LAW

The Truth About Torture

To get a full accounting of how U.S. interrogation methods were used, the president should give those accused of 'war crimes' a pass.

By Stuart Taylor Jr. | NEWSWEEK
Published Jul 12, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Jul 21, 2008

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: SharedThought @ 08/29/2008 1:19:37 PM

    Comment: Whenever it appears that serious wrongdoing has been done at the REQUEST of a president, or at the request of others at high levels of the executive branch whose basic message the president BECAME AWARE of some time ago, THEN, it seems to me that the pardoning of such persons by the same president would, serve to set a precedent for future presidents to conveniently ENABLE individuals to do wrong by such a pardon. I think it would be better if, in the NEXT administration (Obama or McCain), Congress would pass a conditional amnesty that says, "Reveal ALL that happened, or remain subject to prosecution."

  • Posted By: Egypt Steve @ 08/05/2008 3:26:22 PM

    Comment: You're high. The most urgent need is not simply a full accounting of what happened, urgent as that is. The most urgent need by far is to re-establish the rule of law, and to finally end the culture of impunity for crimes committed by the President and his minions that was created with Ford's pardon of Nixon. This country would be a far, far better place if Nixon had died in prison, and it would be a far, far better place of Bush were to die there, too. Unfortunately, the "serious" class that you so ably represent are terrified of that possibility. Too bad. Thanks to you and to your ilk, things will only go from bad to far, far worse.

  • Posted By: PeskyFacts @ 08/04/2008 12:27:00 PM

    Comment: This analysis leaves out a critical point, as it looks only at US law. However, the US is also a signatory & has ratified the 1984 Convention Against Torture - which requires States to prosecute credible accusations of torture committed on it's territory, and which grants "universal jurisdiction" and extradition rights to other member states. If the US doesn't live up to it's obligations, other states have the legal right under international law to extradite and try US officials for torture. Pardon's would make it clear the US has no intention to live up to it's obligations & would empower other states legally to try US officials for torture.

    • Posted By: halides1 @ 08/06/2008 9:40:00 AM

      Comment: You raise an important point. Jordan J. Paust discusses it in his book ???Beyond the Law.??? On page 31 he discusses Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with respect to torture. He quotes a committee, which says that ???[a]mnesties are generally incompatible with??? the duties to investigate and prosecute crimes such as torture. However, amnesty is not the same thing as pardon, and the use of the word ???generally??? would seem to allow for exceptions. Granting pardons coupled with a truth commission might well run afoul of international laws (as you indicate), but it is possible that such a combination would not. I do not know enough law to be sure.

  • Posted By: Brigid58 @ 07/30/2008 4:05:44 PM

    Comment: One important question is being left out here: What about accountability? These people will get off scot-free.

  • Posted By: Melody Brooke @ 07/28/2008 11:54:50 AM

    Comment: I think Stuart Taylor, Jr is 100% correct.

    When we spend all our time in search of the bad guy, trying to figure out who should go to jail, who should be prosecuted. People always automatically go into Self-Protector mode. This causes anyone involved to go behind a veil of silence, protecting them from possible trouble that could result if they were to come clean.

    At this point the government has prosecuted only those at the lowest level of the abuse; those acting under orders in an atmosphere encouraging such behavior. Should they have known better? Sure, but then again, so should those prosecuting them.

    The problem, as Taylor points out, is a systemic problem that cannot be solved merely by pointing fingers. In fact as those involved fear for their freedom and their careers will band together to protect themselves from harm. Wouldn???t you?

    It is our nature, when under attack, to fight for our survival. The problem is that because we live in a world where nothing exists except Self-Protectors, Victims and Rescuers then Taylor must be seen as a Rescuer. Victims don???t like Rescuers who are rescuing the perceived perpetrator.

    Is this Rescuing? Rescuing is when you take over, with no respect for the other, and hold them irresponsible for their deeds. This is NOT what Taylor is calling for at all.

    Taylor???s premise is that we must examine the problem from inside the system, recognizing that something went wrong in the system and holding each person accountable for their part, but not to ???blame???. Giving everyone involved immunity allows us to step back and look at the whole problem of how this travesty occurred in our supposedly ???free??? American society.

    Any other approach leads to more secrecy, more scapegoats, and more travesties.

    Practicing compassion means holding people accountable without blaming them for the entire blame. Certainly no one person made the decision to allow the kinds of tortures we have read about since the beginning of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Respecting that each person within the system did what they thought was correct, legal actions at the time; we allow them to speak of how the horrors came to be. We have empathy for how difficult it might have been to have broken from the status quo to protest. In doing this own that what happened should not have happened and take ownership of preventing any further, similar horrors to occur.

    Compassion requires allow us to be human beings. It allows us to make mistakes, yet holds us accountable for our behavior. It changes how we perceive everything. www.ohwowthischangeseverything.com/blog

  • Posted By: newsworthymike @ 07/26/2008 9:11:51 AM

    Comment: it would be far beyond the jurisdiction of an American President to pardon Bosnian war criminals. This question, like so many "quick polls" posted on the internet makes inaccurate assumptions going in...Beyond those identified in Bosnia, what war crimes have beeb committed that would imply possible pardons?

  • Posted By: newsworthymike @ 07/25/2008 5:42:18 PM

    Comment: what war crimes/ ...a little humiliation and name calling in Abu Graib? Detention in Guantanamo? You mention war crimes and I'm thinking how can President Bush pardon the criminals in Bosnia? What are you guys talking about (I mean, making up)?!

    • Posted By: halides1 @ 08/04/2008 2:27:26 PM

      Comment: Over one hundred deaths have occurred t detainees as of the beginning of 2006, and some of these have been classed as homicides. Isolation, sleep deprivation, hyphothermia, inadequate amounts of food are some of the touchless torture practices. Beatings, stress positions, forced self-urination and self-defacation are some of the others. You can search Amazon for some books on the subject.

  • Posted By: kimbo @ 07/22/2008 9:53:33 PM

    Comment: How a laywer and somebody who is "knowledgeable" about the constitution can espouse that U.S. war criminals should "get a pass" astounds me. Mr. Taylor, if there is any justice - if the United States still stands for anything - the criminals in this administration will get what we have always believed war criminals should get - a fair trial and then, punishment. Only then will our country BEGIN the long journey back to the country we thought we lived in.

