Joan Walsh: Torture is Illegal Whether it Works or Not
By Heather Sunday Apr 26, 2009 1:00pm
From CNN's Realiable Sources. Joan Walsh tries to get through to David Frum and Chris Cillizza that public opinion polls and whether anyone can claim that torturing prisoners "worked" or not do not matter.
WALSH: You know, I couldn't disagree more with my friend Chris. This is not a "he said/she said" situation. This is torture. Torture is illegal. We don't sit here, Howie, and say he said murder is illegal, but she said, well, sometimes murder's not so bad. These are clear matters of law.
Ronald Reagan signed the 1988 U.N. Convention Against Torture where we committed ourselves to prosecuting people who torture. It's the law. It's super clear. It's not a partisan witch hunt or a "she said/he said" situation.
KURTZ: David Frum.
FRUM: It's not super clear, because the key piece of information people need, most people need to make a decision, is missing. Look, there's a hard core of civil libertarians who will say, I don't care whether this contributed to the defense of the country. Forget it, we won't do it, even if it means Americans die. And then there are some people who say, I support the president no matter what.
But most people want to know, did this contribute to the nation's safety? If so, we'll come to one judgment. If it was wasteful, as it's sometimes alleged, and achieved nothing, then we all condemn it. That's the thing we need to know, and that's the thing we don't know. That's the missing piece in all the reportage.
(CROSSTALK)
WALSH: No, it's illegal, whether it works or not. It's illegal whether it works or not, David.
FRUM: Well, as I said, there's a small minority who would feel like Joan does.
WALSH: Oh, really?
FRUM: Most people want to know, did it -- and that is the missing or the contradicted piece. We don't have a clear answer to that question.
WALSH: It doesn't matter.
CILLIZZA: Howie, I just want to...
KURTZ: Chris.
CILLIZZA: Joan, just real quickly, I just want to point out, in our poll that came our this morning, 49 percent of people said no torture under any circumstances; 48 percent, in some special circumstances, depending on the information. That's not my opinion.
(CROSSTALK)
WALSH: But Chris, the point is it's illegal. In what instance does it matter that 80 percent of Americans would like to murder Dick Cheney? Does that -- would that make it legal? It's not a matter of opinion. It's law.
Full transcript below the fold.
KURTZ: David Frum, in your view, has the coverage been hostile to the Bush-era interrogation techniques and supportive of the idea that we ought to go after the people who are responsible?
DAVID FRUM: I wouldn't say that. I think the coverage has not -- where it has failed it has not conveyed just how radically unprecedented what the president has proposed is. It just has never happened that we have had prosecutions after the fact, or even the consideration of prosecutions after the fact, of individuals concerning things they did in the course of their official duty.
One more thing.People need to understand that in Washington, the process is the punishment. Even if the president eventually decides, no, we're not going to do this, we're not going to break course and do something new, we'll shut it down, the very fact that people have been exposed to the uncertainty implies huge legal costs. It implies interruption of people's careers, and this is new ground. And I think that is the thing that needs to be conveyed above all else. We're in uncharted territory.
KURTZ: Being investigated is an ordeal, as we learned during Whitewater and so many other investigations.
Joan Walsh, let me turn the question around. Is the coverage in the past week sympathetic to the idea of holding Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld accountable for what happened? And isn't that what the left wants?
JOAN WALSH: Well, no. I think the coverage has not been sympathetic to that idea. I think the coverage has pooh-poohed that idea and actually taken David Frum's point of view quite seriously, that this would be some sort of partisan witch hunt. And really, Howie, this is a complicated situation, but I don't believe that Obama himself flip-flopped. Surely, we saw what Rahm said last Sunday, but the president himself has been relatively silent. He did say he'd prefer to look forward.
But what no one is saying today is, it's not his decision. It is not his decision. It's Eric Holder's decision. He has to get out of the way and let Eric Holder decide. This is not a political issue.
KURTZ: Yes, but the attorney general works for the president, and the president sets the tone about...
WALSH: The president sets the tone, but he doesn't make the decision. You know, how quickly do we forget Watergate? I was a kid, but Nixon was constantly interfering with his Justice Department to the point where Elliot Richardson quit. We cannot have a situation -- and Obama very carefully recognized that with his so-called flip-flop this week by saying he's not going to prejudge it. It's not for him to prejudge.
