Caterpillar in a Box

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

This is, of course, what Stan and others say when someone suggests that smoking a single joint and having twenty lbs of uncut heroin in your fridge should not be considered the same offense. To my mind seeing the differences and making judgements based on them is the most important point.

According to the ACLU article, people were tortured to death. The deaths were unlikely to have been deliberate, but nevertheless the torture caused death. Trivialisation of this by either misrepresenting the seriousness of the torture or by implying that we shouldn't care about it because there were bigger crimes committed strikes me as truly appalling judgement.

John Carson

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

According to the ACLU article, people were tortured to death. The deaths were unlikely to have been deliberate, but nevertheless the torture caused death.

If the ACLU article is correct - and that is a big IF, they are no longer the organization I joined in the '60's - then the people who did that should be identified, and tried for first or second degree murder. BUT my OP is about the release of details about what the CIA did in the days after 9/11. As Rob pointed out, Obama by saying that he would not prosecute the men who did these things, has announced that no crime was committed - or that he is aware that they did and he is covering up for them which makes him a conspirator after the fact and thus guilty of those crimes. There is no other legal interpretation of what he has done. Dragging in the ACLU or accusing me of trivializing murders that may or may not have occurred at other times and or other places because I comment on the absurdity of referring to the presentation of a caterpillar as torture suggests that we have strayed far afield in an attempt to absolve Obama of pandering to his base rather than listening to the urgings of his intelligence people. If it will make you feel better, I remind you that I have spoken out against torture in this forum (and elsewhere and elsewhen, for what that's worth) and no doubt will do so again. However, I suspect I have a stricter definition of what is torture and what is aggresive interogation. If somehow that make you feel that you are nobler than I am you are welcome to the feeling. I rest content with my judgements. [edit only of typo]

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

modified on Friday, April 17, 2009 8:04 PM

[John Carson]

Rob Graham wrote:

An interesting thought: could all this actually backfire? Releasing the memos, and publicly announcing that neither the authors of the guidance nor those who applied the methods will/should/can be prosecuted makes this legal precedent for any future administration that decides that the methods should be used and are legal. What the Obama administration has accomplished is to clearly define that these acts did not in fact meet a legal definition of torture (otherwise the would be compelled to prosecute), but only in their opinion are inappropriate.

The Administration has not announced that the authors of the legal opinions are in the clear. I'm sure Obama is very well aware of the legal issues involved. He is trying to walk a very fine line. On the one hand, he doesn't wish to either condone or cover up torture. On the other hand, he doesn't wish to alienate the intelligence community nor expose himself to the (completely bogus but nevertheless often foreshadowed) charge of criminalising policy differences. As a practical matter, charging CIA agents who acted in accordance with DOJ legal advice was never a realistic possibility. "Just following orders" is not an absolute defence, but it is a pretty good one in all but the most heinous cases. Taking some sort of action against those responsible for the legal advice and/or Bush Administration officials who promoted the policy is another matter. We will have to see how it plays out. Your claim that the Obama Administration has clearly defined that "these acts did not in fact meet a legal definition of torture" is at best premature. It is also legally dubious. There is never a compulsion to prosecute, as such. Prosecutors exercise discretion all the time based on likelihood of a conviction and other issues. There is an obligation to treat allegations of torture on the same basis as any other allegations of criminal conduct.

John Carson

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

"Just following orders" is not an absolute defence, but it is a pretty good one in all but the most heinous cases.

Last time I looked, torturing people to death was considered pretty heinous. And it is established American (I have no idea about Australian) law that "following orders," is not a defense that can be used in court.

John Carson wrote:

There is an obligation to treat allegations of torture on the same basis as any other allegations of criminal conduct.

It would be useful to remember that when you talk of the ACLU report as being proven fact rather than supposition, hearsay, and deliberately prejudicial.

