
Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses - rpicard
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/prosecute-torturers-and-their-bosses.html
======
g0v
I just feel sick when I think of how helpless I am as a citizen while I watch
my government's officials get away with shit like this. Yeah, I can sign
petitions, vote, contact my congressman, but I always have the feeling of
someone that's just watching from the outside.

My hope is that those people that we don't see or hear about that work around
injustices like these are doing what they can to keep some sort of balance. I
try to convince myself sometimes that these people that love their country and
want to do good are trying to use what power they have to make things right. I
know for a fact that there are amazing people working in government and I hope
the good stuff these people do just doesn't get much attention.

I love my country, I served, I consider myself a patriot, but I worry about my
children and their children. I don't expect much, if anything, to come of this
and the fact that that feeling is common for me as an American puts knots in
my stomach.

~~~
harryf
The biggest problem when your nation tortures people is you've trained people
to torture; you've created institutionalized psychopaths. What do you do with
them when their mission ends? Are they properly supported back into society or
just dropped like most vets? Do the go home to become nightclub bouncers or
security guards at your kids school?

That's why we have to clean up this mess.

~~~
Someone
One might almost say the creation of psychopaths is the goal of military
training. Without training a small fraction of soldiers ('natural
psychopaths') will kill for pleasure, another small fraction will be the
heroes that kill and put themselves in danger for the good cause, but the
majority twill try and come out alive. The goal of military training is to
make the army more effective by increasing that second fraction, but
increasing the first fraction isn't that bad, either, from a direct military
perspective.

([http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing:_The_Psychological...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing:_The_Psychological_Cost_of_Learning_to_Kill_in_War_and_Society),
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killology](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killology))

~~~
rtpg
Now I'm not aware of how modern military training is built, but I have to
imagine that the top priority for the military is making sure that their own
soldiers don't die. Apart from the ethical aspects, training somebody takes a
long time, and having people with experience on the field seems valuable.

Much like how lifeguards are taught that the first priority is making sure
that they are safe rather than saving the person drowning.

~~~
Someone
Yes, you want your soldiers to survive because training is expensive, and
comrades dying is bad for morale, but it is not _the_ top priority.

If it were the top priority, very, very few attacks would take place. Taking
that hill, destroying that gun, or gaining knowledge about enemy positions
often gets higher priority than the lives of a few (or lots of. Generals knew
lots of soldiers would die on D-Day, for instance) soldiers.

------
tacon
I'm still searching for a society in history that engages in torture against
its opponents that doesn't eventually turn to torturing its own citizens. They
will, of course, be labeled terrorists when that happens, but that time is
coming.

When that story came out of Chicago a few years ago about a two decade history
of torturing inmates to get them to confess to crimes, we asked how that could
go on for so long. Well, apparently you can torture powerless people of color
in Chicago without consequence. They were only torturing "bad" people, weren't
they?

I get ill listening to the "arguments" for torture. "Well, it works." I want
to drop my head into my hands. The efficiency expert's answer to moral
questions. But what about a ticking bomb? Can't Jack Bauer put a bullet in a
prisoner's knee to get him to talk? The Israeli's have the process down: They
torture supposedly because of a ticking bomb, a time limit, whatever, but then
they take a break for the Sabath. Gotta keep those priorities in mind.

If torture "worked", does that mean we have no limits? Just animals ripping
the face off our prey?

I'm not very religious. What are Christians thinking when they allow this to
happen? Has the iron law of Paul taken over from the Prince of Peace? If there
is one piece of evidence that the US is a post-Christian country, this is it.

~~~
scarmig
Not post-Christian enough:
[https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/12-20-14.jpg](https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/12-20-14.jpg)

The non-religious are the only group of which a majority opposes torture.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The non-religious are the only group of which a majority opposes torture.

Notice how all the "religious" groups aren't defined by religion alone, but
also by the qualifier "White". That's important, because if you go to the
source [0], you see that the Race/Religion combination suggests the conclusion
you describe because of its blend of race and religion together in some of its
categories, but if you look at the Race breakdown, you see that _Whites_ have
large majority support for torture (66/25), while _Non-Whites_ do not. Which
makes the fact that the Race/Religion breakdown shows that the identified
"religious" groups it breaks out all have majority support -- when those
"religious" groups are _White_ evangelical protestant (69/20), _White_ non-
evangelical Protestant (75/22), and _White_ Catholic (66/23)-- somewhat less
significant in _religious_ terms than it seems at first.

[0]
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/12/18/National-
Politics/Polling/question_15189.xml?uuid=MALZwIcMEeSrz1o9ezsguA#)