KURTZ: Well, I would argue it's not a so-called flip-flop, because we have the videotape to show, at least the way they changed the emphasis.
WALSH: That was wrong.
KURTZ: Let me go now to that passion that surrounds this. Here's videotape of Fox anchor Shepard Smith. And this is not something that aired on Fox. It's an online program, so we have to do the bleeping here. But let's roll that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHEPARD SMITH, FOX NEWS: We are America! I don't give a rat's (EXPLETIVE DELETED) if it helps!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I agree.
SMITH: We are America! We do not (EXPLETIVE DELETED) torture!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Chris Cillizza, journalists and Americans, I think, have such a visceral reaction hearing about, for example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being waterboarded 183 times. And it can be kind of hard to remain objective. This is not your typical how many -- how should we design health care kind of issue.
CILLIZZA: Right. We're not debating reconciliation in the budget process. It's sort of not...
CROSSTALK)
CILLIZZA: I do think, and I'll point out, Howie, I think it's the -- I don't think it's wrong, first of all, to have some ambiguity in terms of the coverage. A lot of people reject the "he said/she said" kind of ambiguity in terms of the coverage. A lot of people reject the kind of "he said/she said" kind of ambiguity in journalism.
I actually think this is a story where the "he said/she said "or "he said/he said" actually serves a purpose, because people on both sides of this both feel passionately and have intellectual arguments that make sense. Look at the "Washington Post"/ABC News poll this morning.
On question after question, first of all, President Obama very popular. But on torture, the American public deeply divided on this. So, I actually think we in the media do our people, readers, a service by saying this is an issue where people are very divided, passion's on both sides.
KURTZ: But just in terms of the language, Dan Lothian, I mean, what we're talking about here, waterboarding, which is near drowning or simulated drowning, face-slapping, putting somebody in a box with an insect. Can it be almost Orwellian for us to adopt the preferred language of the Bush administration, which is these were just enhanced interrogation techniques?
LOTHIAN: I think it can. And you know, this is not the end of it, because we know that these video -- rather, more pictures are going to be coming out in the future, next month.
KURTZ: Yes.
LOTHIAN: And so this is something that will continue to live in the news cycle, and the American public will be confronted with. And they don't like it. I mean, they simply don't like it.
KURTZ: Let me go back to Joan Walsh, and then I'll get you, David. You were critical of "The New York Times" as one example of the newspaper's coverage for using phrases like "Critics say this crossed the line of torture." This morning, the ombudsman of the paper says they were big debates in The Times to upgrade the description of these techniques from harsh to brutal.
WALSH: You know, I couldn't disagree more with my friend Chris. This is not a "he said/she said" situation. This is torture. Torture is illegal. We don't sit here, Howie, and say he said murder is illegal, but she said, well, sometimes murder's not so bad. These are clear matters of law.
Ronald Reagan signed the 1988 U.N. Convention Against Torture where we committed ourselves to prosecuting people who torture. It's the law. It's super clear. It's not a partisan witch hunt or a "she said/he said" situation.
KURTZ: David Frum.
FRUM: It's not super clear, because the key piece of information people need, most people need to make a decision, is missing. Look, there's a hard core of civil libertarians who will say, I don't care whether this contributed to the defense of the country. Forget it, we won't do it, even if it means Americans die. And then there are some people who say, I support the president no matter what.
But most people want to know, did this contribute to the nation's safety? If so, we'll come to one judgment. If it was wasteful, as it's sometimes alleged, and achieved nothing, then we all condemn it. That's the thing we need to know, and that's the thing we don't know. That's the missing piece in all the reportage.
(CROSSTALK)
WALSH: No, it's illegal, whether it works or not. It's illegal whether it works or not, David.
FRUM: Well, as I said, there's a small minority who would feel like Joan does.
WALSH: Oh, really?
FRUM: Most people want to know, did it -- and that is the missing or the contradicted piece. We don't have a clear answer to that question.
WALSH: It doesn't matter.
CILLIZZA: Howie, I just want to...
KURTZ: Chris.
CILLIZZA: Joan, just real quickly, I just want to point out, in our poll that came our this morning, 49 percent of people said no torture under any circumstances; 48 percent, in some special circumstances, depending on the information. That's not my opinion.
