Prosecution of Bush White House Lawyers

[Anonymous]

But you don't have a lot in common with Ted Kaczynski. You don't live in the boondocks and keep to yourself and you're not crazy. (Am guessing this is so -- bet I'm right.) I don't know you or what you do for a living but I bet you have a lot in common with John Yoo in that you're probably middle to upper income, well-educated, have a home with a mortgage, and a respectable life. (again just guessing here)

It's not psychoanalyzing you to say that often people find it easier to judge those who are unlike them. Or that people often find it more comfortable to judge the people who actually pull the trigger or set up the bomb but not the people who write the regulations that give other people moral permission to pull the trigger and set up the bomb.

Would you feel the same way about convicting a camp guard at Auschwitz compared to the lawyers and bureaucrats who crafted the Final Solution? Both felt they were doing their patriotic duty to their country. In fact, the architects of the Final Solution thought they were quite noble because they were willing to endure the suffering they caused (exterminating all the Jews in Europe) for the sake of purifying the Nazi empire. They really thought they were making their homeland safer. Would you give them a pass because of that?

[Anonymous]

I can't answer where I would draw the line on the "just following orders" defense. I suppose it's in the "know it when I see it" arena.

On the Kaczynski similarity issue, I have to admit that, left to my own devices I would sit around the house writing mathematical programs. But I swear I have never thought about sending explosives to anyone.

If that sounded like I'm tapped out on the issue, at least for now, you're right.

[Anonymous]

Some quotes from today's Washington Post are germane to this discussion:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403171.html?hpid=topnews

In 2002, Military Agency Warned Against 'Torture'
Extreme Duress Could Yield Unreliable Information, It Said

By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, April 25, 2009

"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. Parts of the attachment, obtained in full by The Washington Post, were quoted in a Senate report on harsh interrogation released this week.

But the JPRA's two-page attachment, titled "Operational Issues Pertaining to the Use of Physical/Psychological Coercion in Interrogation," questioned the effectiveness of employing extreme duress to gain intelligence.

"The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible -- in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life -- has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture," the document said. "In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate information. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption."

[Anonymous]

I don't know if there is anything new here, but here is Tom Friedman's summary of the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29friedman.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if there is anything new here, but here is Tom Friedman's summary of the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29friedman.html

Thank you for this article. Pardon my ignorance, but do you have more information on these 100 detainees killed / 27 homicides? I assumed that some prisoners had died in prison, but I had not heard a number before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if there is anything new here, but here is Tom Friedman's summary of the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29friedman.html

Thank you for this article. Pardon my ignorance, but do you have more information on these 100 detainees killed / 27 homicides? I assumed that some prisoners had died in prison, but I had not heard a number before.

I was the one who posted that link, and that part was also new to me. So, although I can't answer your question, I join you in asking it.

[Anonymous]

Here is another interesting article on the prosecution issue, from Andrew Sullivan, who comes to the opposite conclusion from the Friedman article I linked to earlier:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/churchill-vs-cheney.html

Sullivan's final sentences are

Torture is the weapon of cowards and bullies and monsters. Cheney is all three. Prosecute him.

I agree with his characterization of Cheney, but I also think Cheney is an extremely confident and articulate spokesman for a significant segment of the country, and I fear the consequences of making a martyr of him. Overall, the article is an informative argument for Obama's point that we should not be arguing about whether torture gets results, but whether those results might be obtained by other means.

[Anonymous]

George Tenet. This is the man that will say whatever you want him to if the price is right. He transitions from one administration to the other with ease. Under his watch, the intelligence provided for the go/no go decision in Iraq was provided by him. Since the war started, the story has been massaged to indicated we were dooped. In my mind, this is the man who has blood on his hands regarding the Iraq war. One of the biggest concerns I have about Tenet is that he is speaking to {influencing} young minds at GU. A slam dunk choice for the person to be thrown under the bus.

[Anonymous]

Agree that Tenet's role could use a good going over. Agree that Georgetown U should know better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I favor an investigation but, whether it's deserved or not, prosecution would be a huge distraction at this point in time and should be foregone.

But I do believe prosecution is deserved. I don't want my country joining the ranks of the various countries -- capitalist, communist and anywhere in between -- that use torture on their prisoners.

Not right and not cost-effective.

Then should Pelosi be prosecuted? She knew about waterboarding then lied aout it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I favor an investigation but, whether it's deserved or not, prosecution would be a huge distraction at this point in time and should be foregone.

But I do believe prosecution is deserved. I don't want my country joining the ranks of the various countries -- capitalist, communist and anywhere in between -- that use torture on their prisoners.

Not right and not cost-effective.

Then should Pelosi be prosecuted? She knew about waterboarding then lied aout it.

Yes, I'm the pp who wrote that and I think she deserves prosecution -- but again, as I said above, it's not in the interest of the country to prosecute these people right now. Pelosi is just one more spineless Democrat who went along with the Bush administration when it initiated a stupid useless war. PP, I don't know why people like you think that blaming the Bush administration means holding the Democrats blameless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I favor an investigation but, whether it's deserved or not, prosecution would be a huge distraction at this point in time and should be foregone.

But I do believe prosecution is deserved. I don't want my country joining the ranks of the various countries -- capitalist, communist and anywhere in between -- that use torture on their prisoners.

Not right and not cost-effective.

Then should Pelosi be prosecuted? She knew about waterboarding then lied aout it.

New poster here. Of course she should be prosecuted if she knew and did not try to stop it. I'm not sure if she could be prosecuted since my guess is she did not have approval power. But as far as I'm concerned, anyone who does not try to stop evil is morally wrong and should be held accountable in whatever way possible.