On "Just following orders"

[garybeck]

I've heard Keith Olbermann and Manfred Nowak, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on torture speak out strongly against Obama's statement that "low-level CIA officers" will not be prosecuted if they were following orders.

I acknowledge, those who followed orders are partly to blame, but in my view they are not the ultimate ones responsible. While I do NOT CONDONE their actions, subordinates are trained to obey and not question, especially in a time of war.

In my view, if Rumsfeld and Cheney and a few others who pulled the strings are put behind bars, they can let all the low level officers go free and I would be content and finally ready to "move on." I don't think I'm completely off base to think it's more important to prosecute the people giving the orders than those following them.

[EFerrari]

1. If my son was tortured,, I would want his torturer prosecuted.

The guy that did it. Not his boss, not his president, him.

We are not talking about "troops" in war time. We are talking about CIA personnel and CIA has used torture for decades.

It needs to stop now. And we need to shut down the School for Torturers. And these people need to go to jail.

[orleans]

3. i completely agree. and then we don't stop with the torturers. n/t

[orleans]

2. jonathan turley said something to the effect of

how you don't give out assurances that people won't be prosecuted--rather, you use it as a bargaining tool to get information out of them in order to go after the top dogs. obama just gave it all away.

also, since when can he legally, singlehandedly decide we don't have to uphold the laws regarding war crimes?

i was screaming when i heard this shit.

[EFerrari]

4. I'm coming to believe that Obama was pulling for the reaction he's getting

from the UN, from ACLU. Maybe ICRC is yet to come. He needs the political support.

In any case, I felt a lot less crazy watching those responses come in today. :)

[orleans]

10. the aclu's front page makes me think it's time to renew my membership w/them. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

8. Jonathan Turley said that Clinton needed to be impeached and removed for a blowjob.

The dude just likes to see shit happen.

[orleans]

11. whatever! your point being we should discount EVERYTHING he says?n/t

[Occam Bandage]

12. Turley is often brought up here on DU,

usually to support the point that Democratic official X is failing to adhere to their Constitutional duty to impeach/prosecute somebody for something. His expertise, such as it is, is invoked: surely if Turley believes it, then it is valid. Never mind that the Constitution never actually demands that anyone ever prosecute, investigate, or impeach anyone for anything--and that enforcing such a mandate would be an absolute nightmare, as it would dictate that any time anyone suspects anyone of anything the Feds must damn the torpedoes and go full speed ahead--Turley says it, and so we should listen up.

I think Turley is something of a fraud. No, perhaps fraud is too strong a word. He is an entertainer. Like a comedian, or like a dramatist, or like a political talk-show host, he says things not because he believes them to be true, but because he believes that they will arouse the interest of his audience, thus ensuring that he will continue to have a career saying such things. His particular shtick is that he argues for the mighty to be brought low by the law, and people like to see that. It's a good gig. But treating him like anything but an entertainer is mistaken.

[EFerrari]

14. So how is Turley wrong in this instance when he is not arguing

for the mighty to be laid low but on the contrary, arguing that lower level people shouldn't be offered immunity if you're to get their help in prosecuting those higher up the food chain?

[orleans]

15. oh puleese

i've seen people here bringing up "he wanted to impeach clinton" as a way of trying to discredit him. i don't know if that he wanted clinton impeached is true or not--i am not familiar with him during the clinton era. only the bush era. and he railed against the bush administration. (if he was trying to entertain why wasn't he supporting the fuckhead over on fox?)

and to say his comments/opinions regarding bush were just fashion is to say/imply that all of ours were as well. i mean really...what were we all doing here at du? having a fucking fashion show?

so...what university did you get your law degree?

[Fumesucker]

5. Basically my take on it is this..

If the treatment would enrage you if it were done to one of our guys by the enemy.. Then don't do it to them because you know in your heart of hearts it's the wrong thing to do.

[garybeck]

6. I agree but...

in training camp they don't tell you to defy orders if your heart tells you to. they tell you not to question ANYTHING and say "yes sir."

again i'm not condoning their actions. i just think they are not the ones we should be focusing our sites on.

[EFerrari]

7. The people in question are not GIs. n/t

[Fumesucker]

13. Actually there is a considerable amount of training about legal versus illegal orders..

Granted though there is considerably more emphasis placed on immediate obedience..

But the CIA are not military in the first place.

[drmeow]

9. I can understand your

sentiments. I certainly do not think it is fair for the subordinates to be prosecuted and not the top dogs. And I think the people who ordered it and justified should have the book thrown at them. However, prosecution of those who followed orders still has to be considered ... and dismissal, if it happens, needs to be on a case-by-case basis.

[TomClash]

16. You might be painting too broad a brush

Following whose orders? And what were the orders that were followed?

This decision has nothing to do with "following orders." It is about protecting CIA case officers and covering up the extent of the crimes.

[NNN0LHI]

17. And what of the low level guys who were raping children?

You have no interest who they are?

You would be comfortable with someone who did that moving into your neighborhood and you not knowing about their past?

Not me.

Don

[EFerrari]

18. I think sometimes the way we talk about these horrible acts

gets so up in our heads, we forget what it really means to bodies.