(CROSSTALK)
WALSH: But Chris, the point is it's illegal. In what instance does it matter that 80 percent of Americans would like to murder Dick Cheney? Does that -- would that make it legal? It's not a matter of opinion. It's law.
KURTZ: I've got to bring it back to the media coverage.
Login or Register to post comments.
What part of "it's illegal" is so difficult for those nimrods to understand?!?!?!?! It's reminds me of talking to my 10th grade students who always have a "yes, but..." response to any reprimand.
They are the same people who want to hunt down all "brown skin" people for seeking a better life and love to speed.
Good for you Joan . These right wingers don't have one ounce of integrity , shame or conscience . These ass holes will argue straight faced that white is black and that black is actually white , the lie is the truth and the truth is a lie , these F'ers are evil and dangerous and they need a serious ass kicking .
All this talking about it is proving torturous.
to make it a partisan issue. Most progressives agree that it's wrong and illegal. The repugnants try to make it "If it saved Americans Lives, it may have been okay." It's illegal, it's not justified under any circumstances.
as soon as they are back in power,And they damn sure will and even more brutal next time
You are probably right that a core of rather evil-minded Republicans are trying to inflame the base in order to make torture a left vs. right debate and a question of semantics, but referring to Republicans as repugnants only serves their purpose which is to sow disharmony, ignorance, and hate.
Torture is worse than useless; it provides false positives and generates not only hate and disrespect of the responsible parties, but a slew of data that ranges from wildly inaccurate to simply false. These false datum are what the Bush administration wanted. They did not want the truth. They simply wanted to force people to admit to Bush propaganda so that the war machine could gear up.
I tracked nuclear submarines during the cold war, and reported directly to admiralty on the East coast. I still can't talk about most of the things I did due to lingering security concerns. My clearances equal or surpass that of a U.S. President, depending on circumstances. Yes, there are people with higher clearances than the PRESIDENT.
Chew on that for a while.
The claim that investigating security agencies and agents for any sort of violations would contravene National Security is total bullsheep. It's a plain and simple fabrication.
National Security is under CONSTANT REVIEW by multiple agencies at all times. National Security issues have FREQUENTLY, and prior to Bush Co., NORMALLY went through channels that required judicial oversight.
The world did not end, nor was national security compromised, in the previous 100 years of security reviews. One might note that Bush's own FATHER performed or directed reviews of national security that involved third parties, and there was no loss of data or security.
So, the argument, like all others from Bush co., is a flat out lie.
Republicans, and conservative Democrats, are so full of lies that they wouldn't know the truth if it bit them. When you lie constantly, every second, for several Presidential terms, you start to believe yourself. It's a common type of insanity. Do we really want these people back in charge? Ever?
I don't. I'm a moderate intellectual, not a conservative, and not a liberal. I care not about most environmental and emotional liberation issues, and think most of it is bull. I also think rank and file conservative dogma is bull. Politicians are Liars, and when they are not lying, they're stealing. Most of them are LAWYERS.
Why are the most INTELLIGENT people not allowed to rule this nation? Why do we give scientists such low pay? Why are teachers, police, firemen, and our infrastructure paid so poorly? Electrical technicians can make three times as much by just moving to India or China or Russia. Teachers here get paid slave wages, yet they're responsible for the minds of our children. People in power? Low grade Morons with paid-for degrees from privileged schools where it is common practice to EMPLOY someone to write your thesis.
Welcome to America, where we honor abuse of power, irrational wealth, and fame, to the point of idol worship. America, where scientists, technicians, and infrastructurists are disdained, disrespected, underpaid, and mocked. Welcome to the United States of Jesusland. Do any of you wonder why I am saving up, as many scientists are, to evacuate my entire family to at least Canada, if not Eastern Russia or Northern Europe?
Seriously. I plan to abandon this nation, and be a permanent expatriot in the lands of previous cold-war enemies. Why? I want my children to have a future, and live in a free nation where the people have civil rights.
Irony, thou art Cruel.
~D
The country was hijacked by a bunch of egotistical sociopaths who thought that they knew better than the best minds of preceding generations who had determined the inefficacy, the immorality, and the criminality of torture. They presented no new arguments, merely a gut conviction and a legal opinion which soils all of American jurisprudence with its quibbling and its banal endorsement of evil.
