How in the fuck can we not prosecute these people?

[originalpckelly]

"As we understand it, when the waterboard is used, the subject's body responds as if the subject were drowning -- even though the subject may be well aware that he is in fact not drowning. You have informed us that this procedure does not inflict actual physical harm. Thus, although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain. as we explained in the Section 2340A Memorandum, "pain and suffering" as used in Section 2340 is best understood as a single concept, not distinct concepts of "pain" as distinguished from "suffering".... The waterboard, which inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever, does not, in our view, inflict "severe pain and suffering". Even if one were to parse the stature more "finely" to attempt to treat suffering as a distinct concept, the waterboard could not be said to inflict severe suffering. The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering."

I say we waterboard Jay Bybee and see if he thinks it's suffering. "Controlled acute episode" is the thing that will stick out.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/torture_memo_waterboarding_is_simply_a_controlled_acut.php

We must prosecute these Nazis, if we do not, then we are implying our consent to this. Prosecute Bybee and the torture boys, at the least.

I see no reason why the CIA officers shouldn't be prosecuted either, did they not see the people who were being tortured suffering?

These people being tortured weren't even convicted of crimes, but even if they had been, there is a prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" in the US Constitution, and that applies to all criminals. It doesn't say except for people we really don't like.

Doubt is important to understand, as time goes on there is more doubt the CIA's accuracy in targeting people for torture, and less doubt about the culpability of their staff and the people who told them it was legal to torture.

[Taverner]

1. The fact that we are even seeing these memos...in our lifetime...amazes me

I would much rather know what happened, than revenge on some fuckwad in "The Company"

[originalpckelly]

2. Then we're sending a message that anyone can do anything...

so long as we find out about it in the long run. There is no reason whatsoever that prosecution and disclosure could have occurred.

I guess that's what we believe in.

It's OK to torture people, just so long as we find out about it after it's too late to do anything to stop it.

[Taverner]

6. When have intel agencies ever been able to NOT do anything?

We have let our country dig itself so deep into a hole, and we are complaining there's no elevator yet...

[originalpckelly]

8. So let me get this right...

Bobby CIA in the past jumped off a bridge, so Johnny CIA of the last 8 years can too?

[Taverner]

9. OK who has been in Commander in Chief since JFK?

LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II. None of those men did anything to strip power from that rogue agency. If we are going to do this, it won't happen overnight. The CIA has just become more and more powerful.

Read up on their history - and keep in mind the old adage "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Specifally pay attention to James Jesus Angelton aka "Mother"

[originalpckelly]

12. OK, I think I misunderstoodifcated you...

Sorry, no issue here, we both agree.

[Nihil]

30. And, with the possible exception of Carter, they all benefited from the "relationship".

> LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II.
> None of those men did anything to strip power from that rogue agency.

Sometimes the answer is hidden in clear view.

[nichomachus]

10. You've got a point, but

we thought we had nailed that problem down (of course we hadn't).

The problem in this case is that the order to torture came from the president of the United States and his staff. This wasn't some rogue action by a CIA agent. It was done with official approbation at the top -- in fact, so official that we're not going to prosecute the agents who did it, under the argument that they were told to do it by the president and his henchmen.

The difference, in a much more trivial analogy, is between your kid going to the store and shoplifting something (which is bad) and your ordering your kid to go to the store and steal stuff (which is a lot lot worse).

[Taverner]

13. Prosecute Bush, Prosecute Rummy, Prosecute Cheney, Prosecute Gonzo

That would be much more of a message than going after folks in a "My Lai" fashion (read: going after the footsoldiers)

And Obama NEVER took that off the table.

[originalpckelly]

CIA agents are not footsoldiers.

These people are intelligent, you don't draft someone into the CIA like Nazi soldiers were drafted. There is no comparison, these people are well trained, and they cannot be tricked and lied to like a soldier who's had little world experience. And even American soldiers are pretty worldly these days, this is not 1930s Germany, there is mass media and widespread education about the horrors of torture, and why it's wrong. All they had to do was watch a history channel program in the 90s, when we were still decrying torture.

[Taverner]

19. In the grand scheme of things, yes they are

And the "Company" protects its own

[originalpckelly]

25. I don't recall the death camps being the idea of the foot soldiers themselves.

That's what you'd have to believe in order for this to be true.

