Torture memos

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

People are not pushing for an independent investigation because they understand that procedures were followed and that the torture memos are evidence thereof. They were asking the department whose job it would be to investigate, comprehend?...

In order to get to bottom of this and find out what truly happened and how it happened, we need an independent investigator, someone who is truly unbiased but who understands the rules and laws that were broken. We need to know if there was conspiracy, how far up or down the chain it went, and who all knew about it. Who ordered it. We broke laws, and someone needs to pay for it. I think it should be Cheney, and perhaps Rumsfeld, and the lawyers who twisted the law to fit what they wanted.

We also need an investigation into the financial markets. We need another Pecaro Investigation so we can get to the bottom of that as well, because if we don't, nothing will get done in regulating these institutions and taking apart the ones that are too big to fail, because we can't have that anymore.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

In order to get to bottom of this and find out what truly happened and how it happened, we need an independent investigator, someone who is truly unbiased but who understands the rules and laws that were broken. We need to know if there was conspiracy, how far up or down the chain it went, and who all knew about it. Who ordered it. We broke laws, and someone needs to pay for it. I think it should be Cheney, and perhaps Rumsfeld, and the lawyers who twisted the law to fit what they wanted.

And if Pelosi covered up her complacency and approval.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And if Pelosi covered up her complacency and approval.

How could she possibly have covered it up? Really?

[Undertoad]

Try harder man. It's not that difficult.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Try harder man. It's not that difficult.

Okay, never mind. I thought you were seriously debating. My bad.

[DanaC]

you're a bad man Bruce.....but I like it

[DanaC]

Hell yeah. This whole thing is Pelosi's fault. First against the wall, that's what i say. There surely can't be anyone else more heavily implicated or worthy of anger.

[TheMercenary]

Forgot your /sarc tag.

You can't hang one group and not hang the others involved.

[DanaC]

I don't use /sarc tags...I rely on context :P

[TheMercenary]

On related news this was interesting. This site has some great posts.

A federal court last week rejected most of the objections raised by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to publication of a 500-page manuscript critical of the FBI counterterrorism program that was written by retired FBI Special Agent Robert G. Wright. The manuscript had been submitted for pre-publication review in October 2001.

“This is a sad and discouraging tale,” wrote Judge Gladys Kessler in a May 6 order (pdf), referring to the FBI’s handling of the manuscript.

“In its efforts to suppress this information, the FBI repeatedly changed its position, presented formalistic objections to release of various portions of the documents in question, admitted finally that much of the material it sought to suppress was in fact in the public domain and had been all along, and now concedes that several of the reasons it originally offered for censorship no longer have any validity,” Judge Kessler observed.

The 41-page, partially redacted court ruling reviewed the facts of the pre-publication review dispute as well as the legal standards for official censorship of such materials, and dismissed all but one government objection to the manuscript. The court also dismissed other government objections to release of written answers to interview questions submitted by then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009...ensorship.html

[Happy Monkey]

UT said the cop was entrapped.

And I agree, the analogy is a bit tortured (get it?) when it equates torture with running a stop sign. More- with running a stop sign that isn't clearly marked. There's not much that is more clearly illegal than torture. I don't think the torturers should be exonerated. At the very least, they should have to plea bargain by testifying about their superiors.

I do have some grudging sympathy for the actual torturers, though. The classic Stanford Prison and Milgram experiments show how otherwise ethical people can be influenced into doing awful things when an authority gives them permission. That excuse, however, thins out the higher you get to the top.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

UT said the cop was entrapped.

And I agree, the analogy is a bit tortured (get it?) when it equates torture with running a stop sign. More- with running a stop sign that isn't clearly marked. There's not much that is more clearly illegal than torture. I don't think the torturers should be exonerated. At the very least, they should have to plea bargain by testifying about their superiors.

I do have some grudging sympathy for the actual torturers, though. The classic Stanford Prison and Milgram experiments show how otherwise ethical people can be influenced into doing awful things when an authority gives them permission. That excuse, however, thins out the higher you get to the top.

I don't see where he said that, but no big deal.

And yea, there is evidence that otherwise good and ethical people will resort to the worst kind of human behavior under certain circumstances. Like Lord of the Flies. Everyone isn't influenced though. Some people are strong enough to withstand mob rule or hive mentality.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I don't see where he said that, but no big deal.

Post 329, he modified my quote.

[Ibby]

Milgram is no excuse. I'm sorry, but it's not. When you're given an illegal order, you are legally bound NOT to follow it. If you DO break the law and follow the illegal order, that is on YOU. But I agree that more blame lies at the top than the bottom.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Milgram is no excuse. I'm sorry, but it's not. When you're given an illegal order, you are legally bound NOT to follow it. If you DO break the law and follow the illegal order, that is on YOU. But I agree that more blame lies at the top than the bottom.

Agreed. Excuse was the wrong word.