~~~
scarmig
Very good point. I can't find the breakdown for nonwhite religious or nonwhite
nonreligious, alas.

~~~
dragonwriter
If you follow public opinion polling in the US much, you'll find that this is
quite common, and that many conclusions presented based on media polls about
the relation between religiosity and other views are based entirely, for at
least the Christian groups covered by the poll supporting the argument, on
what _White_ members of those religious groups believe.

------
diafygi
If you want to see torture prosecutions, write a letter to your editor calling
out your elected officials by name (source below). I did it, so can you!

How to get your senators' and representatives' attention on any issue without
being a wealthy donor | Protip from a former Senate intern[1].

\--------

An email to your senator or representative may result in a form letter
response and a phone call to the office may amount to a tally mark on an
administrative assistant's notepad. But, for any given policy concern, if you
want to get their attention a letter to the editor in one of your state's 5-10
biggest newspapers that mentions them specifically BY NAME is the way to go.
If your message is directed to your representative, pick a newspaper that is
popular in your district.

That is the crucial thing to know--the rest of this post is an explanation of
why I know this is true.

I know this because, when I interned in the D.C. office of a senator one
summer, one of the duties I shared was preparing a document that was
distributed internally both online and in paper format. This document was made
every day and comprised world news articles, national news, state news, and
any letters to the editor in the 5-10 largest newspapers within the state that
mentioned the senator by name. I was often the person who put that document on
his desk, and it was the first thing he read every morning after arriving to
the office.

I began to suspect that this was standard operating procedure because several
other senators' offices share the same printer in the basement of the Russell
Senate Office building, and I saw other interns doing the exact same
procedures that I was involved in.

Since the internship, I've conferred with other Senate and House employees
past and present and determined that most--if not all--offices use essentially
the same procedure.

\--------

[1]:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1os8rz/how_to_get...](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1os8rz/how_to_get_your_senators_and_representatives/)

------
dreamweapon
_Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses_

And while we're at it, we should sanction those -- like the New York Times --
who enabled and shielded the torturers via a consistent editorial policy --
solidly in place for 12 years -- of never referring to the practice of torture
by name, but instead employing that famous dystopian euphemism: "Harsh
Interrogation Techniques."

~~~
colinbartlett
Doubleplus interrogation is one of the best parts of Miniluv's joycamp.

------
DanielBMarkham
I'm voting this up even though I think it's a horrendous idea. Here's why:

The problem isn't that there wasn't a crime: it certainly looks like there
was. I am outraged by parts of what I've read. The problem was that the system
sought to legally justify it. _The problem is that we changed the system so
that a good portion of people believe there was no crime._ If somebody is told
by the system that there is no crime, we can't then go backwards in time and
declare there was one. History shows us that such legal application is always
more destructive to society than the original incident.

An important concept to understand is "criminalizing politics". That's when
politicians, who rotate through office and are expected to spend most of their
lives as private citizens, make decisions that could be criminal but do not
involve personal gain.

We elect people to make hard choices that involve results that could be
construed in other contexts as criminal, especially with respect to foreign
policy. We always have.

I do not like any of this, but it's very important to understand that the
problems here are _systemic_. A different president and VP were just as likely
to make the same choices. Want to go back and try people for Japanese
interment? All the rendition done prior to 2000? Assassinations and coups
overseas? Spying on MLK? Such an emotional attitude is understandable, but you
just can't continue a government like that. If the system was acting as best
as it could, and it screws up? You fix it. You don't get the firing squads
out. That's banana republic territory.

So let's fix the system so it doesn't happen again. If we want somebody to
hang, start a nice show trial. But since folks were acting in good faith
(which is more important than "just doing their jobs"), pardon them and let's
move on. There is no justice to be had here. We need to learn. This is not the
time to let emotional outrage lead us into hurting each other needlessly.

~~~
hemantv
Nazi's had very similar logic to yours.

~~~
gizmo686
And Justice Douglass (from the US supreme court) agreed with that: "I thought
at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled, Law
was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time." [1]

Ex post facto is also explicitly forbidden by the US consitution (Article 1,
sections 9, 10) [2], and by the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(Article 11, section 2) [3].