  • Posted By: antworks1234 @ 07/22/2008 3:54:28 PM

    Comment: You know something Mr. Stuart Taylor Jr., I am not sure where you and people that advocate what's suggested in this article get on and get off at! What planet did you come from, Sir? The entire idea you've proposed is nonsense! The only thing you said that is correct is that people like me would never be satisfied with this logic you've put forth and we want heads to roll because of these crimes against humanity. I don't care if it was a Democratic administration that ran the country when such happened. The point is not political affiliation, here. Cimes and illegal acts according to international law were committed, that's the point, Mr. Taylor Jr.! The point is our government has brutalized hundreds of people, maybe thousands. Many, I bet, were innocent people. We've allowed these thugs to murder people and you're proposing we say, "oh, well... it's over now let's forget it and move on". How do the families of these people move on? The average American citizen has to live by laws and pay dearly if we break them. We could lose our liberty, freedom and maybe even our lives (in the death chamber) for violating the law (certainly, this is possible if murder is our crime). Yet, you say it's probably best for the nation to pardon these thugs because the truth may never be known, otherwise. Where you learned logic from is curious, Sir! The opinions from the Justice Department's OLC (John Yoo et al) were wrong. Many of the most prominent law school scholars in this country have said as much. Or, are you proposing that we "normal" American citizens just ignore those learned professors' critiques? [People that have spent their entire adult lives disecting the law to find its true essense.] What's up, dude. The only thing that will be accomplished by pardoning these criminals is that they will clam up tight as a corpse with lockjaw. During the Nuremberg trials for Nazi war criminals, I seem to remember reading something like this. It is not a defense to say you were just following orders, when your human decency and conscience should have told you that what you were doing was wrong, a criminal act and a crime against humanity. Just one example and I am finished with telling you that you are very strange, Sir. To beat a man, place him in a plastic bag, zip the bag up so he can not breathe properly, beat him some more; then sit on him for an hour or more.... what kind of people are these in our military, CIA and NSA to do such and not think they are committing a crime? Wake up Mr. Taylor Jr., please wake up. It could be your family members that are subjected to this type of nonsense, next. Then what would you say? Is it O.K. as long as it's a foreigner or someone you don't know? Is that the point? If so, you've descended to the level of apes just like these animals that perpetrated theses crimes upon these helpless, incarcerated prisoners of war. Shame on you, Mr. Taylor Jr.!

  • Posted By: bobmoss@bestweb.net @ 07/20/2008 3:58:55 PM

    Comment: CORRECTED AND AMPLIFIED
    I don???t see any reference to the War Crimes Act in these comments. Taylor claims that ???Congress has retroactively amended the War Crimes Act to block any prosecutions for brutal interrogation methods short of torture.??? That???s not true. The Act, codified at 18 USC 2441, after the 2006 amendments, defines a ???war crime??? as a ???grave breach??? of Common Article III of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and it defines a ???grave breach??? as including both ???torture??? (d)(1)(A), and ???cruel or inhuman treatment??? (d)(1)(B). ???Torture??? is defined as:

    The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

    ???not at all the way the Justice Department lawyers defined it. The serious violations committed under the Bush Administration are easily covered by these two headings.

    • Posted By: halides1 @ 07/21/2008 11:41:20 AM

      Comment: Previously any violation of Common article 3 was criminal; now only grave breaches are. Also "outrages upon personal dignity" was left off. I would say that the amendments of 2006 weakened the 1996 bill:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080801276_pf.html

  • Posted By: bobmoss@bestweb.net @ 07/20/2008 3:47:24 PM

    Comment: I don't see any reference to the War Crimes Act in these comments. Taylor claims that "Congress has retroactively amended the War Crimes Act to block any prosecutions for brutal interrogation methods short of torture." That's not true. The Act, codified at 18 USC 2441, provides, after the 2006 amendments, defines a "war crime" as a "grave breach" of Common Article III of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and it defines a "grave breach" as including both "torture" (d)(1)(A), and "cruel or inhuman treatment" (d)(1)(B). The serious violations committed under the Bush Administration are easily covered by these two headings.

    • Posted By: halides1 @ 07/21/2008 12:56:11 PM

      Comment: Without the clause about outrages to personal dignity, I fear that some of practices will not be prosecuted. For example, forcing prisoners to urinate or defecate on themselves may or may not.

  • Posted By: lickbush @ 07/19/2008 6:57:35 PM

    Comment: Newsweek editors are the ultimate joke. Cheney must have subscribed for every office in Haliburton to get this printed. Taylor and Craig are lovers.

  • Posted By: ChefRichM @ 07/19/2008 11:04:20 AM

    Comment: I am stunned at Stuart Taylor Jr's ignorant and irresponsible suggestion that Bush offer blanket pardons to members of his administration. Any student of history knows that pardons issued by Presidents Ford and Bush effectively ended the Watergate and Iran-Contra investigations, accomplishing only the protection of the guilty and not yielding any information or any kind of "truth." Issuing pardons simply guarantees that those involved keep their mouths shut. Using that logic, you could close the books on every unsolved murder by offering blanket amnesty if those responsible confessed to their crimes. In reality, he is advocating complete and total anarchy. America has had enough of , corrupt, power-mad bureaucrats never being held accountable for their crimes.

  • Posted By: Dollared @ 07/19/2008 1:27:40 AM

    Comment: No, you do not get to torture people and get a free pass. What applies to the Nazis, applies to us. That is the Rule of Law.

    Remember, over 100 prisoners died in our custody.

  • Posted By: mperata @ 07/18/2008 8:42:29 PM

    Comment: As distasteful it is for me to give up prosecution, I do believe by pardoning these constitutional thugs will allow us to get them to publicly answer about the mis-deeds without the shelter of the 5th Amendment and without a current President throwing up his shield of "Executive Privilege".

    I can only hope Bush includes himself and Cheney on the pardon list.

    I can

    I pon

  • Posted By: ArtPepper @ 07/18/2008 6:08:39 PM

    Comment: Besides which, we already know a lot of what happened. If Congress had the b---s to use its power of subpeona, we might learn more.

    • Posted By: ArtPepper @ 07/18/2008 6:12:21 PM

      Comment: Whups - subpeona is a variety of flower, I guess. s/b Subpoena :-)

  • Posted By: Dollared @ 07/18/2008 4:03:17 PM

    Comment: Wow. This is the essence of blind Village thinking. Oh my gosh I go to cocktail parties with these people, they can't be put in jail! That's only for Black and Mexican people!!! The greater the responsibility that people have, the greater the need for full investigation and unavoidable punishment when they violate the laws that apply to them. Otherwise, we are no different from a Latin American banana republic.

    Shocking - how can this person claim to be a journalist if they don't believe the laws apply to our politicians and bureaucrats!

