Should Senior US Officials Face Prosecution over the "Torture Memos?"

 Norma, what evidence do you have that this is a partisan witch-hunt, especially if Porter Goss is right and senior Democrats in Congress were briefed on it? 

The truth is that I don't think much will come of this, if only because there isn't the political stomach for it. But I'm not sure how this gets to be about hating Bush when you had Republicans signing on to the Levin report.

KimBlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

Oh, I so totally agree, Kim. I do hope they move forward on this...but not for the reasons you suggest.

Despite lofty rhetoric, despite wrapping arguments in the mantle of long-dead politicians and civil rights leaders, the fact is this is nothing but a partisan witch hunt by the left wing which so hates former President Bush it is willing to tear the country apart over it.

Of course no one will admit that. 

But I say, go to it. It will stall Obama's dreadful initiatives. It will help destory his political capital and expose him as a tool of the left wing.  Although, I think that's already pretty clear given his recent flip flops on the issue.

As others have noted 77% of Americans don't want this to go forward.

I've always thought Obama could be another Jimmy Carter, that is, ineffectual at home and on the world stage.

But I didn't think it would happen in only 100 days.

So, yes,  yes. By all means we need the "truth" commission.

by our own soldiers than by foreign terrorists, statistically. Men, too.

I'd like to think prosecutions would make the culture better, but I'm really not sure. 

http://www.blogher.com/blog/she-who

 To call someone disingenuous, someone would have to lack frankness (I've NEVER been accused of being anything less than), It would also point to someone lacking in sincerity or simplicity...You think that because I have a different opinion than yourself that somehow I am crafty?  Not straightforward?  I think not...AND...my opinion is based on the facts of this situation. 

Hmmm...Now...Let's take a closer look at the word and what it means in this specific instance...

Was it disingenous for MAJOR news agencies to delete this from ALL of their  reports citing SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS??

"Dennis (Denny, whom I've met)  Blair, wrote his employees last week” about how, what NBC described as “harsh” interrogation techniques, “produced 'high-value information."

You think that it's ok to "take" the word of the current administration who has waited 100 days to start chomping on this....I'm acutely aware of this situation and am very aware how long it's been on the table. 

We deal with terrorists.  Remember Noriega and the "harsh" techniques put to the test in order to flush him out?   Were those repugnant to you?  Did they work?  Were Americans dismayed by them? 

And again...While we do have some techniques that are deemed harsh...Again...I say put that side by side with the beheadings of Daniel Pearl, Jack Hensley, Eugene Armstrong, Nick Berg, and Benjamin Ford just to name a few....Were their lives less important to America?    Don't forget too about the raping of Maj. Rhonda Cornum during Desert Storm...

The evidence not only supports my contention, but puts an exclamation point at the end of it.

Every bit of information that has been made public informs us that torture did not make us safer. According to senior intelligence officials ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story... ), the information that has been used to safeguard us was obtained without violating the Geneva Conventions. The evidence does not support your contention.

KimBlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

I've written a lot on this the last few days, and taken a bit of a hit over my opinion, rofl.

Certainly we should be putting in place policy that prevents this from happening, but of course the very next president could cast this all aside. I just worry over losing our way with such high profile and difficult to convict prosecutions, and yes, I recognise there are pros and cons to such an approach. I can certainly be swayed on the matter.

I do sense Obama is reluctant to go there, but... I'm glad I'm not the one deciding.

There are things I favour going forward that are rather radical on limiting the ability of any president to make large scale war when we or an ally have not been attacked, so I'll just leave that alone. Two such divisive wars in my lifetime are quite enough.

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

or would not prosecuting simply further push the ball of questionable morality that is already hurtling down the hill? I'm not sure where to draw the line. I agree we need to look forward as a nation, but I fear if there aren't some consequences for torture, the slippery slope could be mighty dangerous for our future.

