Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CIA agents who tortured are vulnerable to prosecution in any country

amanpour.blogs.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 138 posts

Re: CIA agents who tortured are vulnerable to prosecution in any country

#111

Post by couchand »

briandear wrote: post #71
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Seat allocation" doesn't favor rural districts, Yes it does, at least in the sense that "rural" means "low population density" or "low ratio of population to Congressional seats". > [T]he Senate may be the least democratic legislative chamber in any developed nation. >In the last few years, 41 senators representing as little as a third of the nation’s population have frequently blocked legislation, as the filibuste…

To not understand the Senate representational system is to not understand that the explicit purpose of the Senate was to prevent the tyranny of the majority. That was the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. The Great Compromise of 1787 was expressway to ensure smaller states had their rights protected. Without that compromise, tax dollars could be voted to improve New York City while draining the economy of less pop…

What's truly foolish is believing that not only is disproportionate representation somehow democratic but then arguing that it's preferable to leave the choice of that disproportionate representative up to those who already wield power.

Re: CIA agents who tortured are vulnerable to prosecution in any country

#112

Post by lotsofmangos »

thawkins wrote: post #24
rasz_pl wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh they can be located, they are all living safely in US.

One would wonder what would happen if they where "rendered" to a prison in italy.

Well, if they end up at the Hague, there's always The Hague Invasion Act - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pro...

Re: CIA agents who tortured are vulnerable to prosecution in any country

#113

Post by bradleyjg »

justin66 wrote: post #11
beloch wrote: post #6

It would actually be in the U.S.'s own interests to prosecute these CIA agents and their superiors. First, this would show support for international laws against torture and help put the lid back on Pandora's box. This would directly reduce the probability of captured U.S. citizens being tortured. No, that probably does not include those captured by ISIL, but are rogue terrorist organizations all U.S. citizens will n…

> Prosecuting those who committed illegal acts, even though they were assured of immunity, sends a clear message that individuals are still responsible for their actions. They weren't really offered immunity, they were assured by the Office of Legal Counsel that they were doing something legal. Get bad advice from your lawyer as to what is legal and what isn't, go commit a crime, and see what happens.

> Get bad advice from your lawyer as to what is legal and what isn't, go commit a crime, and see what happens.

I should start out by saying that I hope the torturers, their superiors, and enablers are prosecuted by anyone that can get their hands on them: a future US administration, the ICC, a European nation, anyone.

That said the US legal analysis is very tough. The lawyers they were given "bad" advice by weren't just lawyer, they were representatives of the sovereign that would seek to prosecute them. That raises due process concerns that aren't present in an ordinary advice-of-counsel defense.

In addition to Constitutional problems, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and Military Commissions Act of 2006 create statutory defenses for torturers. The key language is "it shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful. Good faith reliance on advice of counsel should be an important factor, among others, to consider in assessing whether a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the practices to be unlawful." To be sure, that's not a unlimited immunity provision, but it does make prosecution more difficult. The Military Commissions Act also changed the substantive provisions 18 U.S. Code § 2441 (war crimes) to make much less conduct qualify.

Finally, except in cases where torture resulted in death, there are statute of limitation problems. Depending on which statute is use the limitation period for non-fatal torture or war crimes generally are either five or eight years.

In sum, there are many barriers to US prosecution. It may be much more practical for the wrongdoers to be prosecuted under the international law regime that began at Nuremberg. Given universal jurisdiction for violations of jus cogens this can happen in any country in the world, and there is no statute of limitations doctrine internationally.

Re: CIA agents who tortured are vulnerable to prosecution in any country

#114

Post by e12e »

growupkids wrote: post #79
e12e wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Just following orders" didn't work at Nuremberg because we were trying the people who gave the orders too. The only reason the Nuremberg trails happened at all, was that Germany lost. No-one was indited over fire-bombing Dresden, or nuking Hiroshima. People didn't go to prison over atrocities committed in Vietnam. While there should be prosecution over this, it seems unlikely to happen in the current US system. I'…

There were trials for crimes committed in Vietnam, and the commanding officer was found guilty: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

I meant in the sense of the Nuremberg trials, but still: I stand corrected, thank you. I think the sibling comments illustrates the point I was trying to make.

Re: CIA agents who tortured are vulnerable to prosecution in any country

#115

Post by wavefunction »

trhway wrote: post #38
wavefunction wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama probably would not be part of the group but Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein would. Jay Rockefeller as well. These three very senior leaders in the Democratic party have sat on the Foreign Intelligence Committee during this period of torture and while supposedly not completely in-the-loop approved of what they did know of.

>Obama probably would not be part of the group Obama is the president of the country blatantly, in the open, violating Geneva Conventions - Gitmo, drone strikes. Not that anybody, who matters, cares though.

I care, but we're talking about holding people responsible specifically for the use of torture during the Bush Administration.