    Look up 'impunidad" in a dictionary of Mexican politics - it means the ruling class never goes to prison, no matter how much they steal. That is the current position of those who would protect Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

  • Posted By: Chagasman @ 07/18/2008 12:55:19 PM

    Comment: I disagree completely with Stuart Taylor. The crimes committed by the Bush administration are so numerous and outrageous that they cannot be ignored and swept under the table by some phoney-baloney "truth commisson." Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the people responsible for these crimes should be made to answer for them. Bush committed a felony by ordering his people to violate the wiretap laws. There is absolutely no excuse for not impeaching him and turning him out of the White House for doing so. The law is plain and clear, and there is no question at all that Bush violated the law.

    Those who wrote the legal opinions allowing torture should be prosecuted, along with those who authorized the torture based on those opinions, along with those who carried out the torture. It was and is illegal and here too the law is clear and plain...the law was violated and those who violated should be prosecuted.

    If we allow these crimes to go unprosecuted, then we allow those who violated the law to elevate themselves above the law. What do we then do the next time someone like Bush gets elected and starts violating the laws....allow it to happen again?

    Stuart Taylor is advocating nothing more than the abandonment of the rule of law and the discarding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, all in the name of convenience!

  • Posted By: melaka @ 07/18/2008 11:46:12 AM

    Comment: WE MAY NOT LIVE IN A PERFECT WORLD, BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW OTHER NATIONS TORTURE THEIR PRISONERS. YOU SHOULD GO BACK AND VISIT HISTORY AND SEE HOW THEY HAVE BEEN DOING IT. YOUR ACCUSATIONS DON'T EVEN COME CLOSE!!!!

    • Posted By: dtbham @ 07/18/2008 2:27:07 PM

      Comment: Ok. I looked at what some people in the past did and found in comparable to what we are doing. No many countries like Germany and England have found faults in their old methods and have moved on to a higher level of society. One that the U.S. seems to have forgot about. I honestly thought we learned and that we would be above torture. Not only that, old methods are not even that effective. So next time think about that.

  • Posted By: ArtPepper @ 07/18/2008 3:26:14 AM

    Comment: Taylor uses a lot of words to explain why nobody should be held accountable for the United States' torture program. It's a pretty good dodge: The lawyers, who concocted the flimsiest of justifications, were merely giving an expert opinion; and those who implemented it were merely following legal advice in "good faith." Any two-bit dictator would be proud.

    • Posted By: halides1 @ 07/18/2008 9:33:54 AM

      Comment: In Charlie Savaage's book Takeover, the Return of the Imperial Presidency (p. 77), he says thta the executive branch is bound by the legal decisions of the Office of Legal Counsel. A master operator like Cheney would understand the importance of teh OLC and that is why John Yoo (alias Dr. Yes) was put into this office. Savage says that on officia who follows the pronouncements of the OLC is safe from prosecution. This is one reason why trials may fail to convict anyone. So far, the only people to be penaoized for their conduct are those at the bottom of the totem pole. IMHO, they are the least culpable for this travesty.

      • Posted By: ArtPepper @ 07/18/2008 6:05:50 PM

        Comment: Interesting.

        According to Jane Mayer's interview on "Fresh Air" this week, the administration "pre-immunized" interrogators, meaning they knew in advance it was illegal. In retrospect, the reason they held hearings about Abu Ghraib so quickly was to dump the blame on the low-level guys as fast as possible.

        • Posted By: halides1 @ 07/23/2008 9:05:26 AM

          Comment: I just received Jane Mayer's book last night, and I looked up OLC. She says something sililar to what Mr. Savage says. She also says that the jJustice Department wrestled away the legal power to interpret treaties from the State Department ((page 265?). More legal trickery courtesy of David Addington. Why am I not surprised?

  • Posted By: MissySue @ 07/18/2008 12:46:18 AM

    Comment: I am DISGUSTED that Newsweek would support the pardoning of war crimes! You have now proven to me that you are part of the larger corporate raping of America. I will never trust Newsweek again in any of its reporting. You are part of the problem. Shame on you!

  • Posted By: MissySue @ 07/18/2008 12:46:03 AM

    Comment: I am DISGUSTED that Newsweek would support the pardoning of war crimes! You have now proven to me that you are part of the larger corporate raping of America. I will never trust Newsweek again in any of its reporting. You are part of the problem. Shame on you!

  • Posted By: JackN @ 07/17/2008 9:02:03 PM

    Comment: It's obvious most people don't agree with the premise of this article, and I similarly don't. Putting that aside, I would really like to understand why Mr Taylor believes the "truth commission" would need subpoena power in the first place if everyone is going to be willing to discuss what was done... Without the pardons he says that everyone will lawyer up, so I can only assume he thinks that WITH the pardons everyone will step forward to declare what they had done.

    • Posted By: halides1 @ 07/18/2008 4:13:39 PM

      Comment: Mr. Taylor may be taking the South African Truth and Reconciliation commission as his model, rather than Nuremburg. This commission had the power to grant amnesty so long as a crime was politically motivated and full disclosure was made, among other conditions. With respect to this truth commission, I suspect that without the power to subpoena, perpetrators would just take the pardon and say nothing. My suggestion is to make the pardon contingent upon full cooperation with the commission. I am not sure if this offers significant benefits over merely having subpoena power or not.

  • Posted By: jonnyzat @ 07/17/2008 8:32:58 PM

    Comment: AndyO is right and Newsweek should never be considered a reliable source of the truth. Complicity is the least of our worries, the world could literally be crumbling(as opposed to the metaphoric crumbling actually occurring) and no American media would even report it unless our corporate oligarchy could benefit extensively as they have with misleading the US into war

  • Posted By: Jonnan @ 07/17/2008 7:23:04 PM

    Comment: How . . . extraordinary.

    To imagine that Newsweek would publish an article calling for presidential pardons for those responsible for torture? What an extraordinarily disgusting, sickening article. I am so sick and tired of the media complicity in the crimes of this administration.

    If I had been told that there would be this kind of defense of torturers in the United States ten years ago, I would have branded the speaker a madman and somply walked away.


  • Posted By: Stewbumer @ 07/17/2008 6:36:37 PM

    Comment: This is a hoax right?
    I mean it is pretty funny.
    EVERY person in the chain that allowed this stain on the American Empire needs to go directly to Jail.
    You know, Do Not Pass Go and all that stuff - dirrectly to jail.
    The nazis were held accountable and so should these folks who followed in their footsteps.

