Has Sen. Kerry commented on the Torture Memos?

[beachmom]

I read through some of them and found them ... well, horrible and chilling. They made me look at Bush differently, as they did not amount to "cowboyism" or "24", but rather banal and cold legal language to make the law fit what the WH wanted, which was to torture.

The Geneva Conventions are very important to Sen. Kerry so I have to admit to being surprised that there has been no statement issued from his office. And one can't argue it is because he was in the Sudan; his office managed to churn out press releases about high speed rail, global climate change, and an Arms Trafficking treaty with Mexico in the last week.

I also am unaware of him responding to Barbara Boxer's request that the SFRC hold hearings on the torture. Is Senator Kerry going to stand up for what he believes in, or is he just going to stick to less controversial issues? At the least, why not a word about it? It is just very, very odd.

[wisteria]

1. I have not seen anything which is surprising because we know how he feels about this subject. n/t

[TayTay]

2. I don't think that we have had a direct answer yet.

Which, in and of itself is not very revealing. Sen. Feingold has been doing hearings about this subject and Sen. Leahy is also trying to come to grips with how to proceed on this whole issue of Rule of Law, torture and violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Once again, I am not excusing anything, just trying to put a framework around something. I would be seriously shocked if Sen. Kerry did anything on this without checking with Sens. Feingold, Leahy and possible Sen. Whitehouse. (Whitehouse has been terrific on this issue, despite a bad vote last year.) We do not need 50 different hearings in 5 or 6 different committees on this. We need to find a voice that combines the various folks in the Senate who care about this issue and forms a powerful block.

In the realm of pure speculation on my part, and that is all this is, I would be shocked if Sen. Kerry took this issue up as a lone warrior. (Not going to happen, it's not his m.o. ) Open to interpretation of course, I might argue that I have seen Sen. Kerry be very careful in assembling or participating in an investigation, which is what this would be. I could see him as gathering information and talking to people to be clear on what conditions are on the ground were like when the abuse took place. I could also see him trying to carefully see that any hearings or actions fell under the jurisdiction of the committee holding the hearings.

BTW, did you hear that Sen. Kerry is holding a http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hrg090423a.html">hearing on April 23rd on the SFRC (that is nearly 38 years to the day from Kerry's famous testimony) on SOLDIERS’ STORIES FROM THE AFGHAN WAR. Huh! And look at that witness list!

Witnesses:

+Andrew Bacevich
Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.)
Professor of International Relations and History
Boston University
Boston, MA

+Genevieve Chase
Staff Sergeant, U.S. Army Reserve
Recipient of the Purple Heart
American Women Veterans
Alexandria, VA

+Christopher McGurk
Staff Sergeant, U.S. Army (Ret.)
Recipient of Combat Infantryman’s Badge,
two Bronze Stars and the Purple Heart
New York, NY

+Westley Moore
Captain, U.S. Army (Ret.)
Washington DC

+Rick Reyes
Corporal, U.S. Marines (Ret.)
Los Angeles, CA

Wow! And Professor Bacevich is a severe critic of the US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is in favor of a pullout of our forces now. He further advocates that America begin to understand the limits of it's own power and come to terms with what it has done in the name of empire.

I am NOT nor do I want to be the Queen of All Things here. I could well be wrong. But, this is a teensy little reading of the tea leaves for me. What say you?

[beachmom]

3. If Kerry is doing really good work behind the scenes, then hell, I am

heavily in favor of that and would wish him well (all of this being very spculative, of course). In the end, it is not about him getting glory, but getting the job done. I have become convinced that if there is no investigation and no justice served, then the U.S. will have lost its standing in the world permanently. Other countries will be more compelled to torture. Now I am not saying it has to be 100%. But a process does need to happen. I am seeing movement from even Obama that saying "no prosecutions" is just not a sustainable argument. Dick Cheney coming out of his hole is equally interesting. Many are positing that he is scared, that even if he never spends a day in jail, he will be viewed in history as a war criminal.

Re: Afghanistan. Are you perhaps inferring that Sen. Kerry is not going to favor a prolonged involvement of the U.S. in Afghanistan? I know I have my limits: spring 2010. If nothing has improved, it's time for Plan B. There is no reason why our troops have to die or be wounded or all of that money to be spent on a lost cause.

