Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

[ScottM]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

The last 400 years of the development of international law have been wrestling with questions of what moral responsibilities carry over into war. The gist is that both individuals and states have rights of self-preservation, but those rights can't be used to justify just anything, and the simple assertion that the right is in play isn't enough -- you have to meet some standards. Without some sort of overarching framework to guide our actions there's really nothing to distinguish any group of us from any other, and at that point is simply degenerates into vae victis. That is why governments, laws, moral codes and religions were invented in the first place.

Which raises the question of if we are "at war". The act of war is more than a PR campaign, and in the US it requires a definitive action by Congress for a declaration of war. We have "wars" on drugs, poverty, AIDS, etc. and the term "warrior" has become synonomous with some pitcher playing three innings with tendonitis. Moreover, in the current context, with whom are we warring? Afghanistan? Pakistan? al Qaeda? (Whatever that is.) What is this "war on terror" and how do we know if we win?

In my experience, the ones who pontificate the most about the glorious theories, ethics, tactics, morality, etc. of warfare are also the ones least likely to have main crucial choices in combat, including the decision to pull a trigger on another human being. It's easy to write the rules if you will not have to play by them when it counts.

[Kepler]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

The best part is on the occassions where they do go over the line the military puts its own on trial and isn't afraid to send them to prision.

This has been true historically. The extraordinary situation in 2002 through 2005 was the line itself was blurred and moved, and not by people with any knowledge or expertise but by politicals for their own pre-set ideological judgments. We don't want or need or deserve show trials of the interrogators -- that really would adversely affect the ability of the IC to do its work. We do need the policymakers in the DOJ and White House held accountable, since they're the ones who abused their position at the top of the chain of command to obliterate the guidelines the IC depended on.

Torture and political manipulation of the system was not pulled from below, it was pushed from above. That's the whole point of why this is so dangerous -- we can't let that precedent go unpunished, or it will happen again, and maybe next time your folks won't be the ones doing it.

If I were the special investigator, I'd offer the foot soldiers full protection to testify about the content and source of the orders they received -- orders that were often couched in mind-bendingly tortured legalisms and delivered without proper review or via improper channels, indicating the DOJ and White House knew they were acting outside the law.

[MinnFan]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

If I were the special investigator, I'd offer the foot soldiers full protection to testify about the content and source of the orders they received -- orders that were often couched in mind-bendingly tortured legalisms and delivered without proper review or via improper channels, indicating the DOJ and White House knew they were acting outside the law.

As I see it there are two issues with this. The first is under whose rules are you applying the law. Hindsight can create a completely different interpretation of the law. Second, does this set a precedent that it becomes alright to go after political opponents after they have lost power? (the Bannana Republic principle)

[Rover]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

People are getting mixed up between what you do on a battlefield and what you do once you have someone in custody. "How would you react when bullets are flying" is a good question to ask when discussing a battle. Its not relevant when you're interrogating someone at Gitmo. There aren't any bullets flying there.

If you drop a bomb on OBL's head and some innocent people get caught up in it, that's unfortunate but that's war. If you have someone who was turned in on the say so of another person who may or may not be telling the truth, my question remains. Thousands of miles away from the battlefield, for those defending this policy, what exactly do you consider going to far? Anything?

PS - I'd like this to be a review, not a prosecution. What worked and what didn't. No indictments, just an understanding.

[ScottM]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

If I were the special investigator, I'd offer the foot soldiers full protection to testify about the content and source of the orders they received -- orders that were often couched in mind-bendingly tortured legalisms and delivered without proper review or via improper channels, indicating the DOJ and White House knew they were acting outside the law.

Nice concept, but this isn't a mafia prosecution, and most people in clandestine services aren't about to deep six their careers under an immunity grant. If you actually read the report, in all of its heavily redacted glory, it appears that this thing was controlled very tightly from DC, with guidance from DOJ. If anything, it appears there was a very high degree of oversight and near-micromanagement of the processes and procedures used in the field, which is unusual.

And I agree with Rover's sentiments that this should be a "review" and not a prosecutorial process. However, you can't always direct drones and SEAL teams without breaking a few wills in cells across the globe. It's not a pretty process, but it's one that seems to be working at times, not matter how uncomfortable it may make us.