I could easily see a Kerry administration or a Clinton administration being forced by party connections and history to acquiesce to the torture apologists but in the Obama administration there is at least the hope that the torture apologists are properly spanked, if not for all time at least for this generation.
But, but, Jack Bauer is never arrested, it musn't be illegal in all cases.
should be fragged by some pissed off troops who's buddies got killed because of that flthy law hating scum. Then maybe that nasty anti-American "show" would be a bit realistic.
I cannot remember an instance of torture on "24" which produced credible information or information which could have been attained by other means. Mostly they wind up torturing innocent folks like Jack's girlfriend or the closeted gay son of the secretary of defense. As for politics, the initial terror attack may have been committed by foreign folks but the plots always resolved to extreme right wing conspiracies within the US government.
Whenever someone says "Yes, but..." they mean: "You are factually correct, but here is my excuse."
Waterboarding is torture. We have tried Americans for doing it in the Phillipines, we have tried (and executed) Japanese for doing it TO Americans, and we have tried Americans for SUPERVISING it in Viet Nam. And those examples were in times of war.
What has changed? Have we abrogated the Geneva Convention, the '88 UN Convention, the UCMJ? No!
It doesn't matter if it "works" (although there is testimony that it doesn't). It doesn't matter if it was just a "little bit of torture" (is that like a little bit pregnant"?) It doesn't matter if you have a note from your mother (or whatever sycophantic lawyer you browbeat). It doesn't matter if it's popular (civil & human rights are never popular with the masses; or else we'd still have stocks and the strap in prisons, much less the Civil Rights Act.)
TORTURE IS ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL, AND I REFUSE TO HAVE A GOVERNMENT COMMIT IT IN MY NAME! And I refuse to let those who ordered and condoned it escape scott-free just because it's not politically expedient.
That the American People have PAID for the torture!!
You don't think those criminals who tortured and who ordered torture in our names didn't get weekly paychecks direct deposited into their accounts?
That would be our tax dollars at work.
Blood on our hands.
We must have open, independent criminal investigations and prosecutions regarding torture.
I think Congress needs to stay out of it since many are guilty of knowing what happened and didn't speak up to stop it. They cannot objectively investigate themselves.
And a "9/11" style commission will turn into the same cover-up as well...the 9/11 Commission, or the Warren Commission etc.
Somebody get Vincent Bugliosi on the phone....
It's illegal, it's illegal, it's illegal.
None of this "what about Sundays after dark?" or, "If Americans are in harm's way it's okay" or any OTHER such sophistry, it's ILLEGAL.
Laws are there, not to step over, not to be above, not to break when it's convenient, but to commit to and believe in and accept as societies rule.
Way to rational for Frum I love the Jack Bauer mind set of the rightwing nutcases
As a previous poster notes, why is this so difficult to comprehend. The law - both our laws passed by Congress and Common Article 3 - specifically prohibit the treatment of anyone - American or Taliban - that can be construed as degrading. The "treatment" doesn't even have to considered "torture" for either statute to kick in.
Why do the press and the rethugs try to spin this?
Jeeeesh! MZ
by only framing it politically they sidestep the fact that they broke the law (repeatedly) and as we all know Republicans never break the law - they are too patriotic, too religious, too full of family values!
Too full of shit.
Cheney spoon-feeds Fox the "it works" distraction, which is then picked up by the rest of the msm, including by David Gregory today. By Eichmann's standards, the Holocaust "worked."
Praise Goddess! Finally someone speaking the plain simple truth. It. Is. The. Law. Period. This is not partisanship, retribution, or criminalizing policy differences. It is an absolute binding legal obligation for the United States to prosecute anyone involved in or who authorized torture and to investigate to ascertain who was involved. It is just that simple.
Cillizza sat there and spouted out that "49 % of people said NO torture under ANY circumstances" while David Frum said "a small minority feel that way".
It doesn't matter if you shove the face of a conservative right into a big steaming pile of facts. They still stick to the company line.
These people are utterly absurd.
Who gives a rat's ass what a poll says on matters of the law? Illegal is illegal, and a war crime is a war crime. Period.
