Prosecution of Bush White House Lawyers

[Anonymous]

Should they or shouldn't they?

Is it a slippery slope to criminalize legal advice? Will this compromise the President's (any president's) ability to get a wide range of opinion upon which to make a decision? And what about the Congress who was fully briefed in 2002? I know they enjoy immunity - and now enjoy blasting interrogation methods that they kept quiet about 7 years ago. Slippery slope? Opinons?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just wondering, is prosecution really deserved? At the end of the day, the lawyers' opinions would not have mattered if the President had not given the go signal, right? Wouldn't we be better served to have Congress permanently ban the specific practices that they disagree with? Waterboarding was banned during the Bush administration, the Obama administration seems to be move the bar lower on what constitutes torture, doesn't a national discussion and vote seem to make sense?

[Anonymous]

Any time human rights violations are prosecuted, the people involved all claim they were just part of the process, that others were in control and pulling the strings. Guards, doctors, administrators, etc. all said the same thing. Just doin' their job.

But we are each accountable for our actions. I do not think legal advice should be immune because it provided the justification for others to do the acts and because it was not a dispassionate reading of the law but an active attempt to form a legal cover for the actions. If a lawyer in any other context used his legal abilities to facilitate a crime, he/she would be subject to prosecution.

To the PP above, had the President's legal advisors and cabinet spoken the truth about torture, he may not have had the guts to sign off on it. Therefore they are accountable. And while we could legislate more specific prohibitions on torture, it is important that advisors to the president, and for that matter each of us as individuals, bear legal and moral responsibility for their actions that their commander in chief cannot annul.

FWIW, I am personally less concerned about prosecuting them for their own sakes. I am pretty sure they are going to hell, and that is enough justice for me. For the sake of the country, it might be worth it to prosecute them or at least have a truth commission.

[Anonymous]

I think the use of torture was absolutely wrong. But I don't see how a country can punish those who, in serving it, made mistakes, not for personal gain, but in an attempt to serve the country as they thought best.

However, I support a commission to study whether a bad decision was made, and if so, to recommend how to fix the system so it does not happen again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just wondering, is prosecution really deserved? At the end of the day, the lawyers' opinions would not have mattered if the President had not given the go signal, right? Wouldn't we be better served to have Congress permanently ban the specific practices that they disagree with? Waterboarding was banned during the Bush administration, the Obama administration seems to be move the bar lower on what constitutes torture, doesn't a national discussion and vote seem to make sense?

When I used the word "deserved," I meant in a strict moral sense. What these people did was a very bad thing -- on the same level as providing legal support for the Holocaust in my view. They deserve to be treated like criminals.

But that's separate from whether legally they could be prosecuted or whether it is in the nation's interest at this time for them to be prosecuted which I don't think it is. I agree with you that a national discussion and vote makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the use of torture was absolutely wrong. But I don't see how a country can punish those who, in serving it, made mistakes, not for personal gain, but in an attempt to serve the country as they thought best.

However, I support a commission to study whether a bad decision was made, and if so, to recommend how to fix the system so it does not happen again.

I agree with you about the commission but please realize that that there have been many people over the years all over the world who have done villainous things who considered themselves as only serving their country and were not out for personal gain. I don't think that is the criterion we should use for absolving people of responsibility. But you're right, the main thing is to fix the system.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Any time human rights violations are prosecuted, the people involved all claim they were just part of the process, that others were in control and pulling the strings. Guards, doctors, administrators, etc. all said the same thing. Just doin' their job.

Just to reinforce your point, many years ago I sat through the Federal trial of Fawaz Younis, Lebanese man who had hijacked a Royal Jordanian airliner. The plane happened to have two Americans onboard. The Americans were treated nicely and nobody of any nationality was hurt. Some time after the hijacking, Fawaz was lured to a board in the Mediterranean and arrested by the FBI.

At his trial, Fawaz argued that he was a member of the AMAL militia and had been ordered to hijack the airplane. The judge kept stressing over and over that if you were given an order that a reasonable person would believe to be illegal, you could not legally carry out the order. None of the jurors believed (reasonably in my opinion) that anyone would believe an order to hijack an airplane would be legal. Fawaz was convicted and sent to Marian Federal Penitentiary (where he may have had some interesting conversations with Jonathan Pollard who was also sent there).

