Should the actual torturers be left off the hook because "they were following orders"

[hedgehog]

Poll question: Should the actual torturers be left off the hook because "they were following orders"

The proposition is that if we prosecute the hands-on folk for torturing, then they will be reluctant to "do what is needed" in the future.

My response?

Gee, do you think?

IMO, that's the exact reason everyone from Bush down to the guy delivering sandwiches should be tried in open court!

[Initech]

1. Prosecute the whole fuckin' lot of 'em.

[Raineyb]

2. I certainly hope that prosecuting the people who did the actual torturing as well as those who

ordered it would make people reluctant to engage in such behavior in the future. Take all their asses to court!

Regards

[BurtWorm]

3. If prosecuting them all gets in the way of prosecuting the architects, then it's not worth it.

The architects should be the first to put their necks on the line. Then you can look into prosecuting the goons.

[hedgehog]

4. Oh - no way we go for the little guys without going after the people who signed the

permission slips!

[walldude]

5. they will be reluctant to "do what is needed" in the future.

Did you see McCain, Graham and Lieberman today? Saying if we prosecute the people who drafted these memos it will have a "chilling effect" on lawyers trying to offer legal advice to the government... My response was the same as yours...

GEE YA THINK? I mean god forbid it has a chilling effect, that might keep them from breaking the law...


These people are all insane.

[Goblinmonger]

8. It's going to chill it all around

not just for the republicans.

And in essence you are charging someone for doing what they are ethically bound to do--represent their client.

[walldude]

13. Bullshit! Lawyers are ethically bound to LEGALLY represent

their clients. They are not allowed to dispense advice on how to commit a fucking crime against humanity. All this will do is deter people from trying to break the law.

[Goblinmonger]

6. So we want a military that doesn't follow orders?

It's like A Few Good Men. Those guys are trained to follow orders. They are trained to do so without thinking about it. That's what they did. So now we try them for doing what they are trained and paid to do?

And what about the low-level attorneys that did the research: should they be tried? They were just doing the job they were hired to do. They have a client, the President, who is paying them to do research. Lawyers have to represent their client. That's the ethical obligation they have. What about a criminal defense lawyer that represents a guy that did the crime and gets them off? Should they have some punishment.

The low-level people aren't the problem.

[EFerrari]

14. CIA is not the military, is it? n/t

[Occam Bandage]

20. If we set the precedent that

relying on the DOJ's legal findings in good faith can lead to jail time when a new President comes in office, I don't think the chilling effect will be limited to just the CIA.

[LynneSin]

7. Option #3 - they are not the highest priority

That doens't mean they couldn't be a priority. It just means we need to focus on the kingpins of this operation.

[gcomeau]

9. Actually, the proposition is...

...that you can't prosecute them because they were following legal direction from the Justice Department concerning the legality of their actions. That is COMPLETELY different than saying they were "following orders".

It's entrapment by estoppel for the government to officially tell someone they're acting legally, then try to prosecute them for believing them and acting on it. Bottom line, if law enforcement explicitly tells you a specific action is legal and you have reasonable grounds for believing them, and you act on the basis of that belief... EVEN if what they told you is not true and you are actually committing a crime... you're off the hook. And good luck arguing that they didn't have reasonable grounds to believe official written authorization from the United States Justice Department was credible.

[TWiley]

10. I would like to see the policy-makers get prosecuted

this is the fastest road to bush-cheney. Remember the bushtapo era torture convictions? They convicted solders who were following orders from CIA observers.

It is about time for the policy makers to be prosecuted. They have floated above the law long enough. If we prosecute the little people, then it will stop there.

[backtoblue]

11. Remember "A Few Good Men"?

Not following orders is not an option in most cases. Sure, everyone has a conscience and should try to do what's right, but soldiers are conditioned to be subordinate to orders.

[tekisui]

12. From the rag holder to the President. Everyone in the chain of command

should be tried.

[Diclotican]

15. hedgehog

hedgehog

My advice is, start at the top, and work you way down the hill.. Some Will probably never go to prison, or get a day in cort, but at least some of them would be hold accountable for what they are been doing.. You can not, and should not just claim "I was just following orders". In the Nuremberg trial, the idea of defense of "I was just following orders" was been shoot dead and you could be seeing a long prison time after a trial.. Even that you have your orders..

In Nuremberg, and many court thereafter the defense from the person/persons in cort was indeed that he/she was just following orders.. But still they was arrested, convinced of crimes, and send to prison for some time.. Some of them was acquitted as the evidence was not there - because the evidence for the most part was dead and buried for a long time already.. Or because the evidence submitted was not good enough.. But many of them, specially in the Auschwitz trial, was convinced of crimes, and was both shoot and put into prison, for many of them for life.. Even woman was shoot because of their crimes.. Many of the concentration camps had woman who as a brutal as their male prison guards.. If not worse..

The evidence against the criminals should also be known in a open cort. When former allied forces like US, USSR,UK and France managed to do that in the eve of the cold war in 1945-46 then the US should managed it on their own in 2009.

Diclotican

[Extend a Hand]

16. There needs to be a third option

If the torturers were in the military acting on orders from superiors then I don't think they should be prosecuted. Instead they should be required to testify against superiors and treated/counseled by a psychologist and discharged.

Civilian torturers should be required to testify, treated/counseled, and fired.

I'll be sick if I see one more low-level grunt soldier prosecuted while the architects of this disaster walk free.

[EFerrari]

17. I sincerely doubt that there were any lov level GIs

acting as interrogators. Those people were CIA, MI and maybe a few contractors. Or, that's what I've found so far in my reading.

[jody]

18. "actual torturers" could have been court martialed and imprisoned if they failed to obey just as

1st Lt. Scott Easterling faces court martial for challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president.

Under the circumstances, I'm inclined to give the "actual torturers" slack but I demand that the highest level person from whence the order came be punished.

[Occam Bandage]

19. Why would you prosecute someone for fulfilling a sandwich-delivery order?

How strange.