So what's the reason behind releasing this?

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Good. If illegal actions took place, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
.

Well, this is disturbing, under Bush, with his Attorney General, Judges and Lawyers, waterboarding was not considered illegal, but now the new administration says it is, so we can go back and prosecute those involved in making those decisions. Would that be kinda like when I turned 18, that was the legal age to drink, but when I was 19 they changed it to 21, they were not able to prosecute me for underage drinking as it was legal when I started at 18. Or another comparison would be, if Oregon changes their medicinal marijuana laws to make it ilegal and then prosecuting the laywers and politicians that had a hand in making it temporarily legal. It happened legally under Bush, Obama's team changed it, so from now on, it can be prosecuted, but I don't think they should try to go back and go after those involved under Bush. Different times and different measures were thought to be required. I'm sure many of our left leaning friends here even would have supported it, after 9/11. It's hard to go back and remember the way we felt, but we would have done anything to prevent another attack.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

Well, this is disturbing, under Bush, with his Attorney General, Judges and Lawyers, waterboarding was not considered illegal, but now the new administration says it is, so we can go back and prosecute those involved in making those decisions.

Waterboarding is clearly illegal under International Law and the Geneva Conventions. Additionally, the United States has recognized water boarding as a war crime historically and has prosecuted people for water boarding under war crime statutes.

There's ample precident to state that it is indeed illegal.

Under Bush, his council came up with some reasons they thought we could get away with it and the Administration, based on that advice, allowed it to occur.

But that doesn't mean it wasn't still illegal, a court would have to decide, but the case doesn't look good.

I'm sure many of our left leaning friends here even would have supported it, after 9/11. It's hard to go back and remember the way we felt, but we would have done anything to prevent another attack.

Your statement is akin to pleading insanity. I wasn't responsible for my actions after 9/11 because I was afraid, or Bush's position, that laws don't really apply any more. Neither option looks good from where I'm standing.

And I'm sure many of our right leaning friends here would at least take a few steps backwards, look at how we reacted at that time, and seek to learn from past behavior so we can operate in a more responsible manner in the future. While there may have been good information derived from torture was there a net gain?

I think Obama is in a tough situation here but is taking a reasonable course of action. I don't think we should go after the CIA and other agents who took part in the activity, and I don't think the Nazi "we were just following orders" attack is necessarily applicable either.

If there is evidence that Bush's attorney's understood the legal ramifications and still sought to give Bush the authority (i.e. cooked the books) then they should be held accountable, although I'm not sure if they've technically broken any law.

-spence

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by spence

If there is evidence that Bush's attorney's understood the legal ramifications and still sought to give Bush the authority (i.e. cooked the books) then they should be held accountable, although I'm not sure if they've technically broken any law.

-spence

If anyone should be punished it should be these guys, that told the military and CIA it was acceptable to use in certain cases. The greater responsibility lies on those at the top, including Bush if it is proven illegal actions took place.

I'm retired navy and if I was ordered and told that it was required under these set circumstances due to possible gains, I probably would have done it. There is no way in hell, that any military person should be prosecuted unless it can be proven they went beyond what was prescribed by Washington. I know there is a high possibility some of the military may have exceeded their authority, and in those cases it may be necessary to prosecute. But if it was deemed necessary by their superiors and they acted within guidelines, they should not be prosecuted.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

If anyone should be punished it should be these guys, that told the military and CIA it was acceptable to use in certain cases. The greater responsibility lies on those at the top, including Bush if it is proven illegal actions took place.

How about the political officials that have since admitted they knew waterboarding was a form of torture (or as they spin it "a harsh interrogation technique), yet still authorized the use of it?

Rice, Cheney, and Rumsfeld all knew it.

I do agree that no military or CIA personnel should be held liable, and this position is supported by Obama.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;683383]waterboarding was a form of torture (or as they spin it "a harsh interrogation technique),

I think this is just hilarious....we beat ourselves up over whether or not waterboarding and/or putting a bug in a box with a terrorist is torture.....while the guys that actually torture, and not with bugs or water.... laugh their asses off...did anyone watch the Danny Pearl video???? I'm guessing he would have preferred having the lights left on all night or even the horrible waterboarding to having his head slowly cut off with dull knives listening to Arabic chants.....to the folks that claim it doesn't work and does not provide any useful information....WANNA TRY????....were you the same folks during the campaign that complained the McCain had broken under REAL torture?...and that it showed bad character.....can't have it both ways...