Should Those Behind Torture Be Prosecuted?

Reader Comments
Back to article

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.

Earthdreams of CA 2:35AM September 17, 2009

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."

david of NC 11:31AM June 20, 2009

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.

Wesley of AR 6:25PM May 31, 2009

I have stated since 2003 that Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld, et al; were all involved in criminal activity worlwide. The fact is that all three of these people have been War Criminals, and Promoters of Terorism since 1930 when their fathers, and grandfathers were all members of Hitler's Fascist Party, and the Nazi Party. Bush's grandfather financed Hitler's take over of Germany.
Today they all remain active in the Nazi Fascist Party, and have intent to destroy the USA from within. Thus the program today that Obama inherited, but; of who also is involved with these people up to his eye balls.
This information is all available, and verifiaable by professional persons.
The 911 was an act of TREASON by the above mentioned persons.
Obama is complicit in all of the Bush, and Cheney War Crimes policies.
For the right price Blackwater (Xe) would eliminate all of these problems!

Paul W. of FL 6:18PM May 27, 2009

Now that the Bush-Cheney Thugs are out of power, they can no longer use "War on Terror", "National Security" or even "Global Economy" to cover-up their graft and corruption. Nobody is Above the Law... Follow the Evidence... Follow the MONEY... Prosecute the Criminals!

jpinsatx of TX 10:27AM May 25, 2009

The legality is clear and unambiguous. The Bush administration designed, implemented and acknowledged carrying out acts of torture. This is a war crime and violates both domestic and international law. So it's a no-brainer, no? People who break the law should be punished. People in positions of responsibility should be held to the highest standard of accountability. Right? Well, it's not so simple. There may be a difference between what is right and what is constructive. There is a reason that South Africa held a Truth and Reconciliation Committee instead of war crime trials after the end of apartheid. There is a reason that former dictatorships prosecute only a few of the most heinous criminals after the dictatorships fall. Prosecuting the government can be a highly divisive and inflammatory process. And where does it end? Prosecute Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, sure. Prosecute all the commanding officers in charge of the program. Prosecute the lawyers who gave specious legal cover to it. Do we prosecute all the CIA officers and contractors who implemented the policy? Do we prosecute all the congress men and women (including Nancy Pelosi) who knew about the policy but did nothing to stop it? How many people will we prosecute? What effect will that have on national unity? Obama worries that this will hamper his agenda. Although I've been very dismayed by his recent backtracking on various military issues, I can understand his dilemna. I too am horrified by our descent into amorality under the Bush/Cheney regime but I don't think the answer is so simple.

Lisa of NY 5:47PM May 22, 2009

Hmmm wow he's a real prize Tuley let me ask you this do you really think
when they take one of are poeple they say hold on got too look at the book
dont want to torture him in frount of the cam no they dont you look at what they'v done
911,killing news reportor on live t.v and you want to say something about how
they got info ....
The welfare of imprisoned terrorist dont even go thier cause we'v lost a lot of men and
women here and over thier as will i back are troops and we need to do what ever we can
to get that info because they will you can bank on that and they will use things you have
not see ...........

DW of OK 1:27PM May 20, 2009

Look, these thugs use whatever means to do as they see fit to accomplish their goals, no matter who in the process gets hurt, then turn around and use what we do as a civilised world against us to get others hyped up about what the free world has done.
I say use whatever we can to achieve Our goals as well and if torture is the only thing they understand then the more we can drum up the better.
Use their tactics agains them and when an enemy combatant is brought to the USA Forbid all docs to the press, give him his fair share in a trial, then when found guilty by any means for any reason give him the exact same punishment that they would give ANY captured American.
DEATH !!!
I bet that those that are crying over this mess would be thankful to see Marines come storming in to their rescue from info gathered by a torture would have less to say, unless otherwise they wanna stay behind and left to fend for theirselves just because some sort of torture was used to get the info about their whereabouts, hhmmmmmmmm.
Obama, DoD, HS, and so forth do what ya gotta do !!!!!!!

Daniel of GA 7:13PM May 19, 2009

The welfare of imprisoned terrorists is not high on my priority list, especially since they're all guilty. Why would they have been captured if they were innocent in the first place?
However, torture tactics cause terrorists to give false information, just so they don't get tortured more.
But these prisoners are less than human in my eyes, so if they get beaten, I could care less.
That's AS I SEE IT. I'm Mike "Mainer Mike" Brown.

Mike Brown of ME 7:05PM May 19, 2009

There is no evidence that the use of torture (and, yes, it was torture) led to any actionable intelligence which could not have been obtained by conventional interrogation methods. In fact, many professional interrogators, including the man who initally interrogated Abu Zabaydah, say the use of torture actually produced nothing but bad information.
There is also plenty of evidence now that torture was used, not to gain intelligence to prevent attacks but to produce false intelligence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda in oreder to justify the otherwise unjustifiable attack on Iraq.
This policy needs to be investigated and the authors and the perpetrators of torture need to be held accountable. They betrayed every principle of the rule of law, they betrayed the principles on which their country was founded and they betrayed the memories of those who have bravely defended that country for centuries without resorting to the tools of despots.

A Hermit 12:28PM May 19, 2009