The Red Cross reported years ago about how the US kidnapped woman/children and tortured them. Now yes we have a few al qeada men but many men are not involved and are doctors, lawyers and teachers who were kidnapped when someone told the US they were al qeada. The US gave money to people to let them know who were al qeada. Yes many Iraqis took advantage of free many and lied. After the US tortured these people and found out they were innocent and tricked by the people, the US couldn't release them because the World would have known what mistake we made. Now the woman and kids were kidnapped because they were the families of some of the deatinees. When the CIA didn't get the information they wanted they tortured their families. Obama is afraid to release that information because it would be one of the biggest shocks for so called Religious Christian Americans to handle. Now the Red Cross reported this years ago but many in the Press didn't print it per orders of the Bush Administration and National Security. Don't worry the Red Cross report was given to all the countries and the United Nations. So take pride in knowing we do torture and we do torture woman and children.
If this blatant use of torture had gone on during a democratic president's term, all of these right wing sophists would not be defending torture as ardently as they are. I have zero respect for these asshats who defend torture and try to justify it. Thank goodness that Joan Walsh laid out the facts for these guys. Torture is illegal. End of story. There is no debate.
They would be calling for impeachment, naturally.
I always thought that there were certain issues that everyone, no matter where they fell on the political spectrum, would agree upon, and I thought torture was one of those issues. I had always believed that everyone in our nation would decry the use of torture (because it is illegal and immoral) and lambaste any person who did it. Apparently, not! This whole nightmare makes me sick and ashamed of my country and of my fellow citizens who think torture is fine.
It's not easy living in a country your ashamed to tell your kids what it's leaders have done
Here is the
UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
This section of US Code was written to comply with the UN Convention:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C — TORTURE
The answer to ANY rightwing talking point on why torture works/is good/is necessary/everybody wants it/the Dem pols knew about it too/etc...etc..
IS....
That doesn't make it legal!
Get Congress to pass new law making torture legal... THEN IT'S LEGAL.
That's what Hitler did .. and Jim Crow too !
All nice and legal.
Congress could pass thousands of laws making it legal and it would still be illegal because the US signed and ratified the treaties that make it illegal. Those treaties are the SUPREME law of the land (the actual wording of the US Constitution).
And as an added bonus those Congressional members making and passing a law such as to make torture illegal would be violating the law just by doing so.
..just making a point. Of course it's absurd to say Congress would do that. That was my point...maybe not cleary done.
Dicks are for David!
People are divided on this issue because one set of people are completely and utterly stupid and/or insane. The other group of people happen to come under the scrutiny of the law when they break it, the other group characterizes it as either "braking the law" or "eayands to justiphy the meaaaans". David Frump should kill himself for this interview/debate. The man has lost all sight.
how colosally stupid some of these so-called "pundits" and "analysts" can be. They are stuck on stupid and refuse to get into gear with common sense and logic.
And just think how many of those colosally stupid people are living off our dimes and pretending the be our representatives.
They are a group of miserable, subhuman cretins.
But "common sense and logic" would undermine their entire political agenda.
Can't have that, now can we?
We need to use the right words. They're not detainees, they're prisoners. It's not enhanced interrogation, it's torture. They're not terrorists, they are alleged terrorists. These are not questions of policy, these are crimes.
David "Axis of Evil" Frum spinning for his dark lord Cheney, what else is new. Damn neocons.
WHY is this important detail ALWAYS brushed aside by right wingers????????
If the US tortures, then US troops that are captured, or US workers and/or tourists abroad are at risk of being captured and tortured. It's called payback. Are right wingers blind??????
You're operating under the false assumption that they care. Which they don't, or they wouldn't very well have gotten 4000 of them killed and many thousands more maimed in the pursuit of some oil security and a little intellectual payback.
stupid too.
How would Republicans respond to this? I assume they would say:
"It's okay if we torture others, but WE can't be tortured"
now that the public opinion polls now decide on legality. These clowns are so unbelievable my head is going to explode. Can't we pass a law making it illegal for them to appear in public? Oh right we don't need laws we will just take a poll.
Nice, so we need to know whether or not it works first before we determine its legality?
Yes, these shills are not even remotely credible these days. It's truly revolting listening to these people.
