Senate Consequences of U.S. Torture

I'm not very far into the document, but ughh. This should be required reading for every American.

Bush and Cheney are international war criminals. That's the basic conclusion of this document. We tortured. They authorized and condoned it. In light of the study, did the Obama administration do enough by doing nothing to bring torturers to justice, and has it done enough to condemn torture and do everything possible to make sure that torture does not again become the official unofficial policy (officially authorizing it but officially not calling it torture) of the United States?

 

Look at our political climate. Does it look like we could prosecute Bush or Cheney, even if we wanted to do so?

 

Agreed. Any attempt by prosecute Bush or Cheney right now would not only look politically motivated, but hypocritical considering how dirty Obama's hands are.

 

Sure. Obama is our extrajudicial drone assassination war criminal, so obviously he doesn't want to set a precedent for holding past administrations accountable for violations of human rights/war crimes.

History will hold both administrations accountable, of course. Fifty years from now it will all fit into the picture of the relative decline of the U.S. as a Great Power in the post cold war era. Afghanistan, Iraq, the War on Terror, the "covert" Drone War.

 

Move past the false notion that Obama and Bush are on opposite sides, and realize that they both share the same profession, at the same level. There is no way in hell that one President is going to actually hold a past President accountable. For one thing, that would go against the precedent set after Watergate.

 

There's a broader question here though about what if anything the Obama administration has yet to do in clarifying U.S. policy or putting in place measures to help prevent it from happening again.

 

'Looking' forward honestly would mean becoming states party to the International Criminal Court. That court could theoretically prosecute Bush and even Obama, but realistically, I could never see that happen. For the US to stay away from it and to even come up with a law against it (the American Service Member Protection Act) is not only paranoid; it also flies in the face of the ideals the American government has pretended to want to spread for decades.

So to change anything, first the paranoia must be dealt with. Now may not be a good time.

 

Rescinding all the memos that created the framework for the torture in the first place?

 

it's a start

 

Consequences of U.S. Torture


1. Pain and discomfort
2. Confessions
3. False confessions
4. Even less respect from the international community

 

But that's not really why the ICC was organized. and in fact, it kind of diminishes the force of its entire justification. The ICC doesn't have jurisdiction over anyone who may have done something bad or questionable. The ICC handles situations involving genocide and crimes against humanity. Situations that transcend national law.

Compare the situation in Uganda (and the now e-trendy Kony focus) , for example, where hundreds, thousands of people were murdered simply for being part of an ethnic group. Where hundreds of female civilians were sexually assaulted, and children as young as 9 and 10 are forced into military service. Those are war crimes. That is genocide. And consequently, the ICC has an active case open against the groups responsible. Look to Sudan, or what Slobodan Milosevic engineered in the former Yugoslavia. (although technically that fell under a different UN authority and wasn't handled by the ICC)

These are completely different situations on a different scale than looking to a specific policy carried out by any President (or any Western leader for that matter) because to do so would diminish the entire purpose behind the ICC and clog the court with an endless stream of meaningless, politically based accusations. Which leads to why democratic leaders, who are beholden to open, established societies, shouldn't be subject to the ICC in the first place. (and correctly-aren't)

 

it's to be a place that will handle it if nation states are unwilling.

Yes, this is exactly the point though, which is the controlling idea of my previous statement. Without getting too much into the political party aspect, although Jabba did pay the idea some lip service, world leaders make controversial decisions all the time simply based on the nature of their job. The US, as the current superpower, is highlighted more than most.

Almost 70 years after the fact, it's trendy in some circles to try and paint Truman as a war criminal because he gave the order to use atomic weapons against Japan. Except what was the reality surrounding that order?

When JFK gave the go-ahead to carry out the Bay of Pigs invasion, was that technically a "war of aggression" against Cuba? Maybe...However, where there other controlling geopolitical factors that lead to such a decision. Absolutely. The Cuban government at the time labeled JFK a war criminal. Was he? Does such political rhetorical diminish true war crimes? Perhaps. JFK, Johnson, and Nixon were all labeled war criminals by Vietnam War protestors, where they, or was Vietnam a specific consequence of the prevailing international situation?