On a technical level, you can argue that torture was already illegal under US
law, however the torturers were advised by agents of the State that what they
were doing was legal, so ex-post-facto could very reasonably apply. There may
be people high up on the chain of command who can be prosecuted under US law,
but for the most part prosecutions would have to go through international law.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#cite_ref-
reapp...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#cite_ref-
reappraisal_95-0) [2]
[http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans...](http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html)
[3]
[http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/](http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/)

~~~
woah
So you're saying that anything done by the state should be legal, and if you
have a problem then you should apply diplomatic (ultimately military)
pressure? Sounds like a recipe for atrocities and then war (like in nazi
Germany). It's unfortunate that the high level sociopaths will probably get
away with it, but we should still prosecute the lower level sociopaths who did
the torturing. This will make it hard to order people to do this in the
future.

Ask yourself two questions:

Is it ok to kidnap someone, lock them in your basement, beat them and rape
them?

Does some shit written on a piece of paper make it ok?

~~~
gizmo686
I am saying that if the state said something is legal, it should not then
prosecute people for having done it while the state was saying it is legal. If
you have a problem with what another state is doing (and you are a state),
then you should apply diplomatic/military pressure; I do not know what other
recourse you have.

In this case, what was done is illegal under international law, and was
illegal under international law at the time it was done, so people can be
tried in international court without ex post facto concerns.

I am one of those people who disagree with the Nuremberg trials. If something
atrocious happened, but was legal, then we should make it illegal and accept
the fact that some people got away with doing horrible things.

------
suprgeek
"Whoever fights with monsters must be careful lest he become a monster. And
when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." \- Nietzsche

Based on their actions (which ultimately may have not yielded anything useful
either) the torturers and their masters are monsters of the worst kind - state
sanctioned.

So now why stop at just releasing the report? Take the next logical step &
prosecute these sociopaths.

~~~
a3n
> "Whoever fights with monsters must be careful lest he become a monster."

I believe this is _one_ of the overlooked but very important reasons not to
torture. The torturers are also damaged, in their own way. We should not
require this of anyone.

------
gorbachev
It would be an interesting bit of schadenfreude, if countries imposed some
sort of sanctions against the US over harboring war criminals.

The State Department would probably release statements of insane hypocrisy
given how they're perfectly fine preaching about human rights when OTHER
countries violate them.

~~~
spacefight
Alone watching those statements would be of such a great pleasure...

~~~
geoka9
It gets old very quickly and becomes painful and then you just stop caring for
the most time, only occasionally flaring up with righteous indignation.

------
higherpurpose
The _very least_ that I expect out of this is for the International Criminal
Court to convict them as war criminals. Whether those convicted will actually
do any prison time is another issue. However, US will have to live with the
_shame_ for decades that it's harboring war criminals, and it may even impact
its dealings with other countries in the future.

US will be in the history books as a country that not only allowed, but keeps
condoning torture by refusing to punish the torturers. Brennan even implied
that he's not ruling out the use of torture in the future.

Maybe eventually, some new US president will decide that it's time to
prosecute and imprison them so US can have a "clean start" in its
international relations.

~~~
scarmig
On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely do you think it is for President-elect Bush
or President-elect Clinton to announce this fresh new start?

~~~
gorbachev
-1000000

------
justcommenting
"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere
insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them
from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts
through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece
of his own heart?" \- Solzhenitsyn, _The Gulag Archipelago_

------
darkarmani
For anyone doubting the claims you can go right to the Senate Committee's
report: [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/09/world/cia-
tort...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/09/world/cia-torture-
report-document.html)

Page 10 is the start of the findings and conclusions.

------
fargolime
They won't be prosecuted, of course. I ostracized those in my life who
supported it. That may be the best anyone can do against it, given our 2-party
oligopoly.

~~~
jameskilton
At least, as long as they stay in the US. I've read that a few countries will
be arresting and prosecuting any participating agents the second they enter
their borders. Not that that will solve problems here though.

Correction: The UN has said that anyone _can_ if they want to.

[http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2014/12/12/cia-agents-who-
tort...](http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2014/12/12/cia-agents-who-tortured-are-
vulnerable-to-prosecution-in-any-country-in-the-world-says-u-n-official/)

------
at-fates-hands
I guess this means we should throw all the Democrats under the bus who
suddenly had amnesia about knowing anything about the techniques being used
too?

