So, should Khrushchev have executed Stalin's top torturer?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Oh wait, he did. Never mind.

Just trying to add to DU's new parlor game of coming up with rhetorical questions offered to mock the idea of prosecuting people for torture. (The CIA operatives probably have a valid defense and should not be prosecuted for that reason, but not merely because it would be bad politics or a distraction.)

We've got:

Why not prosecute every soldier who served in Iraq?
Why not prosecute Clinton for renditions?
Should Truman have prosecuted FDR officials over Japanese internment policy?
And, my personal favorite, "What are you going to do, fire the whole CIA?"

The reason to NOT prosecute is that the people under current discussion (some hypothetical population of CIA people who did not exceed the DoJ findings/guidelines) are probably not guilty of anything under US law. That is a superb reason to not prosecute someone.

On the other hand, the fact that not every bad actor in human history was prosecuted does not function as precedent and is a poor reason to not prosecute someone.

[IDFbunny]

1. How do you know he didn't?

[happyslug]

3. Beria was SHOT, one of the few people Executed after the death of Stalin

Beria, head of the NKVD under Stalin in the late 1930s to Stalin's Death:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrenty_Beria

Stalin's previous chief Torturers were executed by Stalin himself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Yezhov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genrikh_Yagoda

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. Yes. That's why I didn't say "prosecuted"

It was, let's say... extra-judicial.

[Kaleva]

6. They were executed not for crimes but they were deemed

too powerful or no longer useful.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. Very true. In fact, Beria was arguably head of state when they shot him.

But since Kruschev exposed a lot of Stalin atrocities he comes to mind in the context of Obama releasing these memos.

Though Kruschev was a bad guy, as Soviet top-dogs tended to be, I think the move from Stalin to Krushchev was--in relative terms--similar to the move from Bush to Obama. (Because it involves the exposure of a criminal regime within some sort of continuity, versus a change in form of government.)

[Thothmes]

12. Was L. Beria shot because of torture

or because of the political threat that he presented to N. Khurschev.

[EFerrari]

2. CIA doesn't actually have a valid defense and apparently,

there is a report coming out of Justice that will probably unravel it altogether shortly per Scott Horton this morning.

I'm referring to the fact that CIA wasn't relying on those memos when they started torturing in APRIL 2002 because they didn't exist until AUGUST.

But, the forthcoming report seems to deal with how those memos were produced.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. I try to write with precision (sometimes)

"The reason to NOT prosecute is that they people under discussion (some population of CIA people who did not exceed the DoJ findings/guidelines) are probably not guilty of anything under US law. That is a superb reason to not prosecute someone."

People acting without relying on legal authority or exceeding that authority are outside the class of folks I am saying have an effective legal (though not necessarily moral) defense.

There is, however, the question of how sweeping the presidents "off the table" is. I am not suggesting that anyone is contemplating prosecuting CIA people who do not have an effective defense. Merely that I am not going to assume that to be the case without clarification from the WH.

(I would be startled if anyone is prosecuted for anything, but I don't want to criticize the WH with no basis beyond my suspicion of what may or may not happen.)

[EFerrari]

7. "I have a mind myself and recognize it when I meet it in any guise." - Frost.

The current problem is, no one at CIA had any cover in April 2002. The rationale wasn't produced until August of that year.

More, I really don't know what this new report is about. Scott Horton seemed to be very interested in it this morning. He's careful and has been following this issue closely. He also doesn't have the burden of political considerations the WH does. :)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. Thanks for the smile.

I wasn't trying to be snarky with you and I'm glad it wasn't read that way.

Just narrowing the topic.

[EFerrari]

9. I tend to wander off into the weeds so, thank you. n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

10. Actually, we SHOULD fire the whole CIA

It's been a subsidiary of the Bush Crime Family from day one, and it sickens me when I see them treated as "heroes" by some on this board.

You want a body that gathers legitimate foreign intelligence? Fine, let's come up with one. But not one that is founded by treasonous Hitler funding criminals. Not one that CREATES terrorists, and funds their operations by selling heroin and cocaine. Not one that assassinates our own Presidents, Presidential candidates, and civil rights leaders like MLK.

We don't need to keep a steaming pile of shit like that.

[Danger Mouse]

13. Maybe we should...but that would never happen.