  • Posted By: EffYou @ 07/17/2008 5:46:54 PM

    Comment: Is this some kind of Journalistic joke? Has Newsweek really fall into the kind of gutter 'journalism' of the Enquirer and Star? You want to pardon people you consider mass-murders and guilty of treason against the country so that they'll be more inclined to tell "what really happened"?

    In allowing this cancerous article to see the light of day, Newsweek has assured me that I'll never again have the need to view them as a serious source of news.

  • Posted By: EffYou @ 07/17/2008 5:46:33 PM

    Comment: Is this some kind of Journalistic joke? Has Newsweek really fall into the kind of gutter 'journalism' of the Enquirer and Star? You want to pardon people you consider mass-murders and guilty of treason against the country so that they'll be more inclined to tell "what really happened"? In allowing this cancerous article to see the light of day, Newsweek has assured me that I'll never again have the need to view them as a serious source of news.

  • Posted By: angryinadk @ 07/17/2008 5:42:55 PM

    Comment: Torture is never acceptable. It is important that the rest of the world sees us aggressively prosecuting those who torture and those who condone or ordered it. This will help repair our image and possibly prevent the torture of our soldiers as they serve. Newsweek should fire Taylor now. Articles like this do nothing but hurt Newsweeks image. Pure hypocritical drivel.

  • Posted By: CybScryb @ 07/17/2008 1:53:57 PM

    Comment: Newsweek should be ashamed of themselves for printing such propaganda. My hope is that Stuart finds himself in the first wave of criminals swept up and punished for the wide and seemingly endless varieties of venal corruption foisted upon this great country by the Mayberry Mafia.

  • Posted By: AndyO @ 07/17/2008 1:34:47 PM

    Comment: Stuart Taylor has no credibility. He was a crony of Ken Starr who pushed for the prosecution of Bill Clinton.

    Apparently, THAT partisanship was fine. What a hypocrite.

    SHAME ON NEWSWEEK!


    http://www.slate.com/id/2085/
    http://www.observer.com/node/40428
    http://www.observer.com/node/40386

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Taylor_Jr.


    • Posted By: halides1 @ 07/21/2008 8:56:34 AM

      Comment: Stuart Taylor wrote strongly about the Valerie Plame affair in the Atlantic, so I don't think that he is a partisan gunslinger:

      http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200606u/nj_taylor_2006-06-27

  • Posted By: ottonomy @ 07/17/2008 12:58:34 PM

    Comment: When horrible crimes have been committed, of course it makes sense to pardon everybody who might have been involved before beginning any earnest investigation.

    No. The Nuremberg trials have established the precedent that you are not allowed to do horrible things even if your commanders say they are okay. This is the standard we will stick to.

    As the only species that remembers and records its history, we have a responsibility to learn from it. The Inquisition was wrong, Nazi crimes were wrong, South African apartheid was wrong, and torture is wrong. We have had no meaningful investigation into the crimes of the Bush administration, and we're not going to let everybody off scot-free before we even know what happened.

  • Posted By: Marvin23 @ 07/17/2008 12:52:45 PM

    Comment: Re: The Truth About Torture

    Stuart Taylor???s proposal not to prosecute members of the Bush administration who may be accused of war crimes but to let them testify with immunity before a ???truth commission??? is ridiculous. If anything, criminal investigations are indeed warranted to ascertain the level and responsibility that permitted the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere.

    Taylor???s assertions that ???The officials involved appear to have approved only interrogation methods found legal by administration lawyers, and in particular by the Justice Department???s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).??? is likewise a simplistic view meant to exonerate the deeds, actions, and approval in the offices of the President, Vice-President, Department of Justice, Department of State, and the Department of Defense, to abrogate the terms of the Geneva Conventions, and the Torture Laws signed by the government of the United States.

    Taylor???s entreaty for the President to give those accused a ???pass??? does not pass muster. He (Taylor) might well review the Nuremberg Tribunal???s findings, and especially the 1947 trial of Josef Altsotter et al., also conducted by the Tribunal.

    The mark of a good and great country is that it rectifies its mistakes by making a public accountability for them and a public demonstration of applied justice as well.

    Charles Betz

  • Posted By: Marvin23 @ 07/17/2008 12:52:26 PM

    Comment: Re: The Truth About Torture

    Stuart Taylor???s proposal not to prosecute members of the Bush administration who may be accused of war crimes but to let them testify with immunity before a ???truth commission??? is ridiculous. If anything, criminal investigations are indeed warranted to ascertain the level and responsibility that permitted the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere.

    Taylor???s assertions that ???The officials involved appear to have approved only interrogation methods found legal by administration lawyers, and in particular by the Justice Department???s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).??? is likewise a simplistic view meant to exonerate the deeds, actions, and approval in the offices of the President, Vice-President, Department of Justice, Department of State, and the Department of Defense, to abrogate the terms of the Geneva Conventions, and the Torture Laws signed by the government of the United States.

    Taylor???s entreaty for the President to give those accused a ???pass??? does not pass muster. He (Taylor) might well review the Nuremberg Tribunal???s findings, and especially the 1947 trial of Josef Altsotter et al., also conducted by the Tribunal.

    The mark of a good and great country is that it rectifies its mistakes by making a public accountability for them and a public demonstration of applied justice as well.

    Charles Betz

  • Posted By: 4liberty @ 07/17/2008 12:43:45 PM

    Comment: halides1
    Justice is not only finding out the truth, but also PUNISHMENT for those that commit the crimes. Your reasoning would let the Mafia bosses off the hook as long as they confessed their crimes, but punishment for the foot soldiers would be swift. Distaste for criminal behavior is fine, but pardons would condone the behavior, both literally and figuratively. That's a message we need to send to the world, "Do as we say, not as we do." The only way we will win back the respect is by actions, and those actions must include punishment for anyone involved in this despicable episode, which was done in our name.

  • Posted By: DonovanFraser @ 07/17/2008 12:25:27 PM

    Comment: Very convenient argument for criminals to make after the fact. "lets look to the future and not to the past. Wonder if i could use that in court? ANY nazi war criminal or even Saddam would have loved to use this same line of BS to get off scott free. Sorry Stuart, Those who broke the law knew they were doing do and IF we are a nation of laws, they apply to all, not just the rich and well connected.
    Good try Stuart. You sound like OJ's lawyer ( believing your own drivel). Most people with half a brain are not going to forget WHERE we are, and HOW and WHO got us here....But good try anyhow.

