IF We saw another country torturing detainees like we did, would We Say "It's OK, It's legal" ???

[Blackhatjack]

And that puts the whole 'torture' issue in perspective vis-a-vis the rest of the world.

We have lost the moral high ground to condemn acts of torture committed by other countries.

THe only way to regain a portion of that moral high ground is to ACT by holding accountable those who devised, condoned, implemented and covered up our own acts of torture.

Otherwise the stench of hypocrisy will overwhelm any of our feverish calls for other countries to end their own torture policies.

[driver8]

1. If Americans were tortured in another country,

the people of the United States would be up in arms and demanding justice.

We must hold accountable those responsible for torture.

[BlooInBloo]

2. You realize we offshored some of our torture for a very long time, right?

[Blackhatjack]

9. Yes I do... and 'rendition' of individuals for torture by another country fits that bill

It is not necessary that the US conduct the physical infliction of torture to be held responsible for that torture.

Intentionally 'looking the other way' to avoid seeing others tortured is morally reprehensible as well.

[cali]

3. So France has no authority to condemn torture?

You realize the French use of torture in Algeria was notoroious, right? And that the French twice granted amnesty to torturers? What about Spain? It wasn't until last year that they started to look into the well known torture that took place under Franco? And I don't think that investigations really gone anywhere.

What I'm trying to say, is that as long as we aren't torturing anymore and are investigating our own malfeasance, hopefully to move on to torture, we have as much of a right and an obligation to speak out against torture as anyone else.

I fear too many DUers either don't know history or buy into a version of American exceptionalism or both.

[Blackhatjack]

8. No... it is my argument that France's moral authority is diminished by the acts you described

.... and the US will find itself in exactly the same position, even though as 'young democracy' we have always argued that we are the world's greatest(exceptional) opponent of human rights abuses and proponent of freedom.

You made my argument ....

[cali]

10. By your argument very few nations have the moral high ground

that allows them to speak out against torture outside of their own countries.

Guided by your argument, what moral high ground does Spain have to try Americans over torture when they practiced it themselves and no one was held accountable?

Rigid formulations such as you're espousing, may be dandy in Candide Land, but in the real world with real people and real suffring, they're counterproductive.

[Blackhatjack]

14. Twice you have attempted to misstate my point here...

It is a matter of credibility when it comes to espousing and upholding any great principle that I am pointing out here.

I never said Spain or any other country could not speak out against torture, or act to hold torturers criminally liable, just because they have evidence in their own history of using torture.

The problem with countries that used torture in the past is that it undermines their credibility when they speak out against other countries for their own torture activities.

The solution is to admit the past wrongdoing, prosecute those who engaged in it on behalf of the nation, and change policies so that the conduct will not be repeated in the future.

THat is called REHABILITATION of credibility.

Mine is not a 'rigid formulation' as you have accused me of espousing.

I encourage all to condemn torture, but you must understand that all publically condemning torture do not stand on the same level ground. Even the dictators of the world pubicly state they are against torture, but their own conduct of torture drains any such statements of credibility.

[cali]

16. I'm not misstating you at all.

I'm suggesting that your premise is hard to uphold- that premise being that the U.S. can never be credible in the eyes of the world, on speaking out against torture until it prosecutes its own. That's a prediction and a vague one, at that? What does the eyes of the world even mean?

i'm suggesting that history doesn't prove your point. Of course, no one can say that this will be or that will be, but history indicates that there are many more factors involved than you're considering. In other words, prosecution probably isn't the only avenue to restoring credibility. My pointing out Spain and France was for that purpose. As far as I know, there aren't a lot of voices out there saying that they aren't credible on the issue of torture.

Of course we should prosecute. That's a given.

[Blackhatjack]

17. Sure you are ... I never stated in the OP any such 'premise' you just attributed to me...

You stated

"I'm suggesting that your premise is hard to uphold- that premise being that the U.S. can never be credible in the eyes of the world, on speaking out against torture until it prosecutes its own. That's a prediction and a vague one, at that? What does the eyes of the world even mean?"

You are speaking in absolutes of black and white, ie. "the U.S. can NEVER BE CREDIBLE in the eyes of the world, on speaking out against torture..."(emphasis added).

I challenge you to find any such statement I made which supports such a premise.

Every country on the face of this earth has its own warts. However, those countries who abide by the rule of law and hold their own accountable for violating those rules of law, have a higher moral ground from which to point out the crimes being committed by other countries. And because they do stand on higher moral ground, other countries in the world do tend to listen to what they have to say.

[mrcheerful]

4. Well according to the nit wits america has always used torture when it came

to dealing with people we were at war with and Dem's were just as guilty as cons. Seems theres been a serious right wing nut re writting of US history, though when pushed the excuse seems to be shrub was just to honest because he left a paper trail. Besides they attacked us on 9/11 and deserve what they got. Once again the total disconnect with reality. You can't fix stupid.

[Kindigger]

7. Yeah, what you said and

as long as we don't cut peoples heads off it's all fine. :sarcasm:

[Blackhatjack]

5. Further, it is dangerous to allow former govt officials who engaged in torture to roam free...

... and pretend that what they did was legal.

THere cannot be any respect and legitimacy accorded by the people to a government where that government shows so little respect for its own laws, and treats people falling within its grasp with such inhumanity.

These former officials roaming around free, making public statements to the media about how the use torture was useful and legal, are doing damage every day to our constitutional form of government.

THe remedy is to investigate the facts, apply the law, prosecute where the law was broken, and imprison the guilty.

[Echo In Light]

6. America's supposed "moral high ground" has always been illusory

Just sayin'

[islandgirl808]

11. i agree

sadly.

:-(

[Echo In Light]

13. Most power structures and governments use the same denials and lies against their populations

W/o the smoke and mirrors of our "democracy," more people here would be able to discern this. This is why I think the Big Lie is actually far more nefarious than the Big Stick approach as the unreality and disinformation take root deeply, becoming entrenched in the collective mindset ...which = VERY dangerous, as the last eight yrs alone shows

[gratuitous]

12. We would say "It's okay, it's legal" on only one condition

That that country's attorney general, who had formerly been the country's leader's personal attorney and family consigliere, said it was legal. Then we'd say it was okay.

Wait. No, that doesn't make any sense, either. There has to be some way to make this all okay. Why, oh why, isn't Rush Limbaugh telling us what to think?

[jimshoes]

15. We seem to have made a rather big deal

about Sadaam's torture rooms. We still had the moral high ground at the time though. Later on not so much.