[TayTay]

4. No, he will have to speak for himself on Afghanistan

If I knew anything in detail on Afghanistan I would post those exact words. I did not mean to infer anything on that. (My own mo.o., as it were, is to never infer anything someone says on anything as life or death as war. If I thought Sen. Kerry was thinking something specific on Afghanistan or thinking about stating a position on a pullout, I would post it, with supporting links to actual words he said.)

I was being a bit coy on the whole idea of what the Senator might be thinking on the topic of this thread: the responsibility of the US as regards the issue of torture and the disregard by US agents, acting under orders and with the blessings of the Bush Administration, in violation of the Geneva Conventions. My comments, even about the hearing to be held, are about that alone.

Geez, that alone is a very big subject. Answer me this: What jurisdiction does Sen. Kerry have in this issue as compared to the members of Armed Services, Judicial and the Homeland Security Committees of the US Senate? In what way can Sen. Kerry use his particular committee assignment and role to shine a light on this issue? What is his jurisdiction here? How does he leverage that? If you were him and wanted to present a viewpoint, aside for a general floor speech, how would you do it? What unique voices and impressions can the good Senator bring to this debate?

[karynnj]

6. The Afghanistan hearing should be fascinating

and I liked the comment Kerry made on NPR of wanting to there often not being enough attention given to soldier's perceptions.

I agree with you on holding hearings, if the other committees opt not to hold them, then the fact that there is an impact on our foreign policy, I do wonder why there has been no Kerry response to Boxer's request and why Boxer made it publicly and in writing. As there were committees where it was seemingly more related, I wonder if Boxer was convinced they wouldn't happen.

[TayTay]

7. I also wonder about that request

And I am still wondering. (I.e., I have no idea what has happened to it.)

However, I do know that Sen. Leahy is working on this issue and Sen. Feingold is also pursuing this. As far as I can tell, no one has dropped it from the Judiciary Committee list of things to-do. This is also explosive stuff. If I were a Sen. thinking of weighing in on this, I would sure as hell get my ducks in a row, check with what is already going on and then make my careful contribution.

[beachmom]

10. Honestly, I haven't heard of the soldiers who are to testify.

So I just assumed it was going to be more along the lines of the war in Afghanistan. But I suppose some of them may be witnesses to something that happened at the Bagram base. Guess we will find out soon.

[TayTay]

13. I was more focused on hearing from Prof Bacevich

Kudos to Sen. Kerry for putting him on the witness list. It is not every Senator or Rep who would put a person who has criticized that Senator or Rep in print in front of the committee. Andrew Bacevich lost his son in Iraq in 2007. His subsequent comments about Sen. Kerry's efforts to end the war were not exactly fawning. Prof Bacevich is a very sobering view on Afghanistan and may be there solely to speak as someone who does NOT favor continuing the war as Pres Obama has outlined it.

I am looking forward to this hearing. It should be very interesting. And we want to hear more from soldiers who understand what we are up against in that country. It could be illuminating on many fronts.

[karynnj]

5. I haven't seen anything

I suspect that it might be that he would want to read the memos and know what actions others were taking as this seems to overlap jurisdictions of committees before issuing a statement.

As to his office putting out the other three, the Arms Trafficking treaty with Mexico was related to what he had already said in the Texas hearing. There are innumerable global warming statements and he has written statements about high speed rail. I would suspect that his office could easily draft all three of those from earlier Kerry statements and send them to him for approval.

Though Kerry has often spoken on torture, I would guess that, in some ways, it is personal enough that I assume a statement, if one comes, will be 1005 from Kerry. Kerry, did in his comments on the torture bill in 2006, pretty much accuse the Bush administration of wanting a law to make torture legal.

" Today, the leadership of the Senate has decided that legislation that will directly impact America's moral authority in the world merits only a few hours of debate. What is at stake is the authority that is essential to winning and to waging a legitimate and effective war on terror, and also one that is critical to the safety of American troops who may be captured.

If, in a few hours, we squander that moral authority, blur lines that for decades have been absolute, then no speech, no rhetoric, and no promise can restore it.

