Regarding what to do with low-level interrogators, UN Rapporteur on Torture provides the answer

[Chuckleberry]

Quite a few people have expressed their opposition to investigating and, (if necessary) prosecuting of CIA officers who tortured detainees acting on orders, arguing that only high-level officers and the DOJ lawyers must be investigated or prosecuted.

This answer seems to have been made clear in an interview released today between Glen Greenwald and the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Manfred Novak.

When asked to cite the legal obligations we are subjected to under international law, Novak said:

"if under the direct jurisdiction of the United States of America, a government official - whether its a high official or a low official or a police officer or military officer, doesn't matter - whoever practices torture shall be brought before an independent criminal court and be held accountable. That is, the torturer, him or herself, but also those who are ordering torture practices, or in any other way participating in the practice of torture. This is a general obligation, and it applies to everybody; there are no exceptions in the Convention."

I would say it is clear that our thoughts about the fairness or unfairness of holding "small fish" takes second place to what the law mandates. Both high and low level individuals caught up in this web have to be held accoutable, because an order from a higher-up is no excuse, according to Article 2 of CAT. (Convention Against Torture), and because the UN officer with the responsibility to handle these types of crime just said it.

The whole transcript of this interview can be found here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/25/nowak/index.html

Update: Allow me to add this other paragraph that further stresses that everyone involved in this is guilty:

NOVAK: I think if there is any kind of amnesty law, or executive order to say that nobody would be prosecuted for the crime of torture, that's a clear violation of the obligation under the Convention Against Torture, even if it's only those who actually tortured upon the command of higher authority; there, Article 2-3 of the Convention is very clear that the fact that somebody tortures on the basis of an order does not relieve him or her of the obligation not to torture. That might then lead to mitigating circumstances if you can prove that you were really in a situation that you just couldn't do differently because you would have had experienced yourself sanctions if you disobeyed this order. It might be mitigating, but it doesn't take away the guilt and the illegality of the torture act by the individual CIA officer or military person or also from private security companies who actually practiced torture in Iraq."

[C_U_L8R]

1. And what happens to those who advocate and promote torture?

say like... Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Scarborough, Brzezinski or Buchanan

[NYC_SKP]

2. Indeed they should be brought before court and held accountable, and...

...as in other investigations and criminal cases, there may be circumstances that mitigate the extent to which they are punished and, indeed, there may be cases in which charges are not even brought.

I would, for example, be willing to work up the chain of command and reward cooperation for those who assist in conducting a more thorough housecleaning.

:patriot:

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Nuremburg Trials - That We Ran - DId Not Alllow "Following Orders" As A Defense

It could only be used in a factor at sentencing.