Re: CIA agents who tortured are vulnerable to prosecution in any country

#116

Post by TheCoelacanth »

briandear wrote: post #71
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Seat allocation" doesn't favor rural districts, Yes it does, at least in the sense that "rural" means "low population density" or "low ratio of population to Congressional seats". > [T]he Senate may be the least democratic legislative chamber in any developed nation. >In the last few years, 41 senators representing as little as a third of the nation’s population have frequently blocked legislation, as the filibuste…

To not understand the Senate representational system is to not understand that the explicit purpose of the Senate was to prevent the tyranny of the majority. That was the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. The Great Compromise of 1787 was expressway to ensure smaller states had their rights protected. Without that compromise, tax dollars could be voted to improve New York City while draining the economy of less pop…

Great, so instead of tyranny of the majority, we have tyranny of the minority.

Re: CIA agents who tortured are vulnerable to prosecution in any country

#117

Post by TylerJay »

claudius wrote: post #60
probably_wrong wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a counterpoint, you might want to look into Argentina's "Law of due obedience"[1]. Of course, Argentinean law doesn't affect US law, but the fact that this law was eventually repealed sets an international precedent that "I was just following orders" is not a valid defense from prosecution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ley_de_Obediencia_Debida

"I was just following orders" has already been established as an insufficient defense in the 1946 Nuremberg trials and essentially all later trials against WW 2 war criminals. It is by now pretty well established that crimes against humanity in general and torture in particular are not justifiable.

What about when it is combined with duress? Like if you refused once and were told they would kill your family if you ever refused again or quit? I'm just curious. I agree with the spirit of the idea that following orders is not valid justification, but being under duress is a well-known and generally accepted justification for committing a crime. Can you shed any extra light on this?

Re: CIA agents who tortured are vulnerable to prosecution in any country

#118

Post by rhino369 »

rakoo wrote: post #53
caf wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can sensibly infer anything of the sort from television ratings. As I recall, The Sopranos, Breaking Bad and Dexter all rated pretty well too.

Jack Bauer is supposed to be the good guy; good guys aren't supposed to use torture, yet he does. I don't know about other shows, did "good guys" use torture ? Were they able to walk away without any problems ?

A lot of cop shows use the sort of light torture that America used. Rough the suspect up and get him to talk.

Re: CIA agents who tortured are vulnerable to prosecution in any country

#119

Post by rhino369 »

briandear wrote: post #76
rhino369 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real reason is that they were carrying out the official policy of the US government. Just calling it CIA torture is minimizing how far up this went. Bush ordered it. DOD knew. DOJ not only knew, it crafted the governments tortured definition of torture. Congress knew. This isn't some off the books CIA wet team opp. It was planned and signed off at the highest levels. John Yoo, who wrote the torture memos, is a pr…

Do you have proof Bush ordered it? I love theories, but I also love facts. I'm not sure I see equal outrage in te denial of due process to Americans killed by Obama's drone strikes. Let's be consistent in our outrage. Shouldn't Obama be brought up on murder charges since he ordered the execution of Americans, bypassing the Constitution, the courts and the law?

Bush wrote in his memoirs about how advanced interrogation wasn't really torture. Cheney says that both he and Bush knew.

There is a huge difference between torture and killing people with drone strikes abroad after they joined al Qaeda. Once captured, a person is no longer a solider or a combatant.

But some American citizen who is fighting for al Qaeda? He is a soldier.

The DOJ would say they do give him due process, but I think their definition is bullshit and can be dangerous.

But I don't think an enemy solider gets any due process. We didn't read the Confederate Army their rights at Gettysberg. We just shot at them. I just don't think someone at war and at large gets due process.

Re: CIA agents who tortured are vulnerable to prosecution in any country

#120

Post by pvaldes »

omonra wrote: post #110
icantthinkofone wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are people who are charged with wanting to kill people and otherwise destroy the USA. There is no shame in locking people up who want to do that, though you can disagree with the charges all you want.

This is an echo chamber for people who all agree with each other. I wouldn't waste your time taking the opposite view.

As long as you use smart arguments, the opposite view is most than welcome. Everybody wants the same, that USA be able to clean and close this hideous and rotten page of his history.

But to declare that something "was charged with horrible crimes", when there was not even the slightest trace of a fair trial, is not an argument, is just to think that the rest of the world is plain stupid.

And to say that: "Some terrorists tell us that other guy was fantasizing with killing people so has been locked for the rest of his life and was his human-toy since them... and I don't see ANY problem with this", is just heartless cynism. What if they just lied to you?.

Currently in my country, with some thousands of evictions a day by the greedy of some "banksters" (formerly rescued by the people) a lot of people fantasize sometimes with a grand piano falling over the Minister of Finance in the most "ItchyScratchiest" way possible and that, after this, he rises and smiles with a denture of white keys, chirping birds around the head and all the stuff.

Boy, these millions of bad people should be locked and chieftly we _must_ assure that they never ever be able to join the jail band!... ;-)

Post reply on HN