Four years ago, we were in a similar situation. An Iraq war resolution was rushed through the Senate because of election-year politics--a political calendar, not a statesman's calendar. And 4 years later, the price we are paying is clear for saying to a President and an administration that we would trust them.

Today, we face a different choice--to prevent an irreversible mistake, not to correct one. It is to stand and be counted so that election-year politics do not further compromise our moral authority and the safety of our troops.

Every Senator must ask him or herself: Does the bill before us treat America's authority as a precious national asset that does not limit our power but magnifies our influence in the world? Does it make clear that the U.S. Government recognizes beyond any doubt that the protections of the Geneva Conventions have to be applied to prisoners in order to comply with the law, restore our moral authority, and best protect American troops? Does it make clear that the United States of America does not engage in torture , period?

Despite protests to the contrary, I believe the answer is clearly no. I wish it were not so. I wish this compromise actually protected the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions. But it does not. In fact, I regret to say, despite the words and the protests to the contrary, this bill permits torture . This bill gives the President the discretion to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions. It gives confusing definitions of ``torture'' and ``cruel and inhuman treatment'' that are inconsistent with the Detainee Treatment Act, which we passed 1 year ago, and inconsistent with the Army Field Manual. It provides exceptions for pain and suffering ``incidental to lawful sanctions,'' but it does not tell us what the lawful sanctions are.

So what are we voting for with this bill? We are voting to give the President the power to interpret the Geneva Conventions. We are voting to allow pain and suffering incident to some undefined lawful sanctions.

This bill gives an administration that lobbied for torture exactly what it wanted. And the administration has been telling people it gives them what they wanted. The only guarantee we have that these provisions will prohibit torture is the word of the President. Well, I wish I could say the word of the President were enough on an issue as fundamental as torture . But we have been down this road.

[TayTay]

8. BTW, if you want hearings on this, CALL YOUR SENATOR

Seriously, call them. Tell them how you feel. If you don't want to call your Senator cuz they are Republicans, ah, call mine or call Sen. Leahy or Feingold. Arm these good Senators with a list of emails they can show to their colleagues. Don't assume that they "know" how you feel. Tell them, empower them to act, let them know people care about this. This is citizenship at it's finest.

[ProSense]

9. Haven't seen a statement, but this commentary from January was excellent

Commentary: Torture weakened America's national security

[karynnj]

11. Kerry answers the question as the first question on USATDAY

"Clean Hands doctrine" Speaks of how it is important to regain our moral standing because we can't question others if we don't have accountability.

Interestingly, he thinks the political nature of the House and Senate make them not the best place to get that accountability. He threw out the idea of a committee of eminent people reviewing it - mentioned Desmond TuTu and it not being a government investigation - he then said he would need to give the idea more thought before thinking it was the way to go.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/04/65817063/1

[beachmom]

12. He is arguing the White House line.

Repeats that CIA interrogators should not be prosecuted (that is the Nuremburg defense which of course did not work for the Nazis who were put to death for their crimes). Talks about "Truth and Accountability" and looking into how the lawyers came to those legal conclusions.

I am disappointed in his answer. It's really indefensible in my view. Ugh.

To be clear: Obama is wrong but given that he is President this is a difficult issue for him to balance. What the hell is Sen. Kerry's excuse? He is the Senator from Mass. and will have that job as long as he wants it. Why is he so DC Establishment these days?

If John Kerry is right, then this German never should have been put to death, or the U.S. is the most hypocritical nation on Earth:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/the-case-of-richard-wilhelm-hermann-bruns-et-al.html

His prisoners were not even waterboarded.

And, you know, later on in the interview, Kerry gets all worked about Newt Gingrich with more passion than his answer on the torture question.

[ProSense]

15. Right about what?

He made a preliminary statement about how to proceed. He never said anything about outcomes. I think there should be a full-fledged investigation, but I don't see how you can stretch what Kerry said to mean what you're implying.

[Mass]

17. I think she refers to the fact the CIA will not be sued if they acted in the legal frame

such as defined by the White House and accepted by the president. (I still have not decided what I think about that).

This said, I have to agree with Kerry it would probably be better to have an outside commission investigating the issue, rather than a shouting match within Congress. I am not sure the US Congress has currently the moral credibility to deal with such sensitive issues.