  • Posted By: halides1 @ 07/17/2008 12:25:21 PM

    Comment: Pardon me, but this article makes clear Mr. Taylor???s distaste for how we have treated detainees. Suppose that the truth commission gave its report, and the average American were forced to confront the whole story. And suppose that the next president (McCain or Obama) gave a speech saying that what we did in the past was wrong, but we will now follow our own previous example of setting a high bar in the treatment of detainees. I think that many in the rest of the world would take a forgiving attitude toward us on account of 9/11, and we would regain some of the goodwill that our present policies have lost. These things cannot happen unless a full accounting is done, because the information has been coming out in dribs and drabs. I wrote my first letter to the editor about Guantanamo five years ago, and I take our failures to follow the letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions as seriously as anyone. Yet I would trade sending people to prison for having a national conversation in a heartbeat. Notwithstanding the fact that I have previously offered two suggestions for improvement, I think this proposal is fundamentally in our nation???s best interest.

    • Posted By: ottonomy @ 07/17/2008 1:27:39 PM

      Comment: We do not get a free pass for 9/11, given how the government manipulated that story into convincing the coalition of the willing to go to Iraq, which was completely unrelated.

  • Posted By: 4liberty @ 07/17/2008 12:17:30 PM

    Comment: With that kind of reasoning, I'm sure he would be completely fine for a person that had just tortured his wife/daughter/son/mother et el, to be exhonerated and not held accountable so long as that person tells him exactly what was done to his beloved family member. Yea, didn't think so. IDIOT!

  • Posted By: tabbyw @ 07/17/2008 11:43:19 AM

    Comment: BS. georgee has brought america down to the terrorists level. remember when america was 'better' than that.

  • Posted By: Sacanagem @ 07/17/2008 11:18:35 AM

    Comment: The Geneva Convention prohibits absolving people who commit war crimes.
    From Convention IV, Part IV, Section 1, Subsection III, Art. 148:
    Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be
    those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or
    property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or
    inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great
    suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or
    transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a
    protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully
    depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial
    prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive
    destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military
    necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
    No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article...

    And the preceding Article:



    Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be
    those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or
    property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or
    inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great
    suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or
    transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a
    protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully
    depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial
    prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive
    destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military
    necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be
    those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or
    property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or
    inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great
    suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or
    transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a
    protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully
    depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial
    prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive
    destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military
    necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

  • Posted By: ghjkl @ 07/17/2008 10:50:29 AM

    Comment: Stuart Taylor seeks a kind of justice that is prudent, expedient, politic, and practical. These are the same qualities these men used to excuse their crimes. Picking apart his argument is pointless. Justice is blind.

  • Posted By: jason19 @ 07/17/2008 9:35:09 AM

    Comment: Stuart Taylor's argument in favor of no accountability for officials who condoned and/or promoted torture is simply one of the worst and weakest arguments I've seen. His comments fly in the face of the very foundation of our country and basis of the Constitution. The Rule of Law takes precedence over all. No official, no matter what level, is above the law. It's that simple. I'll bet he was thrilled with the telecom companies getting retroactive/cover-up immunity. He should be ashamed of himself for writing this tripe.

  • Posted By: rich2506 @ 07/17/2008 8:33:13 AM

    Comment: Stuart Taylor recommends that Americans have a "...serious conversation about what U.S. interrogation rules should be, recommend legal reforms..."
    Wow! You mean the answers are NOT already blatantly obvious?!?! People actually have to THINK about what the proper answer to these questions are? I'm sorry, but there's simply nothing to be debated. Those who tortured broke the law and ancient codes of morality and need to be placed in jail for the rest of their lives.
    "I was just following orders" was rejected as an answer back in the late 1940s. The US under G.W. Bush is hugely unpopular around the world. People think we've completely lost our moral compass, that America has no clue as to what's right and what's wrong anymore. I would submit that articles like this simply dig the hole deeper and illustrate to the world precisely what the problem is.

  • Posted By: rich2506 @ 07/17/2008 8:32:57 AM

    Comment: Stuart Taylor recommends that Americans have a "...serious conversation about what U.S. interrogation rules should be, recommend legal reforms..."
    Wow! You mean the answers are NOT already blatantly obvious?!?! People actually have to THINK about what the proper answer to these questions are? I'm sorry, but there's simply nothing to be debated. Those who tortured broke the law and ancient codes of morality and need to be placed in jail for the rest of their lives.
    "I was just following orders" was rejected as an answer back in the late 1940s. The US under G.W. Bush is hugely unpopular around the world. People think we've completely lost our moral compass, that America has no clue as to what's right and what's wrong anymore. I would submit that articles like this simply dig the hole deeper and illustrate to the world precisely what the problem is.

  • Posted By: sons of liberty @ 07/17/2008 8:26:36 AM

    Comment: I guess a should expect an article like this from thi magazine after they hired Karl Rove. Would Mr Taylor rather that a person who kidnapped tortured and murdered his own family shouldnt be prosecuted so they would be more truthful. This goes to accountability and the rule of lw. This adminstration has acted outside that for a long time. They need to face war crimes trials with no chance of pardons when found guilty.

  • Posted By: njhewson @ 07/17/2008 2:48:03 AM

    Comment: To not prosecute those responsible for torturing another human is as unthinkable as the torture itself. All I need to know is that it happened. I don't need education on torture, I don't plan on torturing anyone. What should be learned from this is that sickening behavior like this is prosecuted to the fullest extent. If anyone needs details, they could just ask those arrested for the behavior how they would go about getting the details from a 'detainee' if it were their job to do so. I wonder what they would say?

  • Posted By: njhewson @ 07/17/2008 2:46:42 AM

    Comment: To not prosecute those responsible for torturing another human is as unthinkable as the torture itself. All I need to know is that it happened. I don't need education on torture, I don't plan on torturing anyone. What should be learned from this is that sickening behavior like this is prosecuted to the fullest extent. If anyone needs details, they could just ask those arrested for the behavior how they would go about getting the details from a 'detainee' if it were their job to do so. I wonder what they would say?

  • Posted By: tohelle @ 07/16/2008 9:50:57 PM

    Comment: Sorry Ziv. I should have blamed Taylor for this mess,

  • Posted By: tohelle @ 07/16/2008 9:47:56 PM

    Comment: This editorial is like saying Bush & Co. should get off free because they are guilty. Does Ziv write speeches for Bush? All responsibility goes up in smoke like the Republic did.

