I understand that we need to protect our nation BUT to what extent? and at what cost? It is so easy to say 'i was simply following orders'. I think the soldiers made a conscious decision to torture detainees and they should be held accountable because there were many who simply took a back seat (watch: 'Taxi to the dark side'). Most of the detainees had/have never been charged yet alone brought to court with any crime, if that were you or I, in a less economically developed country, let alone a western country there would be OUTRAGE!. I also find it interesting how Bush went out of his way to make sure that prisoners in Guantanamo were not entitled to the same rights as U.S citizens even though it is within the U.S. On top of that they enlisted the help of psychologists to implement techniques which could inflict an extensive amount of pain without leaving physical scars. This just goes to show that it was something methodologically thought out and even gave the psychologists psychological tests to make sure they could handle it. Like JMBerg said you can't have double standards because the U.S tried Japanese interrogators for such war crimes after WWII. If we make this the exception then it's like a domino effect, the same way if you let someone get away with murder once then what's to stop them? The U.S did this before with General Pinochet.
Ernie Grach - 15 years ago
I do not advocate torture, however, people do odd things during a war. It seems that when faced with right and wrong, good and evil, etc, we are confused as a society. Most of us feel compassion for others, but in some instances, we think pleasing a master is more important than exercising the compassion within us. The use of torture, terrorism, war, bullying ... underline the fragility of our existance on this planet. Whether the peopel who used torture receive immunity or not, is not as important as how they are reintegrated into every day society.
Mars - 15 years ago
agree with J H. Depends who it is-- & what they are trying to do to a free country. As far as Al-Quadia goes-- have no remorse for using mental or other ways & means of exrtracting informatio on them.. they would gouge out your grandmother eyes- etc. etc.--if they weren't kept at bay. I used to think- no we mustened do that- not even to our own worst enemys-- but since I have discovered what they do to mankind-- have no sympathy. Just killing them-- doesn't do it--that's what they want-- they are so mixed up-about what life is all about-have manufactured themselves a man- made bible--with mostly rules to their own liking-- (for men) with no regard for life-period!!!
Jerome Radtke - 15 years ago
You people need to get a grip. there was no actual torture. Hurt feelings and fear of future pain are not torture. Inconvenience is not torture. Real torture leaves physical scars, broken bones, and dead bodies.
Which I guess indicates perhaps you should be discussing the practices of The Islamonazis.
Dave Reesor - 15 years ago
I agree with Kevin that the question of prosecution is moot, as it would not be succesful.
I have grandchildren, and the way I think about torture is, "If I knew with certainty that someone had information that would keep my grandchildren, (or any child for that matter), from harm, what would I do to get that information?" You can guess the answer.
If I were responsible, as the US president is, for the safety of the citizens of my country, what would I do to carry out that mandate. I see that as morally quite different from torture used to try to build a Thousand Year Reich, or to build a regime that has as one of its hallmarks, the repression of women and girls, or sadism. i.e., torture for your own pleasure.
We might legislate torture for diferent purposes to be legally equivalent, but they are morally different.
I am in general agreement with Julianna, although, I would show kindness to a snake, provided I had him in a cage where I was certain he couldn't bite me or anyone else.
Kevin Whelan - 15 years ago
The Bush administration got valid legal opinions from lawmakers regarding the use of these harsh methods of interrogation. These interrogation method opinions have not been proven to be invalid in any court of law at this point in time. Therefore the whole question is moot. Millions of dollars and countless pages of legal opinion not to mention years of time will go by before there will be even a chance of anybody going to jail over the issue. Obama is right........forgeddaboutit and move on, the dark days are done!
If everybody followed their consciences, the likes of presidents, vicepresidents and Hitler, would have never been able to create the hell they ordered, blieving in their minds they did the right thing to order the people below them to carry out torture. The same goes for all fanatics. But the real world does not work that way where everybody follows their conscience. People are being sworn to follow the leader, and if they don't, they loose their job and get prison or worse. Yes, it think first judge the leaders, and then worry about the ordertakers.
dAF - 15 years ago
Your point of view Juliana, commands your attention.
It depends who they have been interrogating. If it was the terrorists and Al-Qaeda, then they were justified. What does not enter into the minds of Americans and Canadians is that these people do not understand compassion. They take it as a weakness, and refer to the Americans and Canadians as soft degenerates, despicable, below human considerations. Their ultimate end is to bring all the world under the rule of Islam and Sharia. So, what they are planning or where, is essential for all the world. Show kindeness to a snake and it will bite you.
JMBerg - 15 years ago
The excuse that 'I was only taking orders' does not wash. It did not wash with the Germans who used it to excuse their actions during the last war nor should it wash with the Americans. German prisoners were summarily executed or sent to prison for their actions. Why now the double standard?
Brian Aguinaga - 15 years ago
While no type of torture should ever be condoned by any democratic country that says it supports basic human rights for everyone, some have tried to hedge their bets by "re-interpreting" the law. It appeared obvious all along to any rational person that this is what the Bush/Cheney Whitehouse had been doing. Had these same techniques been used on US citizens by any other power (without the tacit support of the US Government), the T-word would most certainly have been brandished by American officials.
While the actual interrogators may have had to overcome any moral aversions to doing their jobs, they were ordered to interrogate using methods that had been defined as legal and "not torture" by their masters. To prosecute them for it now would be highly questionable if not legally tenuous. Notwithstanding, if prosecutions are to be pursued, it should start at the top with the government officials who conspired to make "torture" = "not torture". Of course, we all know who that means, therefore, it will never happen.