[wisteria]

16. it could be the senator does not want to appear to disagree with our President in public. n/t

[karynnj]

18. I disagree

I think Kerry's comment on the CIA agents who acted under the legal guidance they were given is not out of line with his 1971 comments. To me it sounded like he placed the blame for actions done following the guidelines given on those who gave the orders, while strongly condemning the actions. This was different than those who committed atrocities. (Here the specific CIA agents who waterboarded someone hundreds of time would seem to be in that category.) You also have to consider the fact that you would lose a huge part of the CIA because I think you would lose many people - and not just those who tortured. As Obama has insisted,

I also do not think these crimes are the same order of magnitude as those of the Nazis - such as killing 6 million Jews. That was genocide. As your example shows, there were less culpable Germans tried and executed. But another difference is the Germans did not try themselves - they lost the war and the Allies tried them. I know of no historical example of a country trying its own people for war crimes without an outside force requiring it.

I do think the lawyers who wrote those memos should have there actions evaluated by the bar and disbarred if warranted. I think Kerry's fear that a Congressional hearing would be a divisive partisan mess is likely true. That leaves the Justice department which may or may not do anything or the type of non-governmental commission he spoke of.

Frankly, I don't get why you are holding Kerry to a higher standard than Obama - or anyone else. I doubt it is his Senate seat he worries about. I think he wants to push what he thinks is the best way to change things going forward. Even if he opted to investigate torture, he does not have the ability to try anyone or force a trial of anyone. The justice department does.

[beachmom]

19. My answer:

Some Nazis were prosecuted for genocide (which is its own category completely separate from torture). Others were prosecuted simply for torture. These Germans did not have anything to do with the Holocaust. The one I cite tortured Norwegian prisoners. He did nearly the exact things written in the Torture Memos by the Bush Administration. He did NOT waterboard the prisoners. His defense was that he was following the law, which was a Gestapo memo. That defense failed, and he was put to death. John McCain also said in 2007 that we put Japanese to death for waterboarding. These were not the lawyers or the leadership in Imperial Japan. They were, like the CIA, just loyal soldiers doing what they were told. Frankly, Karen, you need to read up on this. We held Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany to standards that became codified in the Geneva Conventions. But now the President and the Senator from Massachusetts think the U.S. does not have to live up to those standards, and that's pathetic.

Basically, your argument when you say that it was all because outside forces forced it, is that Nuremburg amounts to the spoils of war. Wow, I didn't realize it was such a petty affair. I thought it meant something. Apparently not. My entire world view was a sham the whole time. I mean, people were tried for crimes that were specific in nature, and yes, even the Nazis were treated to the standard of innocent until proven guilty. But your view seems to be that since the Nazis were evil due to the genocide, they were not quite innocent until proven guilty.

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133c/133cproj/08proj/Ehrenfreund2007Dimperio08z.htm

Norbert Ehrenfreunds book, The Nuremberg Legacy: How The Nazi War Crimes Trials Changed the Course of History, explains the results of the Nuremberg legacies and the legacies that were brought about because of it. My paper argues, what I feel are the three most important legacies that arose from the Nuremberg Trials, with evidence from Ehrenfreund's book. I feel that the written record, the fact that everyone was given a fair trial, and that certain human rights were established were the three most important legacies that arose from the trials. The written record of the trials provides proof that the Holocaust and all the atrocities that came along with it actually happened. The written record also set precedents for any leader who would come into power in the future, and the procedure every person was given a trial was a new concept in the judicial system. Many prominent leaders, in that day, did not believe the perpetrators of the Holocaust deserved a fair trial. By giving the perpetrators a fair trial they rose above the Nazis by showing concern for human rights. The last legacy that I feel is important was the fact that human rights became an issue. Human rights was one of the four charges used in the Nuremberg trials and now is used in many trials around the world. These three important legacies have changed the way many approach the judicial system today.

