Is pardoning the torturers a bad thing?

[Necromagus]

Recently Obama announced that he would pardon CIA operatives who tortured people because they thought it was allowed. A lot of people screamed bloody murder at the fact that 'they' are going to get away with it, but I think that this could actually work out for the best. Now, Bush didn't pardon these people in the last days of his presidency for one very simple reason: A pardon would be admission of guilt. A mass pardon for everybody involved would basically be saying: "Yes, we actually knew we were wrong all along, our bad, but you can't touch us now".

 

 

 

So how about a conditional pardon? Anyone taking that pardon would have to testify, under oath, as to how deep the torture rabbit hole goes. If they take the pardon, they can't be prosecuted (but still get disbarred, fired, etc.) but they will have admitted guilt. We could have Patrick Leahy's truth and reconciliation committee up and running. A conditional pardon now becomes a trial and conviction. After all, you can only pardon a crime if it's actually been committed. Of course if they don't take the pardon, they'll have to suck it up and deal with the prosecution, and with any luck we'll have a whole lot of fodder from those who did take the pardon to take those who didn't take it to town. Republicans can't complain because Obama did actually offer them a pardon, and they were just too stubborn to take it.

 

 

 

Of course this is all just a bunch of political trickery, and of course I want to see those responsible hang, but I think that in the long term a conditional pardon is the best way to get to the bottom of the cesspool.

[baalboy5]

I don't know who 'they' are, no one does? Least I though, so by pardoning, we would know who did it.

[magekillr]

I support a Truth Commission over a trial for a couple of reasons.

 

 

 

1.) Under a truth commission, we'll know everything that happened.

 

2.) Under a truth commission, we'll give them one final chance to admit that what they did was wrong, that it did not work, and they might apologize.

 

3.) Under a truth commission, I expect them to lie and/or hide something that they did, or of the results.

 

4.) Under a truth commission, lying and/or hiding something will result in prosecutions.

 

 

 

I demand action of some sort, but ultimately that's not Obama's call; it's Holder's. This is why I believe Obama "opposes prosecution and wants to move on;" he stays above the fray, and lets Holder and the Dept. of Justice take the heat. I mean, the AG was ALWAYS supposed to be out of the political sphere, but Bush politicized crimes (as can be seen with Jane Harman). This is also the downside of prosecuting: the risk of it being politicized.

 

 

 

This is why ever since those brutal memos have been released that I have been lobbying my Congressman and Senators. I should ask that all of you do the same: (CLICK).

 

 

 

Now, a truth commission goes after the real heart of justice: restorative justice. We need our law restored. Some will argue that in order for the law to be restored that we must have retributive justice, which could be true depending on an investigation.

 

 

 

Steps that I'd like to have:

 

 

 

1.) An investigation and a truth commission

 

2.) A firing of all CIA officials that "legally" participated in torture

 

3.) CIA officials that acted outside of the OLC memos should be subject to prosecution if it comes down to it, and it seems that some of them did act outside of the "legal" advice of the OLC

 

4.) Impeachment of Jay Bybee

 

5.) Prosecution of all of the "higher ups" that authorized this legal advice, and the ones that wanted it in the first place; Bybee, Bradbury, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, etc.

[TheDayRsDied]

No, and they should not have to be pardoned. They did nothing wrong. If they did do anything wrong, then political leaders should be taking the hit, not operatives who were following orders.

 

 

 

The CIA has confirmed that the torture saved lives.

 

 

 

The CIA confirmed that the torture prevented a major attack on L.A

 

 

 

I care very little about the feelings of religious nutcases who think they have the right to kill thousands of people becasue some book said so. I have my beliefs, but I would never kill someone because I read that it was a cool idea in a book.

 

 

 

I care even less about "America's image abroad". Lives were in danger. I put lives on a higher priority of importance than nonsensical political consistency.

 

 

 

right wing rant>

[WookieeMania12]

What did the CIA do that was wrong? They were "torturing" terrorists because they had information that could kill people. I hate to ask this again, but how is "water boarding" or slapping someone in the face torture? Why is the OP calling the CIA "torturers?" Has anyone heard of Josef Mengele? That man experimented on Jews imprisoned in all sorts of horrible ways that make anything the CIA does look G-rated at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

[l0l0lpur34]

I hate to ask this again, but how is "water boarding" or slapping someone in the face torture?

 

Go read what waterboarding is before you compare it to "slapping someone in the face".

 

 

 

Here, I'll even give you a link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

[Racheya]

What did the CIA do that was wrong? They were "torturing" terrorists because they had information that could kill people. I hate to ask this again, but how is "water boarding" or slapping someone in the face torture? Why is the OP calling the CIA "torturers?" Has anyone heard of Josef Mengele? That man experimented on Jews imprisoned in all sorts of horrible ways that make anything the CIA does look G-rated at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

 

Dude. Godwin's Law so early in the thread.