The legal memos that have been released would seem to create a situation in which those carrying out the orders could argue that a reasonable person would believe the orders were legal. After al, the memos said they were. I'd probably accept that, but I could easily argue otherwise. However, I don't feel the same about those who issued the orders. I've always felt that lawyers can do one of two things: 1) they can provide their best objective legal opinion; 2) they can provide a legal opinion that reaches the conclusion you desire. I have to see these memos as examples of the second. Someone knew that torture was illegal, wanted to do it anyway, and asked a lawyer to find a justification. It is those people who I think should be prosecuted. As for the lawyers themselves, they should be punished for simply being bad lawyers. By punishment I mean not being considered for faculty positions at major universities or allowed to hold lifetime judicial appointments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the use of torture was absolutely wrong. But I don't see how a country can punish those who, in serving it, made mistakes, not for personal gain, but in an attempt to serve the country as they thought best.

However, I support a commission to study whether a bad decision was made, and if so, to recommend how to fix the system so it does not happen again.

Most torturers believe they are serving their national interest. Generally, they believe that the survival of their country is at stake. And they aren't full of sickos. They were full of average people who were not of sufficient character to separate right from wrong when authority was asking them to do things that were wrong. Sure, there is lots of reinforcement - from above, from peers, etc. But we are all obligated to use our own conscience to separate good from evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the use of torture was absolutely wrong. But I don't see how a country can punish those who, in serving it, made mistakes, not for personal gain, but in an attempt to serve the country as they thought best.

However, I support a commission to study whether a bad decision was made, and if so, to recommend how to fix the system so it does not happen again.

Most torturers believe they are serving their national interest. Generally, they believe that the survival of their country is at stake. And they aren't full of sickos. They were full of average people who were not of sufficient character to separate right from wrong when authority was asking them to do things that were wrong. Sure, there is lots of reinforcement - from above, from peers, etc. But we are all obligated to use our own conscience to separate good from evil.

I wish I could be sure of my own ability to follow my conscience in such a situation. Are you sure there is no similarity between the moral certitude that would punish the torturers and the moral certitude of those who ordered the torture?

Please accept that last question as food for thought, not as an accusation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the use of torture was absolutely wrong. But I don't see how a country can punish those who, in serving it, made mistakes, not for personal gain, but in an attempt to serve the country as they thought best.

However, I support a commission to study whether a bad decision was made, and if so, to recommend how to fix the system so it does not happen again.

Most torturers believe they are serving their national interest. Generally, they believe that the survival of their country is at stake. And they aren't full of sickos. They were full of average people who were not of sufficient character to separate right from wrong when authority was asking them to do things that were wrong. Sure, there is lots of reinforcement - from above, from peers, etc. But we are all obligated to use our own conscience to separate good from evil.

I wish I could be sure of my own ability to follow my conscience in such a situation. Are you sure there is no similarity between the moral certitude that would punish the torturers and the moral certitude of those who ordered the torture?

Please accept that last question as food for thought, not as an accusation.

I don't know exactly how to answer that question, in part because I myself am not convinced that punishing the lawyers is the best thing for our country. I guess my answer is that the power to do good does not come from moral certitude but from a lifetime of seeking an understanding of right and wrong, coupled with the courage to stand by those convictions. I would call that "moral fortitude".

I do not believe that anyone can be truly certain about right and wrong. Anyone who believes they have a perfect understanding of right and wrong has stopped searching for truth and is not trustworthy. But even though we can never be certain, we must try to grapple with right and wrong, because it is the only way to prepare for the day when we face a moral challenge. The more we struggle with these ideas, the easier it will be to trust our inner conscience when we are called to do so. If we have not prepared, will be unable to resist those who want to persuade us to do bad things. The strength comes not from knowing the right answer ("moral certitude"), but from trusting our preparation and having the courage (fortitude) to act on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the use of torture was absolutely wrong. But I don't see how a country can punish those who, in serving it, made mistakes, not for personal gain, but in an attempt to serve the country as they thought best.

However, I support a commission to study whether a bad decision was made, and if so, to recommend how to fix the system so it does not happen again.