I also think this isn't necessarily a partisan problem, and those who commented insinuating such further distract us from the real issues, which are vital in defining ourselves as a nation. 

I certainly don't have answers, but unfortunately I'm not sure anyone else does either.

Notions of Identity ( http://www.notionsofidentity.com )

that Obama's campaign was all about ending divisiveness, so people should not be surprised that he is reluctant to take such steps.

I like that the information is out here now, perhaps we should content ourselves with having the truth. 

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

and walks the hot coals.

For years we ranted and interacted and talked and opined and cajoled to end these illicit actions that were wrapped up in the war on terror and the Iraq war package.

We were shouted down, called unpatriotic, basically told we were full of you know what, and told we were at war, we need to do these things.

Nothing.

Fast forward to a new administration neck deep in crises not of its own making, and suddenly I see people who were for the war questioning why Obama would not be inclined to pursue prosecution.

In my view, the time has passed, and the wrong person is asked to own what happened in a different administration.

Having lived through Watergate, it is a virtual certainty that pursuing prosecution will run into severe obstacles, among them request for classified information by defence attorneys seeking to absolve their client, yet with likely denials that lead to claims they cannot adequately defend.  

The trials will be high profile, particularly as the trials move up the chain of administrative command. A danger exists that this will co-opt what Obama wishes to accomplish, and instead leave this nation wallowing in the past, reliving some aspects of what happened years ago. It seems Obama is rightfully weary of this possibility.

There is also a danger it will be seen as exacting vengeance, and all in all, this could endanger a second term, derailing everything we wish to accomplish, squandering our chance to remake health care, end the Iraq war, get people back to work, rebuild the economy in a stronger way, get us on a better environmental footing, improve education delivered to the entirety of our polulace, make inroads for women's rights, for gay rights, etc. 

I do not wish to have so much get lost in pursuit of something so very questionable in terms of actually succeeding in successful prosecution.  

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

 But isn't the real issue whether this constitutes a crime? And if it does, shouldn't the ax fall on whoever is culpable? Isn't that what it means to be "a nation of laws, not of men?"

Kim

BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

 Hi Rider,

AOL didn't consult me on the wording of the link. 

My approach to blogging is more reporting than commentary, as a rule. As I've said on my own blog, I'm more interested in conversation than conversion. Believe me, I have no trouble thinking for myself. I've been writing about this set of issues for a couple of years now. 

I wrote about this constellation of issues last year and expressed my concerns there ( http://www.blogher.com/did-vice-president-cheney-a... ):

The question is, do these acts constitute crimes? If so, what should be done about it? And if we do nothing, what does it say about us?

KimBlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

The window you click on AOL that brings you to this site says that we're going to hear what "Kim Pearson" (whoever she is) has to say about this, as in "read my take".  But all I see is a bunch of quotes about what other people think.  So think for yourself, Kim.  What do you think?

YES....The other countries have beheaded, tortured, raped and killed our soldiers.  You need to think long and hard about your statements, because obviously  you have no idea of what you speak.

These countries have an inbred hatred toward America to which, obviously, liberals have absolutely no concept of.  That is why when people like Sean Penn go to Iraq (how tacky) they USE him to HELP their own cause.  Do you not get it that NO matter what we do, how we do it, or what steps we take to "repair" our status in this world, EXTREMISTS do not care.  We are the infidel, we must and should be killed no matter what.

Did they TERRORIZE us on 9/11?  Did you have any friends in the Pentagon that day that were basically burned to death in the building...Did you have friends or relatives on the planes that hit the towers?  Did you know anyone on the plane where throats were slit, and then innocent people died when the plane plummeted into the ground?  Did you have any relatives who were just doing their daily routines, when they were burned to death in a building that was so hot that it ended up falling...Did you see the people jump from the towers to their deaths? 

Did you have any friends who were in Khobar towers?  Did you have any friends in Somalia where they dragged airmen's bodies through the streets?  Any friends who were stationed on the Cole?