...I don't always agree with her but her argument here is impeccably clear. The law of this land is that torture is illegal, and that we are by treaty bound, and for a zillion other reasons bound, to prosecute allegations of torture and all parties thereto. Hell, we don't even argue the merits of these cases. We admit what we did. The argument that it was ok because we're "special" makes me want to puke.
Let's pour a little bleach on this national blemish. It has NOTHING to do with politics.
And how about waterboarding in a context of rape and sodomy? Seymour Hersh:"Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay?"...he went on to talk about things like little boys sodomized in front of their mother...and those guys on the right saying "waterboard me..it's not so bad"...how about we sodomize your little boys, rape your daughters and wives, even you first, before we waterboard you...how would that be? would that be torture? would that be illegal?
If the government can arrogantly defend the use of torture on enemies abroad- what is to prevent them from torturing people labled as 'enemy' here at home?
was the smartest person in the room. < That's a period, end of story.
This is the world Bush, Rove, Cheney, et al have brought us to, right is wrong, up is down. Cilizza says it is the media's job to portray this issue of law as he said/she said. Orwell couldn't even come up with this shit in 1984. In what world does law come under public opinion. Oh, I guess since the 1990's with the advent of television courtrooms. What the hell is going on in this country? And people wonder why the media is held in such low regard. Don't remember many media people talking about the lack of necessity of trying and impeaching Clinton over lying about a damn blow job. What kind of Alice in wonderland world are we living in. God Bless Joan Walsh for trying to bring some sanity to the discussion.
Let's see, we ought to dig up the remains of the war criminals we prosecuted for torture and tell them, woops my bad! We ought to give reparations to their remaining family members or something. And why we're at it, why not release every prisoner in the US, because we can't look back to prosecute crimes. I mean, what the hell! We have kids sitting in jail for long sentences for having a gram of pot on them, yet, somehow, miraculously, the crimes of the Bush crime family doesn't deserve even an investigation. Why doesn't Keith or Rachel dig up old clips of Republicans and Joe Lieberman decrying the end of the world if Clinton wasn't investigated and puhished for his "crimes". It would do the world much good to understand just how corrupt these Republican cretons are. The idea of a conservative sickens me to my stomach. I mean what can you say about these miscreants.
Hey, any right-wingers reading this: congratulations. Your attempts over the past 50 years to decimate the public school system have yielded such fruit as the above statistics Cilizza quotes and the lack of appreciation so many Americans have for such basic American concepts as inalienable individual rights vs the tyranny of the majority, the protections the separation of church and state offers TO THE CHURCHES, and the vital importance of a precedent-based independent judiciary that isn't elected based upon a promise to violate precedent in favor of local mob sentiment.
You wanted a populace ignorant and scared enough to manipulate into supporting terribly un-American ideas, and you got it. When we're all living in a post-apocalyptic feudal nightmare 20 or 30 years from now, and you run out of firewood, you can use that thought to keep you warm at night.
it doesn't matter what the torture produced, it's illegal. It's simply illegal.
No excuses, no moral relativism, no waffling. It's illegal.
And I LOVED her example of "what if 80% of Americans wanted Dick Cheney murdered? Would that make it legal?"
Way to go, Joan! You made those guys look like wimps.
Torture, as said ad nauseam, is illegal. Period. It is law.
Now, you could fix that; Congress could vote to withdraw from the Geneva Conventions, adjust the Constitution to allow cruel and inhuman treatment in certain circumstances, and then pass some laws making it legal. Easy as that, at which point, yep, torture away. Perfectly legal.
But, oh wait, they WON'T. Because doing those things would make them morally reprehensible not to mention shame the entire nation across the globe, with likely real, severe security repercussions.
More importantly, it would be explicitly stating we are THE BAD GUYS. Which, oh look, Congress doesn't want to do.
Similarly, if 80% of people in the US thought Cheney deserved to be burned at the stake, and they could muster the political will, we could do all of those above things and make it totally legal to do so. But UNTIL we do, it is NOT. Whether it would "work" or not.
So that is the end of the story: Unless you want to withdraw from Geneva and adjust the laws of the land to make it so, torture is illegal. If I tortured somebody and stopped SF from getting nuked, you know what should happen to me? I should get prosecuted for committing a crime, because it's STILL illegal!