John Carson wrote:

I'm sure Obama is very well aware of the legal issues involved. He is trying to walk a very fine line. On the one hand, he doesn't wish to either condone or cover up torture. On the other hand, he doesn't wish to alienate the intelligence community nor expose himself to the (completely bogus but nevertheless often foreshadowed) charge of criminalising policy differences.

So he does both??? Tell you what, I agree that he knows exactly what he is doing and I suspect an destroy-before-reading memo went out throughout the CIA and the DOJ pointing out that he was essentially making it impossible for anyone to ever charge any past or present members with a crime. And my theory, at least, gives the man credit for an IQ above 110.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

As Rob pointed out, Obama by saying that he would not prosecute the men who did these things, has announced that no crime was committed - or that he is aware that they did and he is covering up for them which makes him a conspirator after the fact and thus guilty of those crime. There is no other legal interpretation of what he has done.

I replied to Rob directly.

Oakman wrote:

Dragging in the ACLU or accusing me of trivializing murders that may or may not have occurred at other times and or other places because I comment on the absurdity of referring to the presentation of a caterpillar as torture suggests that we have strayed far afield in an attempt to absolve Obama of pandering to his base rather than listening to the urgings of his intelligence people.

I think the point here is that the ACLU report is in large measure about "aggressive interrogation" gone wrong. "Stress positions", "roughing up" and deliberate interference with breathing lead to deaths. No doubt the opposition to torture can lead to nitpicking, just as the determined opposition to anything typically does. But it completely misrepresents the position to regard concern over minor abuses as the core of the debate.

John Carson

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

Last time I looked, torturing people to death was considered pretty heinous.

My understanding of the Obama statement is that there is no blanket immunity for CIA agents. There is an immunity for those who strictly followed the DOJ guidelines. And, in any case, intent is legally relevant.

Oakman wrote:

And it is established American (I have no idea about Australian) law that "following orders," is not a defense that can be used in court.

That was the legal position taken at the Nuremberg trials. I would like authoritative confirmation that "following orders" is never a defence in US court. As a practical matter, people get off on that basis all the time, by not being charged if by no other means. <edit> I'm pretty sure that "relying on legal advice" is a defence in US court for some things. </edit>

Oakman wrote:

It would be useful to remember that when you talk of the ACLU report as being proven fact rather than supposition, hearsay, and deliberately prejudicial.

I think we need to distinguish evidence sufficient to convict a specific individual of a specific crime from evidence sufficient to show the existence of criminal activity. We all know the mafia commits crimes, even if we can't easily convict individuals. I don't believe I made any claims of "proven fact". I find the ACLU evidence highly persuasive that serious torture has occurred, leading to deaths. I wouldn't be any more specific than that.

Oakman wrote:

So he does both???

Hard to walk a fine line between two things that overlap. A cover up was never an acceptable option. Expose yet forgive is something that has been used in the past. In post-apartheid South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was empowered to forgive people for serious crimes, including murders, provided they confessed. The US situation is trickier because of the legal obligations in relation to torture. Obama may be prepared to ignore the law for the sake of some approximation to the South African approach. Or we may yet see some prosecutions --- or at least firings or similar. Time will tell.

John Carson

modified on Friday, April 17, 2009 9:17 PM

[Stan Shannon]

These documents make me proud of my country. They prove the care and compassion our government had for its worst enemies. It is too bad their release weakens our nation to such a great extent. If there are any more attacks on the US, Obama and people like you will be to blame.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

modified on Friday, April 17, 2009 9:26 PM

[Stan Shannon]

wolfbinary wrote:

Is anyone here saying the ends justifies the means?

They always have in the past. Thats how we got here.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

I continue to pray he does just that. These documents prove that (a) the methods were entirely benign, and (b) effective. Drag the Bush administration into the courts, possibly international courts, and condemn them for effectively defending the country, let these dispicable leftist sons of bitches prove to the American public who they really are. Please God let that happen.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

A few years back, William F. Buckley said that conservatives had to chain themselves to reality. (or words very close to those, I'm working from memory.) He was reacting to some of the wild-eyed, drooling nuts who wanted to see America in ashes if it didn't immediately fulfill all their fantasies.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Far too late for any of that.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[oilFactotum]

Your standard response when you are caught in your lies is to run away. How sad for you.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Far too late for any of that.

