Okay. Enough is Enough, Bring on the Truth Commissions.

@ebrown p,

There are already mechanisms in place to deal with people who have violated the law. Setting up a special commission to do the job of Federal prosecutors and grand juries is certainly a case of institutionalizing a witch hunt. No amount of emotive special pleading about torture will change the fact that the way to deal with this is to use existing institutions, and to accept, as is all to often the case, that those whom we consider responsible may get away with it.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown is right setanta, no matter how it all turns out and even if it goes as you predict, at least the information will be released and out there to sorted through by the people (us and anyone else concerned or interested). Unless the the 'truth commission' will be limited by so called concerns for either our security or the effect it will have on our military members. We are only as good as a our actions and if we did wrong, it needs to be brought out into the light of the day and let the chips fall all over the place in any haphazard manner. If we are going to do it, then people need to let them know we want it done all the way or not at all in my opinion. We need a bunch of fitzgeralds to run it with a complete free reign to run it as they see fit without regard to political or security concerns. I mean I don't see how letting the truth of which everyone already suspects be known will make anyone less secure including our military members. (whatever word to use there) It is not as though other countries do not suspect all this right now anyway. In my view this idea of a truth commission is more for information for us now and to be into the history books for generations to come without hidden facts manipulated by those in our government or the military. All this talk of "witch hunts" is just so much huey, it is no more a witch hunt than was the Iran contra hearings.

0 Replies

Are you suggesting that this story has no legs? Are you suggesting that we need to tie up the time of government officials, and to waste millions of dollars in lean times to air a story which already gets daily press.

Those among us here who get all indignant over such issues seem to me to think that journalists don't do their jobs, and that Federal prosecutors and grand juries can't. Color me unconvinced.

The Iran-Contra hearings were an investigation of a violation of the law passed by Congress, and it yielded successful prosecutions. If that were what were being proposed here, i'd consider that a good use of politicians' time and taxpayers' money. But this is just a proposal for a witch hunt.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

We waste money on lots so of stuff and we will continue to so so regardless of the state of our economy. Getting all the facts to the torture memos and other Bush era practices is a good thing. I just hope it gets followed through but I have my doubts and even if it does, probably will not be complete and then it would be a waste of time and money. If you disagree, fine. shrugs.

0 Replies

If this were a proposal for hearings the purpose of which were to seek indictments, then i'd consider it money well spent. Such mechanisms already exist. The press is getting the story out there every day. Your remarks suggest that we don't know and can't know what actually happened, which i consider ridiculous. If you disagree, fine. <shrugs>

1 Reply

@Setanta,

The press may be getting the story out there everyday, but it is piecemeal and limited to security concerns. I would like those concerns taken out to be able to get the whole picture of who did what and who knew what and when and if any of those policies were against established rules of engagement which we have always held to (ideally.)

0 Replies

Congressional hearings, such as were held over the Watergate break-in, and the Iran-Contra affair can accomplish this without an extraordinary commission, which would function like a circus trial. Both of those sets of hearings yielded prosecutions, and the former brought down the only President ever to have resigned. I disagree with your claims about the story the press is getting out, and i would point out to you that both the Watergate hearings and the Iran-Contra hearings were spawned by daily reports in the press.

To read what you, and DTOM and E_Brown are writing, one would think that this was a little known scandal which is being ignored. You may disagree, fine.

<Yawns, shrugs, scratches ass, goes looking for another cup of coffee . . . >

1 Reply

@Setanta,

If you think a congressional hearing would work better, fine, as long as those who may have known what those policies were but didn't raise any objections don't try to hide the fact and since they will be in charge, at the very least, they will probably have conflict of interest. But by all means go scratch and get some coffee. I have been up for hours and am fixing to go out and go shopping and listen to my Cd's in the car...so you won't have to suffer my pontificating posts. (I am aware of how tiresome I can be most of the time, not begging to be reassured, merely acknowledging how I come off) Maybe if the press keeps pressing on (no pun intended) and keeps digging with the freedom of information act, and someone really good puts it all together of who knew what and when and if any of it was against the established rules (I am not quite 100% about all that); that would be enough for me; unless there were clear laws broken and people to be held account for making those unlawful policies. Even though in the past it is said that people just following rules are not excused, my own personal feelings is that they shouldn't be held accountable for only following rules from those with the highest power in the country. Well, I have said all I can say, and in the end I might of very well came around to your point of view, sort of. I still don't think it would be witch hunt and I still would like to know who knew and did what.