When Iron Lady Margret Thatcher invaded the Falkland Islands and fought against Argentina, the Argentinian government labeled her a war criminal, and accused her acting aggressively against Argentinian interests. In way she was, but the Falkland issue was the result of a larger dispute. There are still people who call Thatcher a war criminal even after her recent death, but what they really mean is that thay don't agree with the controversial nature of some of her decisions, not that she ever rose to the level of actual genocide.

France invaded Haiti....and Mali...Clinton bombed medicine factories in Sudan under Operation Infinite Reach. Or did he? Clinton pre-emptively attacked sovereign nationals within the Balkans, to which Yugoslavs labeled him a war criminal, but was it that simple?

http://www.zpub.com/un/war-crimes.html]really?[/url]

One can look to any number of endless situations from recent history and anything and everything could be labeled a war crime by someone. But 1) such labels diminish what war crimes and genocide truly mean, and 2) the respective nations already have existing frameworks that address these concerns. So yeah, Obama is never going to prosecute Bush for being a war criminal-the primary reason is that Obama doesn't really have authority over Bush or any other President, because such authority originates from legal concepts that transcend both. But the simple reason is that there really is no moral difference either way between an "enhanced interrogation memo," and an "extra-legal drone killing" memo within their respective administrations. But also, even within the framework of these decisions, there is still oversight and accountability, and the scales aren't remotely the same to true war crimes/genocide under what the ICC is supposed to speak for.

 

Guys, your missing the point. Points.

Point 1: For better or worse, America is still playing world police. But it basically puts itself above the law. It's playing world police and world judge. Go to Mortimer Snerd's point 4.
Point 2: Now is not a good time.

 

Thank God for Mr.44. I can't believe how leftist this place has gotten. SMH. That aside, looks like the Boston Bomber is a criminal and not an enemy combatant. But Major Hasan was not considered an enemy combatant, only accused of work place violence. Why are we going back to treating terror like a crime instead of an act of war? Obama's policies have returned us to being terror victims and it doesn't change that fact when you deny the terror. It's Clinton all over again.

 

Because he is, in point of fact, an enemy combatant. Semantics? Not really. When the WTC was bombed in '93 we tried seven men as criminals. But we let the group, al-Qieda, off the hook. As well as Afghanistan. How'd that work out? We are doing the same stuff all over again.

 

How is he any more of an enemy combatant than, say, the Aurora shooter? Or the shooter at Tucson (who targeted a US Congresswoman)?

What I mean is, is there any evidence that he acted as part of a group or organization?

 

Trying him as a criminal is not letting him off the hook. He's an American citizen. Committed crimes in America. Captured, alive, in America. His targets were not military targets.

Should Timothy McVeigh have been tried as an enemy combatant?

Which enemy is he allied with? Who was he "fighting" for? We're not sure yet. But how about Mafia members? If a criminal organization, based in another country, had committed the same attacks... would any American member of the Mafia then be considered enemy combatants?

The only thing that makes Tsarniev different is (1) he was born somewhere else (but he is now an American citizen), and (2) he's Muslim (and even then, apparently a drinking, partying, pothead, not-that-religious Muslim... though his brother Tamerlan seemed a lot more conservative, Dzhokhar doesn't).

Also, if they even are in a group, I really doubt we'll let them off the hook. Obama is the guy who sent Navy SEALS into the heart of Pakistan, remember? Russia has already pledged full cooperation, and most of Central Asia is already cooperative on counterterrorism matters.

If Tsarnaev wasn't a Muslim, would you still think he should be tried as an enemy combatant?

 

Yes. It wasn't a crime committed by 7 men, just as we will find that this wasn't just a crime committed by 2 men. There is an organization involved. One that doesn't end with a guilty verdict. When you try people involved with terror instead of treating them as enemy combatants you loose opportunities to get information.

 

I thought we couldn't use foul language even if it's censored? That aside, don't act like we kicked in an innocent's door and took poeople hostage. He is a terrorist. Treat him as such. And yes, it is a left vs right thing.