[Kepler]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

PS - I'd like this to be a review, not a prosecution. What worked and what didn't. No indictments, just an understanding.

That's how South Africa handled their transition from apartheid to demoracy, and it's probably the best way to get good information. If it results in fixed rules the violation of which are prosecutable next time, OK. I understand that if you put careers in jeopardy then you defeat the purpose of actually improving our system and making sure these abuses aren't repeated, because the people with the info -- even the innocent ones -- will clam up. There aren't that many Silkwoods, and anyway, how'd that work out for her?

It sucks that the guilty may escape, but that's what the afterlife is for and in any case, they'll go down in history as Extremely Unpleasant Examples. The cautionary note about banana republics is well-taken, particularly in our impeachment-happy times, although it does leave the question of what you do in the case when you emerge from a truly dangerously abusive government. I guess, practically speaking, all we can do is try to make sure "never again."

[Handyman]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

But that international law also says that if the other side doesn't play by the rules you are no longer held to the same standard.

Obviously there is a line that cannot be crossed, but that line is different for everyone. The biggest problem you get into is when you try to fight a war like a police action. When you tie the hands of the military with unnecessary rules of engagement and limit its ability to collect intel all you are doing is dragging out the conflict and eventually causing more death.

Out military and intel operations are by no means perfect, but they are the best in the world at what they do and 99.9% of the time they do it completely within legal means. The best part is on the occassions where they do go over the line the military puts its own on trial and isn't afraid to send them to prision.

That may be, but the fact of the matter is American's believe we are better than the rest and we are supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Every time we cross the line or take a page out of the terrorism handbook to try and protect ourselves we only end up making ourselves look bad. It is hard to take the moral high ground against an enemy (which we so love to do) when the tactics we use are just as barbaric.

I am not advocating charging anyone from the Bush Admin for the torture tactics, that is the past and we need to move on. Such an action would only diminish us further. I think though we need to end political endorsement of such tactics. Let the CIA do their thing away from the seeing eyes of the average person but keep politics out of it. No president should ever endorse the torture of people or the unlawful detaining of anyone. (especially if they happen to be US citizens, but I digress) the President should always publicly abhor such tactics not go in front of the nation and give them the Fonzie thumbs up! When he does (or his VP or whoever) that he makes us all look like the barbarians we are supposed to be holding at bay.

[Rover]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

Cheney contradicted:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/to...orture-worked/

[SPIN CONTROL]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

It’s very difficult to draw a cause and effect, because it’s not clear when techniques were applied vs. when that information was received. It’s implicit. It seems, when you read the report, that we got the — the — the most critical information after techniques had been applied. But the report doesn’t say that.

That is hardly a strong contradiction.

just sayin....

[Handyman]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

It’s very difficult to draw a cause and effect, because it’s not clear when techniques were applied vs. when that information was received. It’s implicit. It seems, when you read the report, that we got the — the — the most critical information after techniques had been applied. But the report doesn’t say that.

That is hardly a strong contradiction.

just sayin....

True...but it also shows that Cheney is full of crap with his "the report will show how well it worked" BS. All we know is it MIGHT have worked...sweet that justifies everything!

[SPIN CONTROL]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

All we know is it MIGHT have worked...sweet that justifies everything!

Works for me....

[Handyman]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

Works for me....

Of course it does...you would die defending Cheney and his cronies

[SPIN CONTROL]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

Of course it does...you would die defending Cheney and his cronies

It has nothing to do with Cheney, Skippy.

I would defend the policy if Rover was the President.

[NCAA watcher]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

True...but it also shows that Cheney is full of crap with his "the report will show how well it worked" BS. All we know is it MIGHT have worked...sweet that justifies everything!

It works. I've seen it every week on 24. Pay no attention to the fact that most countries including Israel, and now apparently even the CIA's Inspector General, have determined it doesn't work.

[rufus]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

Cheney contradicted:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/to...orture-worked/

Even Cheney's parsing his words when he talks about those documents. He said the other day something like "and those who provided the most information about Al Qaeda are the same ones these techniques were used on."

Not that these techniques were what revealed the information, but just the info came from the same folks who we tortured. They could have just as well revealed the info over coffee and doughnuts.

Big Dick, still a lying scumbag.