" or simply "the program." They have insisted that any harsh tactics were used only to extract "actionable intelligence" from recalcitrant terrorists in order to save "thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands" of innocent lives.

But now we are learning that those methods, long banned as torture in our own laws and treaties, may well have been employed for a very different and deeply nefarious purpose: to justify the dubious invasion of Iraq by falsely connecting Saddam Hussein's regime to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks.

Even as Republicans in Congress and conservative commentators seek to distract public attention by demanding to know when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi first learned about waterboarding, the disturbing evidence of serious criminality continues to emerge.

A former top aide to Colin Powell recently revealed that a Libyan prisoner was brutalized by Egyptian intelligence agents, at the behest of the Bush White House, until he talked about a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. (That man, who later recanted those statements, which he said had been made under torture, has supposedly killed himself in a prison cell in his homeland, so he is no longer around to offer any inconvenient testimony.)

A pair of retired senior intelligence officials told former NBC News investigative producer Robert Windrem that in April 2003 the vice president's office itself suggested the waterboarding of a former Iraqi intelligence official captured in Baghdad, in order to make him talk about the mythical ties between his government and Al Qaeda. A series of reports have indicated that torture was used to elicit the same false testimony from Abu Zubaydah, an Al Qaeda operative subjected to waterboarding literally dozens of times -- even though he had begun to cooperate with FBI interrogators.

Despite the expected denials of such gross misconduct emanating from the intelligence community, some of the most damning evidence came from Mr. Cheney's own mouth. Back in 2004, according to the McClatchy Newspapers, he boasted to the Rocky Mountain News (a Denver daily that has since ceased publishing) that the fruits of interrogation had vindicated him.

When a Rocky Mountain News reporter asked whether he still stood by earlier statements linking Saddam to the terrorist perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, despite demurrals from Mr. Powell, Mr. Cheney replied: "We know for example from interrogating detainees in Guantanamo that Al Qaeda sent individuals to Baghdad to be trained in C.W. and B.W. technology, chemical and biological weapons technology." He went on to predict that when all of the Saddam regime's records were examined, there would be "ample evidence confirming the link."

Is the only important thing to do to hierarchize who is worst?

Since I do not expect evidence of the contrary to affect your obsessions or your ravings, I doubt any rational debate with you re this is possible...so I guess you will just have to continue with your paranoid beliefs.

People from other countries are quite entitled to comment on a super power which invades countries it thinks cannot resist illegally and acts as a global bully.

to throw the mayor in jail ...

It clearly does. Mr. Bush was responsible for all actions officially sanctioned by the executive branch.

Will you agree that the same thing holds true for the Obama admin?
Is Obama responsible for all actions officially sanctioned by the executive branch?

The US has violated the Geneva Convention and committed war crimes at least as far back as WW2, so if nobody was prosecuted then, why should anyone be prosecuted now?