Reply #133: Absolutely. Why do you think we apply the ultimate penalty to. . .

[pat_k]

. . .those who subject a person in the custody of the state to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment? Presumably, the risk of life in prison, or of being put to death if the abused person happens to die, would be enough to motivate a reasonable person to "Just Say No" to any act that may even "questionably" qualify as cruel, inhumane or degrading.

Suppose a murderer had been told by a crazy lawyer that the particular type of murder they intended to commit was legal. Such advice can't render one immune from prosecution. The indicted murderer would certainly be free to present the advice from the "authority" in their defense. It would then be up to the "finder of fact" (whether jury or judge) to decide whether or not reliance on such lunatic "authorization" actually excused the crime under the law.

Regardless of who might tell them otherwise, any person who actually believes that bashing a person's head against a wall 30 times; filling their lungs with water; depriving them of sleep for 7 days; forcing them into impossible positions for hours on end; on and on, does not qualify as "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment" might have an insanity defense, but it's hard to imagine a judge or jury that would find the belief to be reasonable, and therefore a valid defense. But who knows? That's what we have trials for.

As succinctly put by Dr.Phool "The first thing I was taught in boot camp, back in '69 was,
I had a duty to refuse an unlawful order, no matter where it came from!"(http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8349135&mesg_id=8350460"> link)

Or less succinctly by me:

Each and every person entrusted with power that can be abused to commit war crimes is bound by law to "Just Say No" and act to Stop the commission of such crimes. As Alberto Mora, General Counsel of the U.S. Navy did (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/15">The Memo). As the JAG Corps members recently praised by Holder did. Many, like the NCIS and FBI personnel who refused to participate in Joint Task Force 170, actually did act reasonably. . .

No "ruling" or "memo" can transform a cruel, inhumane, and degrading act into a humane act. No memo can suspend reality and common sense. As Nuremberg demonstrated to the world, "I was just following orders" does not excuse the commission of war crimes prohibited by the U.S. Constitution and the treaties that are part and parcel of that document as the "supreme law of the land."

We must prosecute Bush, Cheney, and the other officials responsible for implementing and rubber stamping "the program." We must prosecute the employees who refused to say "no" when asked to commit outrages upon the persons in their custody. To do anything less renders the law meaningless and ensures that there will be officials in the future who believe they can commit any act, however abhorrent, with impunity, as long as some authority gives the "go ahead."