I understand that we need to protect our nation BUT to what extent? and at what cost? It is so easy to say 'i was simply following orders'. I think the soldiers made a conscious decision to torture detainees and they should be held accountable because there were many who simply took a back seat (watch: 'Taxi to the dark side'). Most of the detainees had/have never been charged yet alone brought to court with any crime, if that were you or I, in a less economically developed country, let alone a western country there would be OUTRAGE!. I also find it interesting how Bush went out of his way to make sure that prisoners in Guantanamo were not entitled to the same rights as U.S citizens even though it is within the U.S. On top of that they enlisted the help of psychologists to implement techniques which could inflict an extensive amount of pain without leaving physical scars. This just goes to show that it was something methodologically thought out and even gave the psychologists psychological tests to make sure they could handle it. Like JMBerg said you can't have double standards because the U.S tried Japanese interrogators for such war crimes after WWII. If we make this the exception then it's like a domino effect, the same way if you let someone get away with murder once then what's to stop them? The U.S did this before with General Pinochet.
I do not advocate torture, however, people do odd things during a war. It seems that when faced with right and wrong, good and evil, etc, we are confused as a society. Most of us feel compassion for others, but in some instances, we think pleasing a master is more important than exercising the compassion within us. The use of torture, terrorism, war, bullying ... underline the fragility of our existance on this planet. Whether the peopel who used torture receive immunity or not, is not as important as how they are reintegrated into every day society.
agree with J H. Depends who it is-- & what they are trying to do to a free country. As far as Al-Quadia goes-- have no remorse for using mental or other ways & means of exrtracting informatio on them.. they would gouge out your grandmother eyes- etc. etc.--if they weren't kept at bay. I used to think- no we mustened do that- not even to our own worst enemys-- but since I have discovered what they do to mankind-- have no sympathy. Just killing them-- doesn't do it--that's what they want-- they are so mixed up-about what life is all about-have manufactured themselves a man- made bible--with mostly rules to their own liking-- (for men) with no regard for life-period!!!
You people need to get a grip. there was no actual torture. Hurt feelings and fear of future pain are not torture. Inconvenience is not torture. Real torture leaves physical scars, broken bones, and dead bodies.
Which I guess indicates perhaps you should be discussing the practices of The Islamonazis.
I agree with Kevin that the question of prosecution is moot, as it would not be succesful.
I have grandchildren, and the way I think about torture is, "If I knew with certainty that someone had information that would keep my grandchildren, (or any child for that matter), from harm, what would I do to get that information?" You can guess the answer.
If I were responsible, as the US president is, for the safety of the citizens of my country, what would I do to carry out that mandate. I see that as morally quite different from torture used to try to build a Thousand Year Reich, or to build a regime that has as one of its hallmarks, the repression of women and girls, or sadism. i.e., torture for your own pleasure.
We might legislate torture for diferent purposes to be legally equivalent, but they are morally different.
I am in general agreement with Julianna, although, I would show kindness to a snake, provided I had him in a cage where I was certain he couldn't bite me or anyone else.
The Bush administration got valid legal opinions from lawmakers regarding the use of these harsh methods of interrogation. These interrogation method opinions have not been proven to be invalid in any court of law at this point in time. Therefore the whole question is moot. Millions of dollars and countless pages of legal opinion not to mention years of time will go by before there will be even a chance of anybody going to jail over the issue. Obama is right........forgeddaboutit and move on, the dark days are done!
If everybody followed their consciences, the likes of presidents, vicepresidents and Hitler, would have never been able to create the hell they ordered, blieving in their minds they did the right thing to order the people below them to carry out torture. The same goes for all fanatics. But the real world does not work that way where everybody follows their conscience. People are being sworn to follow the leader, and if they don't, they loose their job and get prison or worse. Yes, it think first judge the leaders, and then worry about the ordertakers.
Your point of view Juliana, commands your attention.
It depends who they have been interrogating. If it was the terrorists and Al-Qaeda, then they were justified. What does not enter into the minds of Americans and Canadians is that these people do not understand compassion. They take it as a weakness, and refer to the Americans and Canadians as soft degenerates, despicable, below human considerations. Their ultimate end is to bring all the world under the rule of Islam and Sharia. So, what they are planning or where, is essential for all the world. Show kindeness to a snake and it will bite you.
The excuse that 'I was only taking orders' does not wash. It did not wash with the Germans who used it to excuse their actions during the last war nor should it wash with the Americans. German prisoners were summarily executed or sent to prison for their actions. Why now the double standard?
While no type of torture should ever be condoned by any democratic country that says it supports basic human rights for everyone, some have tried to hedge their bets by "re-interpreting" the law. It appeared obvious all along to any rational person that this is what the Bush/Cheney Whitehouse had been doing. Had these same techniques been used on US citizens by any other power (without the tacit support of the US Government), the T-word would most certainly have been brandished by American officials.
While the actual interrogators may have had to overcome any moral aversions to doing their jobs, they were ordered to interrogate using methods that had been defined as legal and "not torture" by their masters. To prosecute them for it now would be highly questionable if not legally tenuous. Notwithstanding, if prosecutions are to be pursued, it should start at the top with the government officials who conspired to make "torture" = "not torture". Of course, we all know who that means, therefore, it will never happen.