[http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2014/12/feinsteins-
duplicity-...](http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2014/12/feinsteins-
duplicity-68-people-in.html)

 _The report (embedded below) shows that the CIA briefed at least 68 members
of Congress on the CIA interrogation program, including "enhanced
interrogation techniques" (EITs) . It details the dates of all congressional
briefings and in most cases, the members of Congress in attendance and the
specific subjects discussed. Keep in mind though, that the topic for each one
of these meetings was interrogation of prisoners._

 _For example in April 2002 both the House (HPSCI) and Senate (SSCI)
committees on intelligence were briefed on the "Ongoing Interrogations of Abu
Zubaydah, who was mentioned in the Feinstein report. According to the report,
at this time EITs were referenced but there is no evidence they were discussed
in detail. However later meetings not only discussed but gave examples of EITs
being used, (but attendees weren't mentioned). Finally near the end of 2002 we
see that the most Senior members of the House and Senate committees had
meetings totally devoted to EITs._

------
will_brown
>Since the day President Obama took office, he has failed to bring to justice
anyone responsible for the torture of terrorism suspect.

This is such an important topic, that it is a shame it always has to be
discussed in the political context (i.e. Obama failed to bring justice anyone
from the Bush administration).

#1. Obama's administration continued using the Bush era Enhanced Interrogation
Techniques; therefore, politically he could not pursue anyone from Bush's
administration without subjecting his own administration to the
same...including himself.

#2 From a legal standpoint anyone who actually engaged in these alleged acts
of torture would have a legal defense, they relied on Government officials and
attorneys who authorized/ordered them to perform these interrogations. Whether
the officials/attorneys were right or wrong in their judgment, this is a
lawful defense recorgnized by US criminal courts. See US v. Baker, 546 F.2d
940 (D.C. Cir. 1976).

~~~
irremediable
Out of interest, is #2 basically just the Nuremberg defence?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Out of interest, is #2 basically just the Nuremberg defence?

It is somewhat different, its "I relied on _the entity now trying to prosecute
me_ ". This does refer to the same entity as "Just following orders of my
superiors" when the entity prosecuting you is also the one you worked for, but
its a substantively different defense in the general case (and note, in the
Nuremberg tribunals, this defense would not have been equivalent to the so-
called "Nuremberg defense" even in the entity it refered to.)

There is a very good reason for a legal system to have this defense as a
bedrock principle that applies without exception within the legal system, and
there is a very good reason for crimes against humanity and war crimes to have
international tribunals with personal jurisdiction to try them so that this
defense doesn't become a shield for perpetrators that happen to be backed by
the top officials of a government at the time they act.

~~~
irremediable
Thanks for the clarification. Yet another reason for the ICC and its ilk...

~~~
orbifold
Which the US does not submit to.

------
rdxm
Does anyone honestly believe that the current administration which has: 1)
doubled down on the Bush admins attack on the Fourth Amendment; 2) attacked
the 1st Amendment directly (something even Bush/Ashcroft didn't do..) and 3)
run what is an arguably similar program in its moral and ethical
ambiguity(Drone strikes) to the interrogation techniques; would even think
about going after the previous administration!?!? Give me a break, that's
beyond laughable.

This piece by the Times is about what you'd expect from an organization that
has lost its grip on reality. What's worse is that people actually pay
attention to the Times at this point. Sadly, what we lack in this country is
an honest journalistic broker that can objectively communicate about the
political realities we have in front of us and our shortcomings as a nation
and an electorate.

Here's the thing, _all of us_ that vote (and those that don't), are
responsible for the mess in D.C.. The people that inhabit the beltway are
simply taking advantage of our apathy and incompetence as an
electorate..nothing more, nothing less...it's up to us, as the electorate, to
purge our government of the latent corruption and decay that has come to
permeate that town. Until we take up that charge in a meaningful way, we can't
even have a discussion about topics such as this, it's just a waste of time..

------
guelo
Obama is a disgrace. The reason he was elected over Hillary was because he
initially took a harder line against the war, the spying and the torture. At
the end of the Bush administration the American people voted overwhelmingly to
break from the recent past, and Obama inexplicably betrayed our democracy. And
I have my doubts that it will ever fully recover.

~~~
d23
And yet when polled, citizens seem to mostly be in favor of the torture the
CIA was involved in.