  • Posted By: spinozista @ 07/16/2008 5:13:48 PM

    Comment: You know, you would think that you can find a lot of actually evil things in print all the time and all over the place these days. But it's only when you happen to come across the real thing that you're surprised to learn that that's not so. And then you really see the difference.

    This article is actual evil.

  • Posted By: foolius2009 @ 07/16/2008 5:08:08 PM

    Comment: What a disgusting piece, and a disgusting attitude. Since when does our country stand for pragmatism instead of justice? Taylor, you should be ashamed of yourself.

  • Posted By: foolius2009 @ 07/16/2008 5:06:09 PM

    Comment: What a disgusting piece, and a disgusting attitude. Since when does our country stand for pragmatism instead of justice? Taylor, you should be ashamed of yourself.

  • Posted By: Rule of Law @ 07/16/2008 3:01:15 PM

    Comment: Thank you for the Grammh information. This article repsents another Media Failure. The Media Failed us at the beginning of 9-11 by prasing Bush for everything. No Questions where asked about what happen before. Clarkes Aug 6 Memo from the CIA has never been discussed throughly by the Media. Clarke was the only one in 9-11 commission intedrview that apoligized to the American Public. Had Bush paid attention to that Memo perhaps 9-11 could have been prevented. I recommend highly two Books I recently read. "TORTURE TEAMS by Philipi Sands and "THE PROSECUTION OF GEORGE w. BUSH FOR MURDER', by Vincent Buliosi. Both authors are noted for their investiging writing and base their statements in their books on reference and FACTS. As I said this article again given Bush a free ride like they did at the beginning of 9-11.

  • Posted By: Ric86 @ 07/16/2008 2:30:56 PM

    Comment: The left hates Bush more than they defend the innocent. We cannot win a political correct war, what the left wants for all things - sameness, at the expense of truth, freedom, not the protection of only innocent Americans.

    Now, even Bush hatred - and the left's confused priority of political correctness at any cost - is making it easier for those who wish to murder us to accomplish it.

    Liberalism (progressiveism - whatever you on the left want to call it) does not lead to the greater good, does not lead to more truth, does not lead to better values, it only lead to the opposite. Only, your hatred for our own matter more than the defense and safety and even survival of our own.

    The left hates Bush for ???torture???, and of course never mind the fact that thousands of innocent lives were saved once those plots were stopped; that does not matter, only opposition to Bush at every cost matters. And never a complaint about their own party.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664_pf.html

    To the left, you leave behind very little to be proud of. But al qaeda and radical islam certainly thanks you.

  • Posted By: Ric86 @ 07/16/2008 2:30:10 PM

    Comment: The left hates Bush more than they defend the innocent. We cannot win a political correct war, what the left wants for all things - sameness, at the expense of truth, freedom, not the protection of only innocent Americans.

    Now, even Bush hatred - and the left's confused priority of political correctness at any cost - is making it easier for those who wish to murder us to accomplish it.

    Liberalism (progressiveism - whatever you on the left want to call it) does not lead to the greater good, does not lead to more truth, does not lead to better values, it only lead to the opposite. Only, your hatred for our own matter more than the defense and safety and even survival of our own.

    The left hates Bush for ???torture???, and of course never mind the fact that thousands of innocent lives were saved once those plots were stopped; that does not matter, only opposition to Bush at every cost matters. And never a complaint about their own party.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664_pf.html

    To the left, you leave behind very little to be proud of. But al qaeda and radical islam certainly thanks you.

  • Posted By: Ric86 @ 07/16/2008 2:25:19 PM

    Comment: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664_pf.html

    The left hates Bush more than they defend the innocent. We cannot win a political correct war, what the left wants for all things - sameness, at the expense of truth and even liberty. Now, even Bush hatred - and the left's confused priority of political correctness at any cost - is making it easier for those who wish to murder us to accomplish it. Liberalism (progressiveism - whatever you on the left want to call it) does not lead to the greater good, does not lead to more truth, does not lead to better values, it only lead to the opposite. Only, your hatred for our own matter more than the defense and safety and even survival of our own. To the left, you leave behind very little to be proud of. But al qaeda and radical islam certainly thanks you.

    • Posted By: ottonomy @ 07/17/2008 1:31:41 PM

      Comment: @Ric86,. who said: "The left hates Bush for ???torture???, and of course never mind the fact that thousands of innocent lives were saved once those plots were stopped; that does not matter, only opposition to Bush at every cost matters. And never a complaint about their own party."
      No plots were stopped by torture. Torture is only effective at getting people to admit to what you want them to say. It elicits false confessions, poisoning your intelligence well with lies.. Torture is a violation of human rights. And yoAnd oyu cannot name a single polt that was stopped by torture or any terrorist arrest that came from torture, can you?

  • Posted By: Jumpmaster82 @ 07/16/2008 1:20:06 PM

    Comment: Bull $#!+, Can all criminals come forward, discuss thier crimes and be exonerated?
    If not then no one else is above the LAW!

  • Posted By: halides1 @ 07/16/2008 10:36:41 AM

    Comment: Counterintuitive, but persuasive idea. May I offer two friendly amendments?
    1. Couple the pardon to full cooperation with the truth commission. Anyone who perjures himself or fails to offer testimony would be subject to proseculation.
    2. Let the mext president grant the pardons.
    Th information about how we have treated the detainees has dribbled out. We need to get it out completely in order to have a conversation about it.

    • Posted By: halides1 @ 07/16/2008 10:59:52 AM

      Comment: Oops, make that "prosecution," not "proseculation." The idea of linking the parton to testimony might help people sigh on to this idea who would otherwise be reluctant to do so. In my view, the more people know about what was done, the more they will be dismayed and clamor for the Geneva conventions and the older army field manual (FM 34-52?) to be our standard again.

  • Posted By: slaney black @ 07/15/2008 11:55:52 PM

    Comment: This article is a disgrace to America and everything it stands for. By your very words, you are a traitor to the constitution and the country, sir. You act like it's a big f'ing surprise that the Constitution exists, or the Geneva Convention, or just basic goddamn principles of Americanism and human decency. Oopsie! Sorry, didn't know I wasn't supposed to TORTURE PEOPLE! My mistake.

    On the Last Day, Mr. Taylor, how will you answer for this? May the Lord judge you harshly.

  • Posted By: slaney black @ 07/15/2008 11:55:33 PM

    Comment: This article is a disgrace to America and everything it stands for. By your very words, you are a traitor to the constitution and the country, sir. You act like it's a big f'ing surprise that the Constitution exists, or the Geneva Convention, or just basic goddamn principles of Americanism and human decency. Oopsie! Sorry, didn't know I wasn't supposed to TORTURE PEOPLE! My mistake.