It is, after all, possible for a jury of my peers, faced with the evidence to acquit me on the charges, just as it would be possible for Cheney to walk free in the same situation. (Actually, I don't know if war crimes are tried by jury...) But the trial should happen, or our laws mean nothing.
Hear that, apologists? Laws mean nothing if they are not enforced consistently and diligently!
I'd be content to see him arrested and rot in prison.
When his number is up, I won't shed a tear...
Cheney is a hero to the right, the fact he pissed on the Constitution makes him their hero- why, I have no idea..
This segment is so symbolic of how lame MSM has become. It's all about creating the ILLUSION of balance, but what inevitably results is a puff popularity contest, which Walsh does a good job calling out.
Cillizza doesn't even realize he is admitting how callously non-journalistic he is by turning the legality of torture into a self-declared "he-said, she said" scenario. He is emblematic of an MSM that turns everything into a national referendum.
When the only thing you bring to a discussion is to cite poll numbers, than what is your purpose? The MSM is addicted to elections, hence the poll phenomenon. Why is Cilliza part of such a panel anyway? Is he supposed to translate the poll numbers for us? Isn't Kurtz already playing the "nonpartisan" media synthesizer? Do we really need another talking head spouting poll numbers to gauge the political temperature of every issue? Sad, sad MSM.
Cannot stomach sitting through one of these mind numbing shows with these idiots spouting the party lines.
No matter what came from torture it is wrong!
None of this other bullshit matters.
War crimes trials for all involved!!
The fact that this debate took place makes it clear that trials are absolutely necessary.
Laws can change; in my estimation the key point to remember here is not that torture is illegal (which it is), but that it's fucking immoral. That should be the first reason we don't do it; because we are not amoral assholes. The likes of Cheney and the idiots above advocating we resort to immoral methods to achieve our ends are demons.
that those who use TORTURE also end up in the scrape heap of history as LOSERS.
Come on, everybody loves those swell guys who conducted the Spanish Inquisition. And the El Salvadorian guys with the car batteries, they're welcome over at my place anytime.
Heck if waterboarding is so effective, imagine how effective being broken on the rack would be. Or maybe locked in an iron maiden, or that torture where you cut a guy open and slowly wind his intestines on a spiked iron bit.
The inquisition made an art out of effective tortures that produced exactly the info they were looking for, do you think any of these people have the stomach to logically go all the way with this defense.
"That's the thing we need to know, and that's the thing we don't know."
Well the rest of the world knows the answer to that. And the US used to know the answer to that. And anyone in the US trained in counter-insurgencey and interrogation knows the answer to that. And the UN Convention Against TORTURE doesn't make any such distinction anyway you retartded America hating piece of troop killing shit Frum!
"The use of torture by the US has proved so counter-productive that it may have led to the death of as many US soldiers as civilians killed in 9/11, says the leader of a crack US interrogation team in Iraq."
"Breaking a seven-year silence, Ali Soufan, the former chief FBI interrogator who questioned Abu Zubaydah for three months before he was handed to the CIA, has flatly contradicted Mr Cheney, saying that no additional "actionable intelligence" was gained from the extreme tactics."
"The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos."
Hi Joan, I was right with you today in fact we were almost word for word ,I had the advantage because not being on tv I made hand gestures as needed now you now how Sec Chu felt as he tried to explain plate tectonic to rep burton. later jon king said before break "ewerybody is talking about torture BUT are they getting it right?" cut to commercial you guessed it all king wanted to report did it work, this is the most cowardly acts i've seen in a while ,they could actuall pretend to be brave and say no to torture,they are perfectly safe with nice pay health care etc,noboby was going to torture them so at least pretend you have the guts and standd up to the plate...but not to be they crawl away under the rock til next week.
which is why America needs the freedom to torture people
Tom, I'm not sure you are using the right tone, comrade. I'm thinking I should report you to the Freedom Police.
that the conservatives and Christian fundamentalist's complaints about the liberals was that we were relativists--that different circumstances dictated different responses. Their claim to fame was that wrong was wrong, right was right and there was no room for waffling. So how is it, that torture--which is morally wrong and illegal as hell (not to mention..rather medieval)is now being argued as OK...because we got good information.? It boggles the mind.
Relativists always see things from their point of view.
So do meth-heads, for that matter.
and the tangled web, way to go Bush. Thank's for Jacking up this nation.