0 Replies

I would also want to know what the truth is:

l. Did the Admininstration approve "torture". If so, what was the rationale and who gave that rationale.

2. Was Los Angeles saved from attack bsed on findings allegedly revealed after terrorists were waterboarded?

1 Reply

@genoves,

Quote:

2. Was Los Angeles saved from attack bsed on findings allegedly revealed after terrorists were waterboarded?

According to the stories I have read, the information was obtained before he was water boarded But even if he did and the information proved credible and prevented an attack, it is still not excusable. Either we have rules and abide by them in times of stress and danger (is easy to abide them in times of safety)or else the rules are superfluous.

Quote:

There’s a plethora of new finds in the memos released yesterday on Central Intelligence Agency interrogations. We spotted one in footnote #28 on page 31 of a May 30, 2005, memo from the Department of Justice, where the DOJ admits that waterboarding of a detainee may have been used unnecessarily “on at least one occasion.”

The CIA’s inability to figure out which detainees had useful information “may have resulted in what might be deemed in retrospect to have been the unnecessary use of enhanced techniques,” the partially redacted footnote states.

The memo goes on to describe the waterboarding of alleged al Qaeda commander Abu Zubaydah. “On that occasion, although the on-scene interrogation team judged Zubaydah to be compliant, elements within CIA Headquarters still believed he was withholding information,” the footnote states. After a one-line redaction, the footnote continues, “At the direction of CIA Headquarters, interrogators therefore used the waterboard one more time on Zubaydah.”

The balance of the footnote describes why the decision to waterboard Mr. Zubaydah was still legal, even if it may have been unnecessary. To be illegal, it says, an enhanced interrogation technique must be unjustified by any government interest or show “deliberate indifference” to the possibility of unjustified injury.

In this case, the CIA “reasonably believed” Mr. Zubaydah was withholding important information that might help protect the U.S. against terror attacks, says the memo, so it was acceptable to waterboard him even though the belief was later proved false. The memo is signed by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury.

source

(the footnote appears to be added by someone who believes water boarding to be legal, so is obviously not biased officer out with an agenda.)

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

OK, answer this.

How far back do you want to go?
How far into previous admins do you want to investigate?
Kennedy?
Johnson?
Eisenhower?

If you want to do it, then lets do it right.

Why do you insist that we have to go back in time to prosecute previous administrations in order to hold the last one accountable? Did we go back to investigate Kennedy's blow jobs when we investigated Clinton's? Where is it written that in order to hold people accountable for their crimes we must first ensure that all previous crimes of a similar nature committed ever in our history must first be investigated? We know about these. We have evidence. We should take it to its natural and legal conclusion. There is no excuse not to.

0 Replies

@genoves,

Your ability to argue the most trivial thing never ceases to amaze me.

0 Replies

A lot of people are arguing that what is right must equate to what is legal. For the most part, that would seem to make sense. In this case, it does not. Obviously, a lot of people believe that waterboarding must be illegal because it is not right and that was simply not the case.

That is why the Bush administration went to its teams of lawyers and congress and sought out advice and the legal ramifications of the actions before using the enhanced interrogation techniques that they used. What will a "truth commission" actually show? That 3 illegal combatants, as they are not prisoners of war and not prisoners of the state, were water boarded and that as a result, actionable intelligence was recovered. There is the truth so what will the commission prove beyond that?

There is a lot of outcry that waterboarding is not right and that we should not do it. There is also a lot of outcry that abortion is not right and that we should not do it. Why is one moral value superior to another? I do not feel that moral objection is the way to make law and our country can not be held hostage to one groups moral ethics. The law needs to be above such personal objections.

I am sure that there will be objections to this, but ask yourself if you want this investigation because of politics or because you are a serious student of law and seek justice for the 3 terrorists. My guess is that it is strictly politics. You didn't like Bush or his administration and you want to see them punished.

4 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

What will a "truth commission" actually show? That 3 illegal combatants, as they are not prisoners of war and not prisoners of the state, were water boarded and that as a result, actionable intelligence was recovered. There is the truth so what will the commission prove beyond that?

If that is what it shows, then so be it.

Hint - based on the information we have so far, it won't show that at all.

There are some things that it will show and hopefully prevent in the future. Yes, the Bush administration went to lawyers. Those lawyers are currently under investigation for violating their oath with the very real possibility they could be disbarred. That gives the Bush administration some cover. They got bad legal advice. But it should help future administrations get better legal advice. Don't you think we would want at least that much McG?

