NY times calls for criminal prosecution of Cheney and others.

[werepossum]

Surely there's a sweet middle ground between Washington crony with an axe to grind, and a green incompetent.

Such as... Bill Clinton. Had to govern a State first, but his daddy wasn't President. Made him a good outside man for the job.

Pretty much, although he single-handedly made Red China the powerhouse it is today. Kinda "But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln . . ."

I was about to respond that this poll is very depressing, mostly referring to the overall poll..

But... Something I learned in a sociology class long ago, polls are all about what question was asked. Truth is, any poll is meaningless without that context.

So the actual question that was asked in this poll from which the 59% number comes from was :

""All in all, do you think the CIA treatment of suspected terrorists was justified or unjustified?"

59% answered with some level of 'justified'. That could be very justified, or somewhat justified.

In another question :

Do you personally think the CIA treatment of suspected terrorists amounted to torture, or not?"

Here, only 49% of responses acknowledged it was torture at all.

An interesting analogy, 70% of people polled by CBS/NYT said waterboarding was torture.


Here's the clincher -

Of the people who believed it was torture, only 20% of those (10% of the total) said it was justified.

So of those that believe / acknowledge torture occurred, very few support it.

So here is my guess -

90% of people don't know what occurred, they don't know what the report said and what kind of things were done.

Those folks are probably lining up along political lines being pro-Bush/Cheney or anti-Bush/Cheney with their responses.

In other words this poll doesn't mean people support torture, it just means they are not well informed.

What always pisses me off about polls is that most of them don't ask a straight question even when it's easy to do so. This implies that the pollsters are bias in some way to start with. Very strange that this poll talks about white people and Christians for example.

I mean, why not just ask the question. Do you support the United States using torture as a means to gather information from suspected terrorists?

But no, they have to make it 'Do you support what the CIA did?' That's a politically charged question and makes assumptions / implications about what the CIA did. The results wind up being meaningless.

Because polls today are usually commissioned and almost always reported as forms of activism.

Anybody who wants to see the real reason Obama will never prosecute Bush and Cheney can easily find it. http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/10/do-the-geneva-conventions-apply-to-the-detention-of-al-libi/

The New York Times is reporting that the U.S. Navy is holding and questioning captured al-Qaida member Abu Anas al-Libi on a Navy ship before transferring him to federal law enforcement officials for prosecution in the United States. Assuming that al-Libi is currently being held as a combatant under the laws of war, this is similar to the detention/interrogation process the Obama Administration used for Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame in 2011. I agree that this combined law-of-war/criminal law enforcement model has some advantages (and minimizes the disadvantages of either approach used alone), but it does raise questions regarding what international legal rules the Administration has applied to Warsame and al-Libi during the period of their detention and, in particular, whether the Administration believes the Geneva Conventions apply.

As I have previously noted with respect to Warsame, because Article 22 of the Third Geneva Convention states that prisoners of war “may be interned only in premises located on land,” Obama Administration lawyers must have concluded that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to Warsame and al-Libi, or that they are not POWs, or that they are not being interned.

The Bush Administration, of course, was much criticized (including by officials now in the Obama Administration) for holding al-Qaida detainees under the laws of war (rather than as criminal suspects) and for not applying the Geneva Conventions to them. The Bush Administration was accused of “cherry-picking” among the laws of war — relying on the laws of war for detention authority but not applying the Geneva Conventions. But, as I have explained previously, despite affirming its commitment to the Geneva Conventions, the Obama Administration has not applied the Conventions as a legal framework differently than its predecessor and, in particular, has not treated al-Qaida detainees as POWs under the Third Convention or as Protected Persons under the Fourth Convention.

As with its drone program, if the Administration wants domestic critics and U.S. allies to support unprecedented counter-terrorism policies, it should explain the legal rules it is applying, and why the combined law-of-war/criminal law enforcement model is permissible under international law.

For those wondering whether to hate it or love it, the Lawfare Institute is a Brookings Institute 501(c)(3) run by Brooke Goldstein (also director of the Children's Rights Institute) but incorporating like-minded people otherwise from both sides of the aisle.

 

[ivwshane]

And let it be known that I do not support events like what occurred at Abu Ghraib (sic?) and others that were never sanctioned by leadership, but were carried out by rogue personnel. I also do not support the cases where those in charge abused their responsibilities, where they strayed from their missions or went too far.

To be honest, I don't even support torture, period. However, my questions above are still valid. Until I hear better alternatives...