[1_man_army]

The only possible circumstance that I would condone pardoning the people who carried out acts of torture would be if they testified against who ordered them to do it. If they find that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush were giving the orders then they should be held to account. That being said, it'll never happen.

[WookieeMania12]

I hate to ask this again, but how is "water boarding" or slapping someone in the face torture?

 

Go read what waterboarding is before you compare it to "slapping someone in the face".

 

 

 

Here, I'll even give you a link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

 

 

 

I know what waterboarding is, a psychological method that is considered to be torture. If I didn't know what waterboarding was, I would have jumped in the "Water-boarding is torture" band wagon like a couple people here.

[l0l0lpur34]

I hate to ask this again, but how is "water boarding" or slapping someone in the face torture?

 

Go read what waterboarding is before you compare it to "slapping someone in the face".

 

 

 

Here, I'll even give you a link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

 

 

 

I know what waterboarding is, a psychological method that is considered to be torture. If I didn't know what waterboarding was, I would have jumped in the "Water-boarding is torture" band wagon like a couple people here.

 

Waterboarding IS torture.

[WookieeMania12]

I hate to ask this again, but how is "water boarding" or slapping someone in the face torture?

 

Go read what waterboarding is before you compare it to "slapping someone in the face".

 

 

 

Here, I'll even give you a link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

 

 

 

I know what waterboarding is, a psychological method that is considered to be torture. If I didn't know what waterboarding was, I would have jumped in the "Water-boarding is torture" band wagon like a couple people here.

 

Waterboarding IS torture.

 

 

 

Thats it? Thats your argument? Waterboarding is psychological torture since it mostly makes you feel like you're drowning. However, being in the same category as the Glasglov smile, iron maiden, or the rack is kind of strange, don't you think?

[Range_This11]

 

I know what waterboarding is, a psychological method that is considered to be torture. If I didn't know what waterboarding was, I would have jumped in the "Water-boarding is torture" band wagon like a couple people here.

 

So simulating a person is drowning is not torture...hmm. You seem to have such good logic.

[baalboy5]

It simulates drowning. Anything that looks or feels like a life threatening thing, is torture when used for the purpose of it being used for whats it meaning was for.

[magekillr]

I hate to ask this again, but how is "water boarding" or slapping someone in the face torture?

 

Go read what waterboarding is before you compare it to "slapping someone in the face".

 

 

 

Here, I'll even give you a link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

 

 

 

I know what waterboarding is, a psychological method that is considered to be torture. If I didn't know what waterboarding was, I would have jumped in the "Water-boarding is torture" band wagon like a couple people here.

 

 

 

Go water board yourself and tell me it's not torture. Tell me that stress positions aren't torture. Go on:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you know where they got these methods? They got them from Communist China:

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/po ... anted=2&hp

[l0l0lpur34]

I hate to ask this again, but how is "water boarding" or slapping someone in the face torture?

 

Go read what waterboarding is before you compare it to "slapping someone in the face".

 

 

 

Here, I'll even give you a link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

 

 

 

I know what waterboarding is, a psychological method that is considered to be torture. If I didn't know what waterboarding was, I would have jumped in the "Water-boarding is torture" band wagon like a couple people here.

 

Waterboarding IS torture.

 

 

 

Thats it? Thats your argument? Waterboarding is psychological torture since it mostly makes you feel like you're drowning. However, being in the same category as the Glasglov smile, iron maiden, or the rack is kind of strange, don't you think?

 

Waterboarding IS torture

 

 

 

I'll keep replying with this until you go and find out properly what waterboarding actually involves

[WookieeMania12]

I hate to ask this again, but how is "water boarding" or slapping someone in the face torture?

 

Go read what waterboarding is before you compare it to "slapping someone in the face".

 

 

 

Here, I'll even give you a link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

 

 

 

I know what waterboarding is, a psychological method that is considered to be torture. If I didn't know what waterboarding was, I would have jumped in the "Water-boarding is torture" band wagon like a couple people here.

 

 

 

Go water board yourself and tell me it's not torture. Tell me that stress positions aren't torture. Go on:

 

 

 

Stress positions is in your mind. Its not like you are being cut open with a knife in the process of water boarding. If there was any physical abuse besides the occasional affects like lung damage, then I would have to agree that water boarding is torture. But, since water boarding is mostly a psychological way of torture, I can't agree that deserves in the same ranks as dismemberment or sawing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you know where they got these methods? They got them from Communist China:

 

 

 

I don't give a damn right now where the CIA got water boarding from, its still psychological torture.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/po ... anted=2&hp

 

 

 

Again, making it look like water boarding is torture as in the Saw movies, Spanish Inquisition, or Jonas Bros. songs is not gonna convince me. Nor is showing wikipedia or youtube links.