I think YOU need to remember that WE did not start this.  BUT, we will take "this" to it's final destination, whether that be in Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever this make take us.

Hilary Clinton said it yesterday in regards to Pakistan..THEY had better fix their problem...or we will.

There is no "pro" war...There is OUR nation, OUR security and OUR creed to help others who are in need of the US.

You may hate our country and you may think that the USA has acted badly, but perhaps you should judge everyone by their own actions.  I do!

While I'm sure that many, many liberals would love to sink their teeth into a big whopping republican sandwich, full of juicy investigations, hearings and ultimately "just desserts" to what end is it necessary?

 MANY democrats not only knew EVERY bit of what was going on, but were party to it's construction.  IF Mr. Holder decides to go forth with this, he will be opening a can of worms to which nobody wants to partake.

 77% of AMERICANS expect President Obama to continue moving forward...as he has maintained that he will do.  I'm sure Senator Levin will be disappointed having waited in the background all these months ready to pounce.

 I surely hope that the far leaning left will understand that their own not only participated, but were part of the committees who wrote the very justification for doing everything (wrongly) that has been leaked out.

Backtracking and spinning does NOTHING for the USA.  President Obama was correct in thinking that we ALL need to move forward...I mean after all, if EVERY administration is going to go "after" the former, it makes America look diminished, tarnished and in the world's view, vulnerable.

Better think long and hard about this one ladies and gents of DC.

What does the 2nd Amendment have to do with this? What do tea parties have to do with this?  The tea parties were about our government's out of control spending and "stimulus" packages that were passed in the middle of the night without a chance to even read the bill.  I'm all for civil liberties, but these people are not our citizens, they're not even enemy soldiers, they're terrorists.  And the funny part is, all you people who cry about civil liberties seem to think the 2nd Amendment is something that only applies to the State.  Its weird, I thought that "people" meant the same thing in all the amendments, including the 2nd.

How does it put our soldiers lives in more danger? I'm really getting sick of hearing that argument.  Terrorists have no intention of making our soldiers stand for too long, nor do they want to hold them down and pour water over their face.  They intend to behead them and use the video for propaganda.  But waterboarding is so terrible? Give me a break.

I answered the poll on AOL and was shocked that 77% did not want white house officials prosecuted for their actions!  I guess you have to have an affair to spend millions on a special prosecutor.  I have a feeling these people are the ones I saw at the "tea party".   I wonder if they would feel different if those methods will now be used on OUR soldiers who become prisoners of war.  It is funny how these same people hold the 2nd amendment so close to their hearts, but have no problem with their president trampling all over the rest of the constitution.  You cannot pick and choose what laws we should abide by!

The Bush administration authorized sadism and gave legal authorization went above and beyond the acceptable levels of interrogation and repeatedly tortured these people.   It is just the tip of iceberg, and we will not know the truth until a special prosecutor is appointed.  What isn't spoken about is how many innocent people have been subjected to such inhumane torture.  They had soldiers rounding up everyone to try to justify their reasons for going into war with Iraq in the 1st place, but couldn't find much, so they left kids who had no training in charge of making prisoners stand for days at a time with no sleep, paraded them around naked, blasted heavy metal music, and waterboarding.  

We need to ask the pro=war neocons what good they did in terrorizing so many people.  If someone invaded our country and did that to our brothers and fathers, our underground militia, not to mention everyone else in this country would be out of their minds with revenge.   So I don't think we have prevented terrorism at all, we have bred more hate and contempt for our country for trying to push our ways of life onto theirs.

The point is not worrying about prosecuting democrats who knew about this but didn't object, it is finding the whole truth about the real reason we went to war with Iraq in the 1st place, and using the 911 tragedy as the way to scare people into blindly following their agenda

Unfortunately it will not happen but yes they should be charged.  The behavior that followed these decisions has put American soliders lives in danger. 

Kate

I blog at http://www.aftercancernowwhat.blogspot.com