    On the Last Day, Mr. Taylor, how will you answer for this? May the Lord judge you harshly.

  • Posted By: straleno @ 07/15/2008 11:22:26 PM

    Comment: One of the most disgracefully un-American things I've read in a long time. So much for that "nation of laws, not of men" stuff. Oh, well. It was fun while it lasted.

  • Posted By: straleno @ 07/15/2008 11:21:28 PM

    Comment: One of the most disgracefully un-American things I've read in a long time. So much for that quaint "nation of laws, not of men" stuff.

  • Posted By: JeffStew @ 07/15/2008 10:15:06 PM

    Comment: Shame on Stuart Taylor Jr.
    He endangers every soldier, sailor, or marine who ever is captured in the future.
    More importantly, torture is about us. We are the ones who control, and are responsible for our government's actions.
    Torture was, is, and continues to be a war crime. The fact the president was able to find some shills with law degrees to "authorize" an enhanced interrogation techniques does in NO WAY immunize him from prosecution for his crimes.

    Shame on this Stuart Taylor Jr. How does he look in the mirror? There is something missing in his moral development. He needs help; not a voice at Newsweek.
    Jeffrey T Stewart
    SFC, USA
    Retired

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/15/2008 5:48:32 PM

    Comment: This president had another press conference today and made faces at practically all of the questions, as if he were in the presence of undesirables. His facial expressions and his answers showed his disdain for anyone who dares to ask him a question about our government, as if it is his private domain and none of our business. All of his answers to questions asked to elicit facts are immediately argumentative instead of informative. This man doesn't even understand the basics of his duty. He is our servant by law, not our ruler, and he owes us answers to the questions which are asked of him. We will be rid of him in a few months. I am a little apprehensive about the successor candidate of his party, and hopeful that the angered responses that he gives to the press will not lead us down this same narrowing path, the end of which seems to be to ignore the press and the public's right to know. We need to be very careful who we let into this office. Too many duds and even the United States of America, in all of its grandeur, could fall from sheer incompetence in its highest office if this happens too many times in a row. Vote smart.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/15/2008 5:37:14 PM

    Comment: This president, who claims to think so much of our military people, suspends the rules of the Geneva Convention for temporary convenience. He has no vision at all of how he has also thereby suspended the rules of the Geneva Convention for our troops in future wars and condemned our military people in those wars to torture for the convenience of those who will refer to his precedent in abolishing these rules.
    The principle of reciprocity is a little too complicated for his simplistic "play cowboy" mind, what little of it that he possesses. It is doubtful that he could rope a calf, or know what to do with it if he did, being only a celluloid president anyway. How poorly we have been served by those who thrust this inadequate man into that high office, way beyond his reach. Come home, troops. Come home.

  • Posted By: DEBIWEB28 @ 07/15/2008 4:20:31 PM

    Comment: Bush wasn't the only one to believe Iraq had wmd's. He has always tried to do what is right for America. At least he has some morals unlike Clinton. I bet when the Bushes leave office there wont be un replacable antiques missing, as was with the Clintons. Iwonder how many American lives were lost because of the risoners in Cuba. Have you seen the videos that Al Quiada has released of Americans being hung and tortured, beheaded./ GET A GRIP.

    • Posted By: Granger1970 @ 07/16/2008 1:57:07 PM

      Comment: Um, no - Bush has always tried to do whatever he felt like doing for the purposes of his own ego and the pleasure of his wealthy cronies. What is right for America has never been part of his agenda, and that's the problem. Bush has no respect for his own country. He has nothing but utter contempt for our nation's laws and our ethical heritage. And you're worried about antiques? Get a grip? No, GET A CLUE.

  • Posted By: tc125231 @ 07/15/2008 1:43:42 PM

    Comment: So, is this our legacy from Nurmeberg? We prosecute others for War Crimes, but not ourselves?

    That will lead to convincing diplomacy....

  • Posted By: rkhatal @ 07/15/2008 10:10:24 AM

    Comment: Saddam was hanged for ordering execution of 140 Shias who tried to kill him. Sudan's president is wanted "war criminal" for putting down a revolt brutally.

    Bush told press that Saddam was the man who tried to kill his daddy. Perhaps killing of all those Iraqis can be considered "execution" of the people who tried to kill his daddy.

    In Falujah US troops opened fire on unarmed protesters killing 17 of them. Which started an uprising which was brutally put down. Actually most of the war since then can be called quashing a rebellion.

    The difference is that we have spin doctors like this author to pardon whateve US does. Learn from mistakes.. hmm isn't that what was said after world war II about Japanese encampments ? Isn't that was said about Holocaust - yet we had Gitmo and Bosnian war !

  • Posted By: susanmg @ 07/14/2008 10:08:53 PM

    Comment: Well, duh, the administration broke the law, and the have to be held accountable! Read Vincent Bugliosi's excellent book, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" and open your eyes to this criminal administration, and the stupid underlings who did what they asked. All criminals, all guilty of high crimes.

    • Posted By: Rule of Law @ 07/16/2008 3:02:50 PM

      Comment: I have read this book and agree with Vincent 100 percent. No one not even Bush is above the Law. Great Read

  • Posted By: Alamo_Ben @ 07/14/2008 10:04:21 PM

    Comment:
    "The Tokyo trial opened on May 3, 1946, and held its final session on November 12, 1948. The conclusions reached by the 11-nation tribunal were generally parallel to those embodied in the judgment given in Nürnberg. Of the 28 defendants named in the indictment, seven were condemned to death by hanging, and all but two of the others were sentenced to life imprisonment. The trial of Japanese general Yamashita Tomoyuki was important in establishing the principle of ???command responsibility??????the duty of a military or civilian commander to prevent military personnel from committing war crimes and crimes against humanity."
    This quote is copied from Microsoft's EnCarta to highligt a failure of this article and all of ohter one written on this subject. The failure is the arthors fail to appliy the primary lesson from the Nuremberg and Japan war trials. The responsibility for preventing war crime rest primary on the COMMADER-IN-CHIEF. In our goverment that person is the PRESIDENT. What is the value of a pardon issued by a person that is responsible for crime? Does this pardon shield the criminal from punishment? It is questionable whether this pardon would prevent other nations or the International court from putting these persons on trials.

  • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/14/2008 9:18:41 PM

    Comment: *AHHHH AHHHHH* Heavenly voices sing..."Maybe we should just vote Obama...He looks so angelic and will save all our bacons"...*record screeches* Yeah right!