 

 

 

Waterboarding IS torture

 

 

 

I'll keep replying with this until you go and find out properly what waterboarding actually involves

 

 

 

Yeah, it involves stress positions and believing you might drown.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So simulating a person is drowning is not torture...hmm. You seem to have such good logic.

 

 

 

I would agree if you meant psychological torture.

[magekillr]

Wookie, see, that's just it: it's not "simulating" drowning, it IS drowning them. The only difference is that we stop it. If we continued, they WOULD DIE.

 

 

 

You're a sick evil human being. Go water board yourself like Chris Hitchens and tell me it's not torture:

 

 

 

[Kiriyama]

I would agree if you meant psychological torture.

 

 

 

Torture is a broad term, and we split it into two.

 

 

 

Physical torture and psychological torture. One is not any less torture than the other, even though one causes more physical pain, but psycological torture has the same overall effect of causing fear.

[Range_This11]

I would agree if you meant psychological torture.

 

 

 

Torture is a broad term, and we split it into two.

 

 

 

Physical torture and psychological torture. Once is not any less torture than the other, even though one causes more physical pain, but psycological torture has the same overall effect of causing fear.

 

Ooooooh. Threadwin?

[magekillr]

While we're on the topic of "physical" torture--as if there needs to be a separation of the two types of torture--they also "physically" tortured captives. How, might you ask?

 

 

 

They "walled" them. What's that? I'm glad you asked. They take a plastic collar and place it around your neck, attach a chain to the collar, and slam you into walls. They also take your face and slam it into things like walls and tables with their hands on the back of your head.

 

 

 

The Bybee memo also describes a procedure known as "walling." The detainee wears a thick collar, which the interrogator uses to throw him against a "flexible wall." This "false wall" is meant to be constructed in such a way that impact creates a loud sound. Bybee wrote, "The idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is and will be far worse than any injury inflicted on an individual." In Bybee's description, the detainee's shoulder blades are meant to hit the wall, implying that the detainee's back is to the wall.

 

 

 

In practice though, the ICRC report indicates that Zubayda was slammed "directly against a hard concrete wall." Another detainee, Walid Bin Attash, said that he was not only slammed against the walls of his interrogation room but that he was led along the corridor by his collar and slammed against the wall as he went. Another detainee said his head was slammed against a pillar repeatedly. One of the other memos released yesterday, written in May 2005 by Steven G. Bradbury, who was then head of the OLC, indicates that "walling" could be used "20 or thirty times consecutively when the interrogator requires a more significant response to a question."

[1_man_army]

You can't blame the soldier for killing a civilian when his commanding officer ordered him to shoot that way.

 

 

 

I'll deliberately invoke Godwin's Law here - That sort of thinking did not pass at Nuremburg.

[magekillr]

You can't blame the soldier for killing a civilian when his commanding officer ordered him to shoot that way.

 

 

 

I'll deliberately invoke Godwin's Law here - That sort of thinking did not pass at Nuremburg.

 

 

 

The only reason I'll let it pass in this instance is because "legally" the people were cleared. If they can't trust the legal advice on what might be "shaky" torture, then they really can't do their job properly in the future. This is why I think they should only be fired, and not prosecuted.

 

 

 

Also, it would involve A LOT more lawyers and testimonies...and worst of all, time, in order for this to play out. By narrowing it down to the lawyers and the perpetrators, it's much easier to target and build a case. Like with Rwanda and their Truth Commission...it would have been impossible to set up a court system where hundreds of thousands would be put on trial. It's best to focus on the main perpetrators.

 

 

 

Booman puts it nicely:

 

 

 

This is one of the most challenging problems facing the administration, and that is saying something considering the state of the economy and the situations on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the reasons the problem is so difficult is precisely because the administration doesn't have the power to impose one simple course of action. Regardless of what Obama wants, his Attorney General has the ultimate authority to make these decisions. And regardless of what Eric Holder does, there are still the Congressional oversight committees. And regardless what Congress does, there are still the civil courts. And regardless of what our Supreme Court decides, there are still International courts. After that, the historians get involved.