And also consider this: The methods of torture we officially employ today are nothing in comparison to methods that were employed previous to WW1. By comparison, we are definitely considered boy scouts. Doesn't make it right, most certainly. But again, take into account.
We use methods that are considered psychological torture for the most part. But back then, they just used to just threaten to (and actually did) rip off limbs.
They didn't screw around.

I linked the signed treaty that defines torture, there isn't any, 'well WWI torture was worse so today's torture is ok'. No, all torture of any type is illegal, period, under zero circumstances. Your dirty bomb scenario is a bullshit scenario that seeks simple minded solutions and obscures reality. First off, torture has been proven to produce unreliable results. Unreliable results are a waste of time and do nothing to stop a dirty bomb set to go off soon. Second, you want us to assume that the captured is a terrorist and it is known for a fact that he has information we need. That's pretty absurd assumption and an unlikely scenario.

So I think I'll stick to FBI/CIA tested interrogation techniques (of which torture was tested and found to be of no use) that are proven to work.

Then again, I'm also not one to make decisions based on emotion, certainly not under "dirty bomb" scenarios. It's probably why I think shows like 24 are stupid.

http://m.thenation.com/article/193185-cia-didnt-just-torture-it-experimented-human-beings

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Interesting idea. While I'd rather see those involved put away for a good long time, I can see that the convict and pardon approach would be somewhat effective. I don't think it would give us the moral high ground, but it would at least formally acknowledge we did evil, illegal things.

That might be a motivator for proceeding with an investigation since all future administrations have to worry about is being pointed at if they commit the heinous. Thinking back on the atrocities others have committed in other wars I find that a most disturbing approach if "naughty, naughty" was the effective consequence.

If one doesn't like imprisonment for evil then a lifetime of community service, and I don't mean a cushy desk job, rebuilding homes and communities in Iraq seems like some justice.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There's another possibility not discussed so far.


Torture may have been used which obtained false information about a link between Saddam and terrorists and then used as justification for the war itself.

It's not impossible that is how we "knew" Saddam had WMDs. Torture until people say what you want to hear and then you have the "truth".

This could get even uglier.

 

[fskimospy]

I was about to respond that this poll is very depressing, mostly referring to the overall poll..

But... Something I learned in a sociology class long ago, polls are all about what question was asked. Truth is, any poll is meaningless without that context.

So the actual question that was asked in this poll from which the 59% number comes from was :

""All in all, do you think the CIA treatment of suspected terrorists was justified or unjustified?"

59% answered with some level of 'justified'. That could be very justified, or somewhat justified.

In another question :

Do you personally think the CIA treatment of suspected terrorists amounted to torture, or not?"

Here, only 49% of responses acknowledged it was torture at all.

An interesting analogy, 70% of people polled by CBS/NYT said waterboarding was torture.


Here's the clincher -

Of the people who believed it was torture, only 20% of those (10% of the total) said it was justified.

So of those that believe / acknowledge torture occurred, very few support it.

So here is my guess -

90% of people don't know what occurred, they don't know what the report said and what kind of things were done.

Those folks are probably lining up along political lines being pro-Bush/Cheney or anti-Bush/Cheney with their responses.

In other words this poll doesn't mean people support torture, it just means they are not well informed.

What always pisses me off about polls is that most of them don't ask a straight question even when it's easy to do so. This implies that the pollsters are bias in some way to start with. Very strange that this poll talks about white people and Christians for example.

I mean, why not just ask the question. Do you support the United States using torture as a means to gather information from suspected terrorists?

But no, they have to make it 'Do you support what the CIA did?' That's a politically charged question and makes assumptions / implications about what the CIA did. The results wind up being meaningless.

This is because you don't have experience in survey design. Asking people if they approve the use of torture is using a term that biases the response of people on a contentious issue. The reason survey questions may seem roundabout to you is because they are trying to avoid that.

As for your analysis, I disagree. Supporters of the program tend to deny both that it was torture and say they support it for the same fundamental reason. Nobody wants to think they support torture, even if they do.

 

[Blanky]

Bush and his men should already have received criminal prosecution over the war. They never did. The government was complicit in torture conducted by the CIA. I also don't expect them to be held accountable.

Terrorism is a fantastic tool for Americans as well as bombers because it can be used as an excuse to do any number of horrifying things and the populous will just go right along with it.

Prosecution is absolutely the right thing to do when somebody breaks a law so egregiously as the torture laws that were already on the books.

 

[bshole]

Prosecution is absolutely the right thing to do when somebody breaks a law so egregiously as the torture laws that were already on the books.

Waterboard Cheney until he admits that waterboarding is torture.