She said that it would still be illegal to kill Cheney even though 80% of the American people want him dead. Where I come from, at least at one time, that a person needed dying was a perfectly legitimate defense if someone were ever brought to trial for killing someone who truly needed dying.
Hitler outlawed all other political parties besides his, the NSDAP. Then classes of people were deemed unworthy of living: mental patients, Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and anyone who dared speak out against the party were rounded up and executed. The Nazis tortured people to death, starved them to death, allowed them to freeze to death, and they mistreated and tortured most of their prisoners of war.
To Adolf Eichmann, the Holocaust was a positive action for German racial purity and hygiene. Eichmann was operating completely within German law at the time. But we clearly know it was and is torture and genocide, clearly severe crimes against humanity that no justification could ever allow.
I am curious what we would have done with Adolf Hitler if we could have arrested and tried him. But we couldn't because he committed suicide. We arrested as many people as we could, even if they were grunts who were just following orders. Many Japanese soldiers and architects were also arrested, tried, convicted and many were executed for their crimes.
Torture is a war crime. Torture is illegal. Torture doesn't work. America does not torture, therefore, anyone who tortured anyone in our name is subject to prosecution to the fullest extent of our law. It is not a popularity contest whether or not to prosecute torturers. The law is often not popular. Just ask any gay or lesbian couple whose right to marry was upheld by the courts.
If someone robbed a bank and was caught, they would be arrested and prosecuted. If found guilty, that person would be sentenced to jail and/or other penalties. There is no excuse that the person knew bank robbery was illegal, but they needed the money to prevent foreclosure on their house. Sorry, no excuse, though intent may influence sentencing. But no poll would be taken to see if the person should be arrested and prosecuted, nor would results of a poll influence the application of the law.
The attorney general is the head law officer of our country. It is his duty to investigate allegations of torture and follow the evidence wherever it leads without interference from the White House or Congress, or whether the American people think he should or not.
Anyone who tortured should be subject to prosecution, even if "just following orders". Anyone who conspired to commit torture should also be investigated and prosecuted. Anyone found guilty should be sentenced appropriately, and should be thankful we no longer execute torture convicts, unless they ended up committing murder in the process. The death penalty is available for murder. (Whether capital punishment should exist is another argument. I don't think capital punishment is just, but none-the-less, it is available now).
The President can then pardon anyone he deems should not be prosecuted or he can commute sentences but let convictions stand.
It does not matter what any poll says or what the President thinks. It is the attorney general's duty to investigate and prosecute these crimes.
The Law Rules.
... he says we hould look forward.
The problem is that criminal law is always forward-looking, but prosecuting breaking of the law is always backward-looking.
If you don't do the backward part, what use is the forward part?
Oh Mr. DOJ?
Hello!
Just nod if you can hear us.
The evidence is piling up, and the trail is getting cold mr. DOJ.
Remember, no politics.
this nation is a democratic republic, and as such, it does not matter if a majority supports a certain viewpoint, it all comes down to the rule of law. illegal is illegal.
Torture is against the law. Signed by the republican god Ronald Reagan.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
They broke the law just exactly the same as a murderer, or a bank robber, or a child molester!
Of coarse if you are republican being a child molester is parrt of your profile!
Rob a bank, or run someone over with your car and then tell the judge it wasn't your fault because you did not know it was against the law. See ho far that arguement gets you. How stupid are these TV talking idiots. Or a better question is. How stupid do they think you are?
Yep, if we don't prosecute for something "illegal" then us eighty-percenters that want Cheney hanged, without trial, could be legal. Hey, if the shoe fits......throw it! Torture is ILLEGAL.
In America, we don't believe in torture. Those who are "anti-American" need to either "love us or leave us"! Ask the Jews if torture get's things done. Better yet, ask the NAZI's...From what I recall Hitler tortured himself.....to death.
Here is a simple solution.
My family is starving. I decide to rectify the situation and save my family, I will rob a bank.
I am able to provide for my family following my adventure and everyone gets fat.
Eventually, I am caught however. My argument is that hey, robbing that bank wasn't illegal because it enabled me to save my family from starving to death ... thus, I saved lives.
Will everyone say, well hey, he saved lives, so he shouldn't be prosecuted, or will my ass go to federal prison?
Login or Register to post comments.