 

 

 

The problem cannot be quarantined and there is no mechanism to just make it go away. The best the administration can do is to come up with a plan that allows them to deal with the issue is concrete steps that prevent it from becoming all-consuming. I have real concerns about their approach because it is very hard to stomach the idea that no one who conducted torture (waterboarding, slamming people into walls) will be prosecuted as long as they didn't go beyond what the OLC authorized. But, by making this distinction, the Obama administration at least creates a narrower and more manageable field of action. They do not, for example, have to investigate who was present at every interrogation, what was done at every interrogation, who authorized each and every method of interrogation, and so on. If they were to attempt to do that, it would become all-consuming.

 

 

 

If they keep their eyes on the two main things that Isikoff and Thomas mentioned (officals that exceeded 'legal' boundaries and whether Bush administration officials broke the law by giving the CIA permission to torture in the first place) then they can be very focused in their approach. It also has the advantage of avoiding a situation where underlings are punished while bigwigs get off scot-free. There could be some wisdom in the Obama administration's approach, even if I find it dubious on moral grounds and questionable as a matter of International Law. Here is what I would like to see (within the context of what Obama and Holder have already announced).

 

 

 

1. That they determine that the OLC violated the law when they authorized torture. They should recommend that Judge Bybee be impeached, and they should move to disbar Yoo, Bradbury, and any other lawyers intimately involved in the process. Grand juries can determine whether prosecution is appropriate.

 

2. All interrogators, medical personnel, and psychological staff that engaged in acts of torture should be quietly terminated from government jobs or their contracts should be terminated.

 

3. High-ranking CIA officers that pressed for torture authorization should be quietly terminated. Grand juries should decide if they should be prosecuted.

 

4. An independent prosecutor should be introduced to unravel the decision making at the top, and their grand juries should make the ultimate decisions on who should be prosecuted and for what.

 

 

 

At the end of this process, Obama will still have the option to use his pardon power if he deems it in the national interest. But that's a decision that is far down the line. If Obama and Holder follow these basic outlines, they will have done enough, in my opinion, to satisfy the requirements of our obligations. But I will still see it as overly lenient.

[Robert_de_Sable]

Pardoned? They should be getting medals.

[mmmcannibalism]

well lower levels that worked within the confines of what they were told should be fine(they werent giving anyone the rack, and clearly this isnt something like the holocaust so being told its legal is a reasonable justification).

 

 

 

people that were abusing prisoners outside of established procedure would be open to prosecution based on the fact they were breaking the law.

 

 

 

As a final note of clearing low levels, the fact they were acting in good faith is a second clearing factor. While waterboarding as torture is debateable, I think we can all agree that supervised waterboarding with a physician and clearly written guidlines isnt a brutal rights violation like the holocaust. While the method is debateable the lower levels were acting to protect america, and they were told it was okay legally to waterboard and such so prosecuting them would be foolish.

 

 

 

At the higher up level things get a little murkier; if we start prosecuting everyone that violated the constitution half our presidents should probably have been thrown in jail. As for true civil rights violation, obviously this becomes problamatic. Acting in good faith is still going to come into effect, a good amount of attorneys and such were acting to protect the us when the condoned/justified "torture". Now, some persons involved should probably get fired or at least have their positions reviewed but we do risk quickly turning this into a witch hunt.

 

 

 

In conclusion, this is a fairly complicated problem. While waterboarding and the like are arguably unnecessary and certainly a method of last resort, we do need to keep in mind we arent talking about dropping someone in boiling oil(again strictly covers people who operated in procedure). Prosecution of those who abused prisoners would clearly fall under other laws and should be pursued. Low levels should be safe because they were acting with good intent and under complete advisory that they were under the law(obeying illegal orders is illegal but thats more applicable to something that clearly violates law ex. the holocaust). Higher levels is harder and would largely have to be a case by case basis; going after people who were genuinly looking out for america starts to become a subjective application of laws. Should we really be prosecuting people who(although we can argue whether they authorized illegal procedures) if they were honestly trying to help america and did collect vital information?

 

 

 

some other comments

 

 

 

as to the civilian shooting, it depends on what you mean by shoot that way. If we mean a fighter pilot killed civilians because he was told building x was a military target then he is obeying what he sees as legal orders. If we literally mean pilot killed civilians after he knew building x wasnt a military target then he is obeying what he must percieve as illegal orders.

 

 

 

A prosecution with the assurance with presidential pardons would be an interesting alternative; we should see the light of both what we did and what was gained by the harsh interrogation, insuring that we arent jailing well intended people gives a generally good outcome for all involved parties.

[Pawn]

Recently Obama announced that he would pardon CIA operatives who tortured people because they thought it was allowed.

 

 

 

WOAH, in the U.S.A the President gets to deal with criminals and there are no court hearings? Damn, here in Canada our PM doesn't decide squat about what happens in the court cases the Judges and Jury do. Obama ftl.