So long as the actor is good, and the victim is bad, there can be no crime

[jpgray]

Here's a man pouring water. There's a man blindfolded and tied to a stretcher. Who deserves prosecution? Imprisonment? Many on DU have no idea, and will have none until more information about the identity of each man is given.

Those who deny protections under the law at their convenience know no answer on which man is the criminal, until it is revealed which is a friend and which is an enemy. The sycophants of such people are of the same mind. Should the man pouring water be a US solider or CIA agent, do we prosecute? So long as the man tied to the stretcher is an enemy, the answer of the president and many here (or on Free Republic) is "no."

Few here are much bothered by al Awlaki getting blown apart by a drone, or water-boarders escaping prosecution. The former is a bad man and our enemy, whereas the latter are our friends and countrymen.

Many here would be much bothered, however, should a US citizen experience what we still permit today. Should he be abducted and illegally rendered to another nation where he is tortured, even if that nation were at war with us, the justice and rightness of the act would never be admitted.

In World War II, we hanged Japanese torturers for offenses that included water-boarding, and it isn't hard to imagine we would demand a similar penalty for similar culprits now--so long as the victim is one we recognize as a victim.

The most damning fact of this stance, shared with the president by both major parties, is that in such a hideous nightmare as the Spanish American War in the Philippines, water-boarding prompted a court martial for US soldiers. That will never happen today.

[teddy51]

1. Excellent post, and so true. So long as it is done by us, were good with it

no mater that it's wrong.

[jpgray]

6. Depends on who us is, right?

There are powers DU may not mind Obama having that we would reject as too dangerous when exercised by another president.

[provis99]

2. well yes, we prosecuted Japanese war criminals. But no Allied criminals.

The Nuremberg Trials were in fact explicitly to only deal with the war crimes of Axis countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II

[jpgray]

3. I've never understood how failing to live up to ideals in the past excuses the failure today

Maybe you can explain that to me.

[provis99]

4. might = right. clear and simple.

[jpgray]

5. It certainly explains why Qaddafi and Mubarak were friends until they were weak.

[JVS]

8. It's the immorally cynical masquerading as the worldly and sophisticated.

[jpgray]

10. The inconsistency goes both ways

That arguments for intervening in one nation would apply to a host of other nations, or that we only approve of extraordinary powers for a president so far as we approve of the president never enters into people's minds. It's amusing to see people cite UN resolutions and international law as properly overriding the Constitution for US citizens insofar as they may harm enemies, and rejecting them utterly insofar as they may harm our soldiers or politicians.

[Cool Logic]

7. The only thing that matters is who is alive at the end of the day.

You seem to be suggesting that there is a civilized manner in which to wage war. That, my friend, is a statement of paradoxical absurdity—the term 'civilized war" is an oxymoron of the highest order! I hate war! But if this country is going to order its sons and daughters to put their lives on the line, I expect the tactics we employ to be of the nature that will give them the best chance to be alive when the horror of it all comes to an end.

Having said that, the best way to avoid the repulsive transgressions you cited is to simply avoid engaging ourselves in unnecessary wars. You, me and anyone who casts a vote for an elected official is responsible for the decisions made by the people we choose to represent us. Hence, "We the People" are equally responsible for the unnecessary wars and their inhumane and uncivilized consequences.

[jpgray]

9. Who is protected by extraordinary rendition? By torture?

For some crimes, it would be very difficult to argue that lives were saved by their commission. It would be easier, I think, do argue that they have put lives at risk.

[bhikkhu]

11. Or you could consider the 400 or so American citizens killed by police each year

The relevant question isn't ever who was a good person or a bad person, but what were the exact circumstances and intentions at the time of the killing.