Not for everybody

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Not for everybody

It is for everyone who really cares. For all of you libertarians who want to see more judicial suppression in our society should get plenty more of what you want before the end finally comes.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

For all of you libertarians

Yep, all of us evil libertarians plotting with the commies and the socialists against the pure of heart folks of Ohio. Bwaaahaaahaaaha! Oh wait - that's the evil librarians. . . not that you know the difference.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[Stan Shannon]

The funny part is all the confused libertarians and their ridiculous little belief system: "Everyone should be free to do any thing they please as long as they are nor harming anyone else - no matter how much centralized political power it takes to force that concept on the rest of society!"

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

as they are nor harming anyone else

Whereas you wish for a government that prosecutes people who do no harm? How magnificiently booboisee of you.

Stan Shannon wrote:

no matter how much centralized political power it takes to force that concept on the rest of society!

Other than in the confused and labyrinthine recesses of your paranoia, where did you ever hear or read such a concept? Your fear of what you do not understand is becoming laughable, Stan.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Whereas you wish for a government that prosecutes people who do no harm? How magnificiently booboisee of you.

Someone has to be empowered to define "harm". Thats the rock against which the entire libertarian argument shatters.

Oakman wrote:

where did you ever hear or read such a concept?

Unlike you, after reading, I typically set down and actually think about what I read. Ultimately, libertarianism is no different than any other political idealogy, it requires government/legal authority to be enforced. And since it asserts an absolute, it requires absolute power to even exist. That is the true, underlieing irony of the entire concept.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Someone has to be empowered to define "harm".

And that isn't true in your Jeffersonian society? Physical harm is pretty easy to define, the last time I looked. and that's the only kind I've ever talked about.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Thats the rock against which the entire libertarian argument shatters.

Here's a Libertarian argument in a nutshell: Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty. I'm curious to know what part of the above you disagree with. The lack of the right of the government to coerce you into behaving the way it thinks you should behave? The lack of thought-control would appear to be the only thing that could put you off. However, you might want to check out this article[^] just so you might understand just how hard it is to pin down Libertarianism any more than Conservatism, Socialism, or Liberalism.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

I'm curious to know what part of the above you disagree with.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of it. I don't entirely endorse the concept of 'self ownership'. I believe in the notion of 'duty', which means an individual has a intrinsic responsibility to promote and support the stability of the society within which he lives. If that society denies his unalianable rights than he has a repsonsibility to resist it, but otherwise, he must support it. Either resist or support, there is no stable status quo where an individual does neither to live in a sort of self contained, isolated, social sphere. Duty to society can supercede self ownership on occassion. I simply maintain otherwise that libertarianism is an unworkable political philosophy that instantly collapses under its own weight. "Harm" is a difficult concept to define in any useful way. There is no single definition of what it means, and any implication that there is further implies some sort of universal social consensus on that meaning - an absolute meaning defended by an absolute authority. It is one thing to state that consensual sex between adults does no one any harm, for example, but who gets to define "adult"? Is it an arbitrary age limit? Is it some kind of a test? Is it ok for a 12 year old mature beyond their years to have consensual sex with a 40 year old? What if the 12 year old has the consent of their legal guardian? Is it ok then? Is society at large none the worse for it? What of those who believe their society is harmed by it, that their families as an extension of that society are harmed, and that they as an extension of their family are harmed? Why should the right of one individual be supreme over that of two individuals attempting to maintain a stable social infrastructure for themselves? If they feel harmed, how much power should the third have access to to say they were not? The same argument applies to sex, drugs, flag burning etc. I say the power to make such definitions must be explicitely defined in the constitution or be defined by the states or the people. Allowing the courts to 'discover' such power is a prescription for social anarchy or tyranny.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.