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix,

1. Torture is illegal (I don't think anyone disagrees with this).

The question is whether waterboarding is torture. Bush lawyers went out of their way to say no. If these lawyers crossed the line to justify waterboarding-- that would be illegal too.

But the key question is whether waterboarding is torture.

2. My concern is for my country (not for the terrorists). As a citizen of the US, I have the right to demand that my government behave in a way that is moral-- this means not using torture.

My concern for my country is the reason I feel that the question of whether my government justified torture is so important.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

A lot of people are arguing that what is right must equate to what is legal. For the most part, that would seem to make sense. In this case, it does not. Obviously, a lot of people believe that waterboarding must be illegal because it is not right and that was simply not the case.

Firstly, waterboarding is not the only "enhanced technique" that we used and that was approved. Don't forget forced nudity combined with extreme temperatures and stress positions (called torture when used on John McCain). Secondly, waterboarding is torture and torture is illegal. The Bush administration went to its lawyers and asked them to write a legal opinion that would make torture legal. They complied. Those opinions are completely absurd and should at least get the lawyers who wrote them disbarred.

Quote:

What will a "truth commission" actually show? That 3 illegal combatants, as they are not prisoners of war and not prisoners of the state, were water boarded and that as a result, actionable intelligence was recovered. There is the truth so what will the commission prove beyond that?

That torture is illegal under US law regardless of who the victim is. That even the absurd guidelines for torture that were set by the Justice Department were violated by the CIA and possibly the military. That people died from being tortured. That actionable intelligence was gained by the FBI in at least one case using traditional interrogation techniques. That torture was used to obtain evidence of a non-existent connection between Al-Qaida and Iraq in order to bolster a case for war.

But I actually agree somewhat with Set and think this should all go through normal justice channels of being federally prosecuted. I just hope that all of the facts are released to the people so that we can see just how far from American values the last administration steered us, and so that it doesn't happen again.

Quote:

I am sure that there will be objections to this, but ask yourself if you want this investigation because of politics or because you are a serious student of law and seek justice for the 3 terrorists. My guess is that it is strictly politics. You didn't like Bush or his administration and you want to see them punished.

The reason I didn't like Bush or his administration is exactly this. I'm no student of the law but I believe in American values and in justice and in the rule of law. I seek justice for everyone who was tortured -- you cannot seriously believe it was isolated to 3 terrorism suspects. I want this to never, ever, happen again in my name. That's probably too much to ask but I can at least hope that no elected government of our will ever again institute a policy of torture.

0 Replies

Anyone who actually believes that we only tortured 3 people is a goddamn moron. I mean, what is wrong with you people? You honestly believe lie after lie coming from the Bush crowd, no amount of backsliding on their positions EVER makes you question the new one?!!?!

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyc lops wrote:

Anyone who actually believes that we only tortured 3 people is a goddamn moron. I mean, what is wrong with you people? You honestly believe lie after lie coming from the Bush crowd, no amount of backsliding on their positions EVER makes you question the new one?!!?!

Cycloptichorn

DO YOU HAVE A LINK OR WHERE YOU THERE TO PERSONALLY SUPERVISE?

0 Replies

ebrown p wrote-

2. My concern is for my country (not for the terrorists). As a citizen of the US, I have the right to demand that my government behave in a way that is moral-- this means not using torture.
end of quote

Good for you, ebrownp. It's nice to know that morality hasn't been expunged completely in the USA.

But I( a citizen like you) also want to demand that my government behave in a way that is moral--this means not allowing abortions on demand.
I stand with 52% of fellow Americans( see latest polls) in my demand.

It's nice to feel moral, isn't it, ebrownp?

0 Replies

Parados wrote:

There are some things that it will show and hopefully prevent in the future. Yes, the Bush administration went to lawyers. Those lawyers are currently under investigation for violating their oath with the very real possibility they could be disbarred. That gives the Bush administration some cover. They got bad legal advice. But it should help future administrations get better legal advice. Don't you think we would want at least that much McG? .
********************************************

Paradox does not know that NOONE will be disbarred. No lawyer working for the Obuma administration would dare to write an opinion which might be viewed by a future adminstration as one which was POLITICALLY intolerable.

*************************************************************

I think you are highly excrementatious when you say that the lawyers VIOLATED THEIR OATHS. Do you have a link or is that comment just verbal flatulence?

1 Reply

Okay. Enough is Enough, Bring on the Truth Commissions.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know