[Taverner]

26. No they were Rummy's idea

[nichomachus]

16. I agree

[appal_jack]

29. I support prosecutions ONLY if they begin at the top.

I support prosecutions ONLY if they begin at the top. Begin with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Yoo. They created the climate of torture and abuse; they must be held accountable first. otherwise, we get the show trials and fall guys, a la Lindy-whats-her-name after Abu Ghraib. What was she, like a Private? Bad apples my ass, this fish rotted from the head.

While the practices of the individual CIA officers who conducted torture are reprehensible, they were given orders by a president who had the support of Congress. We can all talk about the need to refuse illegal orders, and the Geneva Conventions, and universal human rights, but the pressure on mid-level workers are enormous. Very few of us (and even probably even fewer of those in a hierarchical organization like the CIA) have the guts to refuse an order that seems lawful (remember: orders given by a president who had the support of Congress). Add career goals, a mortgage, family obligations, etc., and how are these officers supposd to buck the groupthink and herd mentality? Anyone who refused would have been summarily fired, forced into silence, and then the job would be done by the next in line.

Hold those at the top accountable!

-app

[polichick]

3. imo the top brass MUST be prosecuted.

[Supersedeas]

15. Bybee, Yoo, Bradbury, and Rizzo need to be questioned publically and under oath

[democrank]

4. Good question.

PROSECUTE!

[AndyA]

5. Someone could have suffered a heart attack due to the stress of being waterboarded.

This is clearly, in my opinion, torture.

I think the only way anyone could come to a conclusion that it wasn't torture would be to personally undergo the treatment themselves. It's my understanding those who have had this done to them universally agree it's torture.

This is not America. The people who compromised our country's standards must be prosecuted for their actions.

[originalpckelly]

7. They must be prosecuted, or Obama and his crew own this.

This is much worse than Watergate, and to let these people get away with it, would be like pardoning Richard Nixon.

[smoogatz]

11. I think Obama's probably doing the right thing.

These guys got orders directly from the White House. The people who gave the orders are the ones we should go after. You don't want to completely hobble and demoralize your intelligence service in wartime.

[originalpckelly]

14. The fact that he'd even compromise on this basically destroys what respect I had left for him.

He's doing the RIGHT thing alright, the RIGHTWING thing. He's like President Ford, only instead of pardoning some asshole who covered up covert bugging/ratfucking of a political campaign, he's giving a pass to people who tortured other human beings. I'd take ten Watergates over one torturegate.

There is no debate here. They will all be prosecuted, or immunity only given to forward the prosecution of bigger fish. Anything else compromises Obama's waning credibility.

[smoogatz]

23. Finding the right balance between principle and pragmatism

may be harder if you're the guy who's actually calling the shots. If you effectively gut the CIA and there's another attack, you're responsible.

[dionysus]

31. you never had any respect for him. you're just whining like usual.

i'm glad he makes you so miserable.

[Political Heretic]

17. Either Team Obama prosecutes torture or Team Obama is complicit in torture.

[originalpckelly]

18. I'm glad other DUers still have integrity.

Torture is not a progressive or Democratic party value, I'd like to see when that was added to the platform. Ignoring torture shouldn't be either.

[Johonny]

24. I have to agree

I believe most likely the individual CIA agents would get off as a jury would be heavily influenced by the fact the DOJ clearly pushed that these practices were ok and that the agency was trying to follow best practice. However don't you have to try to prosecute these people? I can't believe any jury would have sympathy for the people that actually should have known better and allowed these practices to occur anyways. The leadership has to be held responsible.

[Oilwellian]

28. There's only one problem with your hypothesis

The CIA was torturing long before the memos were issued.

[pleah]

20. Prosecute ALL of them, because they ALL took part in this disgrace.

Prosecutions and nothing less.

[biopowertoday]

21. Obama's logic is to Move forward. He has been and refuses

to go forward with prosecutions of the past.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Ok. But all prosecuted crims happened in the past

So why are people jailed today for smoking a joint in the past? And the prosecution are not 'of the past' they are prosecutions of actions taken by human beings of free will.

[spanone]

22. looks like President Obama is gonna leave it up to congress to act

[bdamomma]

27. go here now ACLU

https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=Nat_Petition_SpecialProsecutor&s_src=UNW090001ACT&s_subsrc=homepage&JServSessionIdr009=yunb0p16j2.app23a

[sarcasmo]

33. The Federal Government of the United States of America is above the local laws.

Obama will NOT prosecute, it just won't happen.