Should Those Behind Torture Be Prosecuted?
Bush administration figures have been accused of orchestrating the torture of prisoners. Those who favor prosecuting them say torture, a war crime, demands punishment. Those against prosecution cite the terrorism risk and say no rules were violated. Should there be trials?
Edited by Steve St. Angelo
Yes
For many people around the world, it is a sign of the decline of American moral leadership that we
By Jonathan Turley
Law professor at George Washington University; has been lead counsel on national security cases
continue to debate whether the government should prosecute those involved in the Bush torture program. Their confusion is understandable. Under our existing treaty obligations, we agreed to prosecute such crimes, and we have prosecuted others for precisely the same acts for decades. The real question should be: Should the United States violate international law to shield individuals...
No
Imagine you are an intelligence officer in 2002, when journalist Daniel Pearl is being held captive
By Clifford D. May
President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a conservative think tank
by terrorists in Pakistan. You have an al Qaeda leader in custody. He knows who is holding Pearl and where Pearl is being held. But when you ask him to give you that information, he says: "You'll soon see Mr. Pearl. You'll see his head. You'll see his body. Of course, they will no longer be attached."
And then he smiles, pleased by his defiance, amused by your impotence....
What do you think?
Reader Comments
The collapse of a nation
When the first collapse occurred on September 11, 2001, it was physical, shocking in its brutality. Then, a quiet horror descended upon us. When the second collapse occurred seven years later, it was economic, bewildering to us in its indiffernce. As the third collapse is occuring before our eyes, the final collapse of a great nation, we are paralyzed by the dread of experiencing the disintegration of just laws which have protected us from despots for more than two hundred years. We are witnessing the crimes of our countrymen in collusion with corporate profiteers and bandits who,four decades ago, wreaked havoc on the social orders of Chile and Argentina, and are now wreaking havic on the world. Since 9/11, these same profiteers have "made a killin'" on their stocks in defense contracts. President Eisenhower warned against the rise of the military-industrial complex. And, that is exactly what we've got today! What does all of this have to do with prosecuting Bush administration officials for war crimes? Our nation was lied to and pushed into war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Private contractors and corporations made out like bandits off the blood and sorrow from millions of the dead, severely injured, and emotionally ruined individuals. How loud must we scream to get the attention of "lawmakers," who need to be doing their job?
Our military and government officials went after "the terrorists," -- ghosts inhabiting Afghani caves. In the meantime, these same officials swept up many innocent individuals, and took them to torture chambers around the world. I do not know if a ghost living in a cave in Afghanastan is a terrorist. It is hearsay, said by the men who worked at the White House in our America, the men who tortured other men and women in the name of our America. These are the terrorists I know of -- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Fief, Wolfowitz, Perls, Yoo, Addington, Gonzales, and the list goes on. These men are traitors to our America. These are the men who must be prosecuted for war crimes. We can only heal and reclaim our country when these men are brought to justice in a court of law before the world. Our nation will then express true remorse for having done nothing to stop the torture. We are complicit in the torture, if we do not hold these men accountable for their war crimes. And, we cannot, we must not, only look at the road ahead, i.e. look forward, as we see in the rear view mirror a mac truck barreling down on top of us. We must look back. We must pull over and stop. We must get the help of those who can protect us from the public menace of those who will run over everyone in their path. If we truly value our constitution and the rights of man, international treaties and the military code of conduct, we will prosecute those men who have committed war crimes in our name, and we will do it hastily. If we are insane, we will do nothing. Yours truly, a grieving citizen.
read iraq veterans against war testimony
http://ivaw.org/wintersoldier/on_the_hill
this highlights just the tip of the iceberg on what U.S. is actually doing in those countries it's supposed to "liberate"- have you wondered why "terrorists" emerge? How would you like it if a foreign invading army just started destroying everyone and everything around you in the name of "freedom."
Amazing the lack of rational thought here...
Oddly absent in the stories above is the definition of torture.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
This stated, one has to ask if there was "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" inflicted on the two people that it was used on. I suppose that it depends on your personal definition of "severe .. mental pain". But, in actuality, it doesn't. It depends on the legally accepted definition of "severe".
The interesting thing about waterboarding is that it feels like drowning, but, in actuality, the fashion in which it is practiced ensures that the target of the procedure literally cannot drown, since water cannot enter the lungs (they are higher than the nose and mouth). The sensation is very unpleasant, unarguably. The practice is ethically and morally questionable, again unarguably.
The question here, however, is not an ethical or moral one. It is a legal one. Personally, I don't believe that this treatment, albeit obviously distasteful, meets the legal definition of torture. There is no "severe pain", such as would be experienced by breaking of bones, application of thumbscrews, or other medieval torture methods. Additionally, the long-term adverse effects of "psychological" discomfort is questionable. It's an unpleasant sensation. It feels like drowning, but it's impossible to drown.
Did the people who were applying the procedure specifically insinuate that the people being waterboarded were going to be drowned? If so, it meets the legal definition of torture, based on clause C. If they did not insinuate this, then it does not, barring those subjected to it are able to prove lasting "severe" psychological effects due directly to the waterboarding.
Think on that.
advertisement