> The reason he was elected over Hillary was because he initially took a
> harder line against the war, the spying and the torture.

Have you considered that this is a vast oversimplification, and you're mostly
just projecting your pet issues onto 70 million other people? I don't want to
just regurgitate talking points, but saying he "inexplicably betrayed our
democracy" is probably only inexplicable to _you_ because you haven't wanted
to take the time to think it through.

An attempt to prosecute Bush would basically be political suicide, severely
damaging his legacy and cementing complete government inaction for the
remainder of his term. You can say that's a betrayal of our country, but
calling it inexplicable is just silly. Also, as far as I know, I don't
remember one of his stump speech promises being to taking the unprecedented
step of pushing for the prosecution of a former President. You can project
these ideas onto people if you wish, but no one will ever be able to live up
to your standards, much less the President of the United States -- a person
that has arguably the hardest, most complex job in the world.

------
warfangle
This is the kind of self-prosecution that you can't trust the USG to pursue
with the necessary zeal.

This is what the International Criminal Court at The Hague is for.

~~~
stefantalpalaru
Not a chance. The US took the necessary measures to authorize military action
against the International Criminal Court if one of its criminals is brought to
justice there: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-
Members%27_Pro...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-
Members%27_Protection_Act)

~~~
warfangle
Huh. Thanks for the education on the matter.

I didn't realize that we had not ratified the treaty. Considering how involved
we were in the Nuremburg Trials, I had assumed we would be just as keen about
the ICC.

Naïvely, I didn't take into effect the extent of the USG's cranial-rectal
inversion syndrome.

------
mtimjones
For all you liberals out there who want to go after Bush, don't forget that
Obama has been killing people indiscriminately with drone strikes. Something
tells me you'll be less likely to go after him, indicating the real source of
your outrage.

The CIA report was written solely by Democrats with an ax to grind, and sought
no information from an opposing side.

Go back and watch any 9/11 news video (as it happened) and put yourself in the
shoes of those who struggled to find direction during that time. I personally
don't think torture is a good decision, but those in power did it out of
precaution to identify possible future acts.

When the next terrorist attack occurs, please think about the bullshit you
wrote here.

~~~
dalke
If it helps any, I agree with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch
that US drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan have likely broken international
human rights law and should be investigated as war crimes.

I want a full, serious, and public war crimes investigation, to include drone
attacks and torture. If we find out that Obama, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie
Frank had a secret meeting to allow torture then I want them and all who knew
about it behind bars. Torture is illegal under US and international law. The
law allows no extenuating circumstances.

Are you with me?

When ISIS dressed James Foley in orange then beheaded him, do you think that
was a deliberate reference to Guantanamo or just coincidence?

If we find out that those predicted attacks of yours occur because someone
wanted revenge for having their parent, or sibling, or friend anally raped by
US orders ... then what? More torture? Which will help because?

"Sought no information from an opposing side"? Are you saying the CIA is on
the _same_ side as the committee members? Because the members certainly sought
information from the CIA, which must count as 'an opposing side'. Good on you
for saying there are multiple sides; what do you think the sides are?

And you must despise Senator Mike Gravel, who put the Pentagon Papers in the
public record without first seeking information from an opposing side. Do you
just like it when the Executive branch systematically lies, not only to the
public but also to Congress, and tries to keep it hidden? I don't.

------
spacefight
Yes. Prosecute them, put them all in prison. If the US won't do that, the rest
of the world has to oblige the moral and legal duty of prosecuting anyone
involved in the torture of humans. That will restrict their travels wastly,
right Dick?

------
WallWextra
I can't think of a worse idea than prosecuting Bush administration officials.
Jailing the previous administration would set a terrible precedent, and would
fatally undermine the stability of our government.

There are many people who are convinced, e.g., that abortion is murder and
that politicians who enable it ought to be prosecuted. Or, more on topic, that
Diane Feinstein is a traitor for making these torture memos public. They
believe this with as much moral certitude as anyone here believes torture is a
crime. It is only a matter of time before another right-wing president is in
the White House, and when there is I don't want there to be a precedent for
jailing one's political rivals.

~~~
mden
So you are saying we shouldn't prosecute the executive branch even though they
clearly broke and sanctioned breaking existing laws. When _should_ we
prosecute them? What makes them different from tyrants?