  • Posted By: Finnigan @ 07/14/2008 8:17:33 PM

    Comment: It's silly to say that the only way to get them to talk is to grant them immunity. We should simply waterboard them. They can't raise any legal objections, since it's not torture. I have a feeling that the chickenhawks would be squealing in no time.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 07/15/2008 9:48:07 AM

      Comment: Lol, I like your idea...

  • Posted By: metzlerd @ 07/14/2008 5:55:09 PM

    Comment: So your position is:
    1) They will tell the truth if they are pardoned, but they will lie put on trial in the court of law. (That is a huge assumption given that congress can't even get Rove to show up.)
    2) You can get away with any crime if you can get a lawyer to tell you it's legal, despite the fact that the court says it isn't. (Doesn't that pretty much take the power away from legislators, and put it in the hands of the OLC?) Is the OLC really supposed to be legislating here?

  • Posted By: errol44 @ 07/14/2008 5:16:24 PM

    Comment: These are crimes, Mr. Taylor, and I for one am no longer in the mood for giving neo-cons a free pass to break the law and subvert our Constitution. We need to send a forceful message to these criminals that this will not be tolerated in America. This is our country, the White House belongs to the people, not to Bush as he is so apt to assert. He and his have been criminal stewards of our executive office and it needs to be stopped.

    • Posted By: thrasher32 @ 07/14/2008 5:28:25 PM

      Comment: * APPLAUSE *

      • Posted By: susanmg @ 07/14/2008 10:10:08 PM

        Comment: standing ovation!!!

        • Posted By: jxl269 @ 07/15/2008 7:51:44 PM

          Comment: This country has been on the wrong path for too long. Our country and government has essentially became the one of superrich, for the superrich, and by the superrich

  • Posted By: errol44 @ 07/14/2008 5:13:23 PM

    Comment: Unfortunately Mr. Taylor, your suggestion assumes that neo-cons not under threat of criminal prosecution, would tell the truth. There is nothing in Bush's or his neo-con followers' history that shows this to be true. They have thwarted those seeking information (even visitation logs for the White House as if it were "their" house). Bush and all of his appointees and most Republican elected officials have adopted the neo-con theory of supreme executive privilege, asserting that they are not only above the law, but have no duty to disclose the truth to the American people. Shame on you for this offering.. another attempt to perpetuate the false claim that the executive (and anybody he deems) is above the law and that anybody he calls a war criminal can be held without right to habeas corpus. That is un-American and without criminal accountability, there is no incentive for future leaders not to try the same thing. We need to put down this dangerous ideology now, and we need to put it down forcefully.

    • Posted By: thrasher32 @ 07/14/2008 5:19:42 PM

      Comment: Yeah, no kidding, why would you tell the truth and make yourself look like the scumbag you are when you know there's nothing that anyone can do to you??? At least with the threat of imprisonment, the prosecutor could use a reduced sentence to try and compel someone to tell the truth and/or rat out his neo-buddies.

      These are the tactics used on common citizens, why should the same not apply to high-ranking elected officials. Does anyone believe that if I murdered someone but denied it, the best way to coerce the truth from me would be to gove me total immunity? Especially when the prosecution has an airtight case?

      Luaghable. These dirtbags need to be held accountable and made an example of so that future administrations do not abuse their powers and commit such atrocious crimes.

  • Posted By: thrasher32 @ 07/14/2008 5:04:32 PM

    Comment: Why not let all the murderers and rapists out of prison while we're at it? Utter nonsense. Murder is murder, torture is torture, and I, for one, expect those responsible to be held accountable. As a human being living in this day and age, you know what's right and wrong.

  • Posted By: Feed_up @ 07/14/2008 2:58:19 PM

    Comment: I get it war crimes aren't crimes they are lessons to be learned, so the Nuremberg Trials should have been been the Nuremberg learning hour...

  • Posted By: Feed_up @ 07/14/2008 2:56:36 PM

    Comment: So when a nation commits war crimes shouldn't be war crimes any more they should be learning tools, so Nuremburg should have been a class session and not a trial?

  • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 07/14/2008 1:07:35 PM

    Comment: F@#$ that. torture should not be tolerated in any form. Any man should be held responsible for their actions, regardless of status or position. Bush and Cheney should pay for their crimes, just as saddam did

  • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 07/14/2008 1:06:02 PM

    Comment: F*** that. Any man is responsible for his actions regardless of their position. Bush and Cheney should pay for their wrongs, just as saddam did. Torture can not be tolerated, not matter what the justification. Those who condone or otherwise permit systematic torture should pay, WITH THEIR LIVES

  • Posted By: candler98 @ 07/14/2008 12:39:36 PM

    Comment: I HOPE ONE DAY YOU CAN GO OVER THERE AND SEE WHAT GOOD WE HAVE DONE. YOU WANT SEE THE GOOD IN THE NEWS OR ON ANY OF THE BLOGS. JUST REMEMBER WE HAVE NOT BEEN ATACKED SINCE 9/1/01. ALSO REMEMBER THAT CLINTON LET MORE OF OUR MILLITARY DIE AND DID NOTHING LOOK AT ALL THE TIMES THAT WE WERE ATTACKED AND HE DID NOTHING (WOLD TRADE CENTERS 1ST ATTACK , Somalia , AND HERE ARE SOME MORE Clinton:
    1993
    Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
    1995
    April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
    Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
    1996
    June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
    1998
    Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
    2000
    Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

    Bush
    Sept 11

    THERE WILL ALLWAYS BE WAR NO MATTER WHO IS THE PRESIDENT

    • Posted By: susanmg @ 07/14/2008 10:17:18 PM

      Comment: And one more thing--Clinton did have a group looking for Bin Laden, and he warned Bush about him first thing...did you know we are no longer even looking for him? No, this ignorant man is more concerned about staying in Iraq and bombing Iran than doing anything at all about terrorism. Don't fall for his rhetoric...he means none of it. He lies!

    • Posted By: susanmg @ 07/14/2008 10:14:57 PM

      Comment: Bush 9-11 3000 dead here, 4100 dead soldiers in Iraq (unrelated in any way to terroism OR 9-11 until AFTER we became their occupiers!) 100,00 plus Iraquis dead, millions more have left their homes, One ruined country...our responsibility! Not to mention the damage he has done here at home in shredding the Constitution. You need to read "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" by Vincent Bugliosi and find our some truths about your hero Bush. He does NOT CARE about anyone but himself!

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 07/14/2008 8:01:56 PM

      Comment: The difference between b