Listening to the Panetta hearing and thinking about prosecuting torturers ......

[Stinky The Clown]

Disclaimer - I can think of no circumstance in which I could ever condone torture.

That said, I can see some assurances whereby we say we will not prosecute the actual inflicter of the torture if they were following what could be seen as legitimate orders. Yes, I know ..... everyone has an obligation to refuse to follow illegal orders.

But prosecuting these small fry almost always allows the big fry to walk.

I want the big fry. The very biggest of the fry. Cheenee and Rumsferatu

What do you think? Can you live with the little guys getting immunity? We can even use them to walk up the ladder to get to the big guys.

[jtrockville]

1. mmmmm... super-size fries.

[EFerrari]

2. The Obama admin is obligated to prosecute Bush and Cheney

because they have publicly admitted to using torture and we signed onto the Geneva Conventions. If our government doesn't prosecute them, my understanding is that they are in violation of the torture convention. :shrug:

[stillcool]

3. It's that whole making law thing..

On January 11, 2002, the United States announced that it was refusing to abide by the 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. The Third Geneva Convention, which provides specific guidelines for treatment of prisoner combatants, is a part of the "law of nations" and is a mainstay of international humanitarian law. The United States explained that the prisoners taken in Afghanistan and Pakistan were not actually prisoners of war, but were in fact "unlawful combatants."

[EFerrari]

4. Do you have a link, stillcool?

If you do, I'd like to read it so I can figure out what the deal is. :)

[stillcool]

5. I don't know where I found it..

I'll look around some...but this link provides lots of information
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Legal_Arguments_for_Avoiding_the_Jurisdiction_of_the_Geneva_Conventions


OOPS...answered to fast..here's the link:
http://baltimorechronicle.com/geneva_feb02.shtml

[EFerrari]

6. Thanks, I'll start there. n/t

[stillcool]

8. I hope you saw the edit...

it has the link you wanted.

[EFerrari]

10. Thank you for taking the trouble.

:hi:

[spanone]

7. there are already a few small fries doing time over this....i'll take the dickhead duo

[Stinky The Clown]

9. I'm guessing you mean Lynnde (sp??) England .....

..... she was a moron. And probably not who I was speaking of. There's no chance in hell she was authorized to have her picture taken and to be seen as gloating.

While I think she outside the standard I'm suggesting for immunity, I could care less if she was never prosecuted. That was a cover up of the mid level people. At most. I would love to have seen that one go way up the ladder.

[librechik]

11. One problem: Nuremberg

There are established precedents for the excuse of "just following orders."

It won't wash if we follow the law.

They are just throwing sand in our eyes--again--to quote Fitzy