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 professor at Berkeley. That's how mainstream this was.
Furthermore, the people signed off on it. Not just through our Congressional representatives. Not just because we re-elected the politicians who did it. The public supported it directly. We've known for a long what was going on.
Prosecuting only the people who carried out the orders is cowardly.
You'd have to try Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, a bunch of high ranking DOD and DOJ officials, a bunch of Generals and other officers, Congressional leadership from that era, and former CIA directors too.
"Just following orders" didn't work at Nuremberg because we were trying the people who gave the orders too.
> "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'm not holding my breath, but with the continuing unrest in the country, there might be some actual changes in the coming years. But a lot would need to happen -- for example there's the need for a viable political power-block other than the Democrats and the Republicans -- I sadly don't see that happening any time soon.
"William Laws Calley, Jr. (born June 8, 1943) is a former United States Army officer found guilty of murdering 22 unarmed South Vietnamese civilians in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968, during the Vietnam War. After several reductions, Calley’s original sentence of life in prison was turned into an order of house arrest, but after three years, President Nixon reduced his sentence with a presidential pardon."
Low-level grunt takes a bullet for the team, during one of the most revolutionary periods in American history. There were some low-level prosecutions (and even convictions) of American even during the Iraq war. But the higher-ups were never held accountable.
How could they have known what the people they command do? They could never possibly even dream of doing anything wrong, and if they did, they always did it in the best interests of those they lead and governed. And if it was illegal, well, they'll make it legal; and if convicted, the conviction will be overturned on appeal, or you'll get pardoned.. unless you piss off the wrong man in power. Then you could get shot in the face, and made to apologize for being in the way of the gun.
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.
Also, I don't think election votes can ever count as approval; Congress has approval ratings nearing single digits yet incumbents usually get re-elected.
> The public supported it directly. We've known for a long what was going on.
We know what goes on in North Korea too but that doesn't mean we approve.
And the US is under ubiquitous NSA surveillance, along with domestic propaganda now legalized. Given this, I think the US people are, if anything, being subjugated by the government, not conspiring with it.
24 is a terrifically evil show and helped sell torture by showing Jack routinely torture people and get the right actionable information every time without any ramifications.
That always ruined shows for me. They punch someone, they say nothing. They punch them again, and they immediately give them the truth and stop the torture. But they can't check the truth for quite a while, possibly not without killing or letting the suspect go.
Since we're talking about fiction... In Burn Notice, they routinely stop people from using torture to try to get actionable intel, because "people will say whatever they think you want to hear, just to make it stop"
Even worse, "Madam Secretary" is now spreading torture apologist rhetoric by framing the character that worked for the CIA and approved torture as a successful but war-worn, down-to-earth realist that acknowledges that "life is more complicated than you think," while the character that vehemently opposed torture is framed as an overly-idealistic young adult that dropped out of college in protest and has to work menial jobs in retail to "learn how the world works."
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?
Absolutely. These guys are basically on one and the same party, constantly covering each other's asses and continuing each other's policies (except when it's politically expedient not to do so, or when there's a power struggle).
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.
There is a little bit more nuance to it. Everybody knew but the time line is critical and congressional oversight didn't just approve torture, they found out after it happened and there was maneuvering to keep those who knew quiet. They told congress it would be illegal to reveal clandestine information and such, congress didn't exactly go to the mats to change anything though.
Overall, yes, everybody knew "enhanced interrogation" was in use and was effectively "okay" with it. Not that many knew what that was or what it included beyond sleep deprevation and water boarding. I think the way it was out sourced is absolutely interesting, there is a lot more than meets the eye there...
A lot of people involved sure aren't proud of it all though
Agree they should all be tried but in practice the best sequence may be to start at the bottom and establish there that crimes took place and have the defences establish the orders given as mitigation to build that case against the politicians and senior leadership.
Having the juniors in prision would build political pressure from those who follow orders (military etc.) for the politicians to join them and hopefully make it less of a party political issue.
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 professor at Berkeley. That's how mainstream this was.
Furthermore, the people signed off on it. Not just through our Congressional representatives. Not just because we re-elected the politicians who did it. The public supported it directly. We've known for a long what was going on.
Prosecuting only the people who carried out the orders is cowardly.
You'd have to try Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, a bunch of high ranking DOD and DOJ officials, a bunch of Generals and other officers, Congressional leadership from that era, and former CIA directors too.
"Just following orders" didn't work at Nuremberg because we were trying the people who gave the orders too.