Most torturers believe they are serving their national interest. Generally, they believe that the survival of their country is at stake. And they aren't full of sickos. They were full of average people who were not of sufficient character to separate right from wrong when authority was asking them to do things that were wrong. Sure, there is lots of reinforcement - from above, from peers, etc. But we are all obligated to use our own conscience to separate good from evil.

I wish I could be sure of my own ability to follow my conscience in such a situation. Are you sure there is no similarity between the moral certitude that would punish the torturers and the moral certitude of those who ordered the torture?

Please accept that last question as food for thought, not as an accusation.

I don't know exactly how to answer that question, in part because I myself am not convinced that punishing the lawyers is the best thing for our country. I guess my answer is that the power to do good does not come from moral certitude but from a lifetime of seeking an understanding of right and wrong, coupled with the courage to stand by those convictions. I would call that "moral fortitude".

I do not believe that anyone can be truly certain about right and wrong. Anyone who believes they have a perfect understanding of right and wrong has stopped searching for truth and is not trustworthy. But even though we can never be certain, we must try to grapple with right and wrong, because it is the only way to prepare for the day when we face a moral challenge. The more we struggle with these ideas, the easier it will be to trust our inner conscience when we are called to do so. If we have not prepared, will be unable to resist those who want to persuade us to do bad things. The strength comes not from knowing the right answer ("moral certitude"), but from trusting our preparation and having the courage (fortitude) to act on it.

Thanks for the thoughtful answer.

It still leaves me with the question of why it is more reasonable for me to assert my moral fortitude in the difficult task of punishing those who acted out of patriotism than it was for them to have asserted their moral fortitude in the painful task of torturing someone (or authorizing the torture) to save the lives of their countrymen. I think that John Yoo was terribly wrong in giving an opinion that justified torture, but is that the judgment of a moral citizen or of a liberal Democrat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I wish I could be sure of my own ability to follow my conscience in such a situation. Are you sure there is no similarity between the moral certitude that would punish the torturers and the moral certitude of those who ordered the torture?

Please accept that last question as food for thought, not as an accusation.

Other pp here.

Red herring.

1) If the above were true, no one could judge anyone else for their actions with regard to all kinds of immoral behavior. How could anyone punish a murderer, for example?

2) This is why we have the court system with due process and the possibility of appeal. Believe me, if those who wrote the torture memos were to be prosecuted they would have all kinds of opportunities to defend themselves that those who were tortured never received. They would also be protected against cruel and unusual punishment -- again, another protection that the tortured never received.

That said, I will say again -- I don't believe the lawyers should be prosecuted. They may deserve it morally but it is not in the best interest of the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It still leaves me with the question of why it is more reasonable for me to assert my moral fortitude in the difficult task of punishing those who acted out of patriotism than it was for them to have asserted their moral fortitude in the painful task of torturing someone (or authorizing the torture) to save the lives of their countrymen. I think that John Yoo was terribly wrong in giving an opinion that justified torture, but is that the judgment of a moral citizen or of a liberal Democrat?

Timothy McVeigh acted out of patriotism. I'm sure he would have argued that it was okay for innocent people to die because he was trying to save the country from destruction. I'm guessing that John Yoo believed it was okay to risk innocent people being tortured in order to save the country. Timothy McVeigh set off a bomb and John Yoo set up conditions so that other people thought it was okay to torture. If you can judge Timothy McVeigh but feel you can't judge John Yoo, you have a serious flaw in your logic.

And if that is the case maybe the reality is that you want to protect people who are more like you but don't care so much about the people who are different from you. I know that's a harsh statement but it's not uncommon for people to feel that way and it's something you should consider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And if that is the case maybe the reality is that you want to protect people who are more like you but don't care so much about the people who are different from you. I know that's a harsh statement but it's not uncommon for people to feel that way and it's something you should consider.

I think you are right, to this extent: I imagine myself in a jury box, and find it hard to see myself voting guilty if someone did something that I would not have considered a crime in his/her place. However, it's not so much that the person is like me, since I don't think I would have had a problem convicting Ted Kaczynski, who studied math at Harvard, as I did, but hesitate over John Yoo, with whom I feel little in common.

I'm not sure that psychoanalyzing me is really germane, but since raised the issue in a serious way, I have tried to respond seriously.