Also your example doesn't make any sense. Creating a law for abortion is not
even in the same category as breaking current laws. This is not purely an
issue of morality, it's about the rule of law as well.

~~~
kansface
I believe you mean prosecute.

~~~
mden
Yup, thanks!

------
DanBC
A few low level torturers were prosecuted and put in prisons. Their bosses had
the political language to endorse and encourage torture while using language
vague enough to escape prosecution.

------
cyphunk
"looking forward" (as the article attributes to being Obama's argument for not
prosecuting) is something one does to forgive others. self-punishment is
something one does to prove trust to others. The looking forward policy of the
US was important in the construction of the Marshal Plan. But now is the time
they need to show they are trustworthy arbitrators of any moral ground. If
they fail to prosecute anyone for torture they set a horrible precedent but
more importantly the lack of correction turns any future moral arguments into
platitudes.

This article deserves juxtaposition with this scene from the Act of Killing:

[http://youtu.be/tQhIRBxbchU?t=2m9s](http://youtu.be/tQhIRBxbchU?t=2m9s)

"We need our gangsters to get things done" @BarackObama

------
us0r
Vices News interview with the "Architect":

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmNUi0itl-8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmNUi0itl-8)

------
auston
[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/prosecute-full-
ext...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/prosecute-full-extent-law-
all-parties-responsible-use-torture-outlined-cia-report/17ZgKTtB)

------
known
Prosecute and Confiscate their properties/wealth

------
fredgrott
question: how exactly do you prosecute the to bosses in a democracy? As the
top bosses is the voters..So how will we prosecute the voters?

------
darasen
Sorry, I can not take any organization seriously that complains of "torture"
while fully supporting the act of siphoning out an unborn child's brain.

------
mkramlich
I still find it interesting what the major news websites and channels choose
to make front page headlines with or not. In the world I want to live in,
there'd be a lot more daily hammering with (apparently factual statements)
like: "US Gov Violates Geneva Convention on Torture" ever since the Senate CIA
report came out. The US is signatory to that, ratified it by Congress, and
indeed was one of its architects in the post-WW2 landscape. They repeatedly
posture themselves as one of the Good Guy nations, the ultimate White Hat
lawman. They have tortured and violated international law, to which they are
signatory, on basic human rights and ethical behavior.

------
happyscrappy
Shouldn't Europe be boycotting the US? They are not in a very good position to
do so but maybe they should work on unraveling their dependencies.

~~~
refurb
I think Europe would rather not have the spotlight turned on them.[1]

[1][http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/09/cia-
tor...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-
report-europe-complicity-britain)

------
kvl7
Just as Obama will never be impeached, imprisoned, or in any other way brought
to justice for his atrocities committed against the Constitution, the people
in the highest offices responsible for the torture will never see punishment.
Rightly so I say, there is nothing wrong with interrogating terrorists.

~~~
orthecreedence
I hope you're joking. Mainly because this line of thinking is easily shown to
be slippery. Sure, let's say interrogating terrorists is always good. But what
defines a terrorist? All of a sudden black and white becomes a murk, once
again.

------
srenihwon
If two people kidnapped your wife and children saying they would rape and
slaughter them in 24 hours, and you somehow caught one of the two culprits,
you would do whatever it took to save your family. Whatever it took. And if
you say you wouldn't, then you're either a lier, or you are a cruel and
cowardly person. On the world scale, performing non-lethal EIT on one
terrorist in order to save 500 or 5000 or 50000 lives is both reasonable and
moral. To think otherwise is just shocking.

~~~
jrochkind1
Would you feel bad if person you found turned out to be unrelated, you had him
confused with someone else? And then after keeping him locked in your basement
for a few years and torturing him a bunch, maybe a little bit of rape too, you
accidentally killed him? And it turns out it was just some dude?

Would you feel bad? Would you feel guilty? Would you think about the family of
the guy you accidentally killed, because you thought that was how to save your
family somehow, would you think about the family of the dead guy in your
basement, and how they must feel? Would you think that, it turns out, maybe
your methods had been disastrous, monstrous even, and should be revisited?

Not if you're Dick Cheney.

Okay, now let's say you're not the one who had the wife and children
kidnapped, you're the brother of the guy THAT guy picked up accidentally
thinking he was a kidnapper, locked in a basement for a few years, tortured,
raped, and killed.

NOW what would you do?