As to standards, you're right: Obama is dead wrong and should be equally condemned. EXCEPT, that it is my view that Massachusetts is a more enlightened place than, say, Ohio, and Kerry does not risk being voted out of office for going further than Obama. I think THAT FACT is relevant. Also, now that I think of it, I hold Kerry to a higher standard for another reason: he protested the Vietnam War, put himself out there, and repeatedly evoked the Geneva Convention to make his point (especially well done in his debate with John O'Neil). He knows what is in the Geneva Conventions in a personal way, that with all of Obama's intellectual gifts will never grasp.

Finally, I would have had no problem if Kerry had ducked the question a bit and said that it is the job of the Justice Department to determine whether a person should be prosecuted, and then talked about values of the U.S.. That is not what he said. He actually went against what is proper protocol, and predetermined how CIA agents should be treated. That is inappropriate!! It was inappropriate for Pres. Obama to say, and it is now inappropriate for Sen. Kerry to say. And I guarantee you the international community is watching this kind of hypocrisy, and drawing their own conclusions.

In the end, I think Wisteria is right. John Kerry is a loyal soldier to this President. On this issue, he seems to want to have the President's back. I disagree with the statement about CIA prosecutions, and am very disappointed.

[Mass]

21. And you are surprised because? I think you are missing the point. Even in VietNam.

Kerry has been to condemn the policy makers, not the soldiers that carried out these policies. He is following the same guidelines, probably because he understands the conflict of following orders that you do not consider lawful.

I read your quotes and there is a problem here. Even if I find the torture issue extremely disturbing, the point is that you expect them to follow the Geneva Conventions, but decision makers had decided they did not apply. This is where the dilemma stands. When should a public servant disobey an order given by his government? What is the limit? And it is not an easy question. Should soldiers who disagree with Afghanistan desert? Should those public servants who think abortion is a crime refuse to follow the law when it comes to abortion? What is the limit you are ready to accept? Should justice of peaces in MA refuse to marry gay couples because they consider it amoral? (I am not condoning torture or even agreeing with Kerry's statement here. I am just trying to ask people to consider the implications BEFORE deciding things from behind a keyboard).

[beachmom]

22. Actually, Jane Mayer makes an important point:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/04/levin-torture-interrogation-senate-report.html

President Obama has thrown a kind of protective, legal “invisibility cloak” over C.I.A. officers who may have participated in torture or other war crimes, but whose actions were authorized by lawyers in the Bush Administration. The reasoning goes that, if they were acting in good faith on the orders of superiors, it’s unfair to hold them to a different standard. But the unredacted report (pdf) from the Senate Armed Services Committee, released tonight by Chairman Carl Levin, raises questions about whether the C.I.A. was always operating with legal authorization.

Take. for instance, the torment of Al Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah, the guinea pig for the C.I.A.’s most abusive interrogation techniques, who was critically injured in a gunfight and captured on March 28, 2002. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel authorized harrowing tactics for interrogating Zubaydah in the infamous “Bybee Torture Memo” of August 1, 2002, which Obama released publicly last week. So, presumably, whatever happened to Zubaydah after August is indemnified by the Obama invisibility cloak. But what about what happened to Zubaydah in the four months before?

...

By June 2002—again, months before the Department of Justice gave the legal green light for interrogations—an F.B.I. special agent on the scene of the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah refused to participate in what he called “borderline torture,” according to a D.O.J. investigation cited in the Levin report. Soon after, F.B.I. Director Robert Mueller commanded his personnel to stay away from the C.I.A.’s coercive interrogations.

What did the F.B.I. see in the spring of 2002? And exactly who was involved? How high up was this activity authorized? Is it off-limits for criminal investigation?

I see your reasoning, Mass. But then we have to conclude that the Nuremburg trial was a one time thing. Only when a regime collapses can these types of trials take place.

[Mass]

23. Do you think that Nuremberg would have taken place if the death chambers had not existed?

Remember Nuremberg was not the fact of the German government anyway. And this should be the role of the International Court of Justice to judge such crimes, except the US oppose it.

[karynnj]

25. The examples Jane Mayer's points out would not be covered

under Kerry's comment which included the provision if they were operating within the legal framework.

[karynnj]

24. I never meant to imply that the Nuremberg standards were not good

I didn't say that - I said no country has ever held itself to those standards. I was not saying this is a virtue, but I don't know of an example that contradicts it. The US certainly didn't with the Vietnam War. Nor did I say that all Germans were guilty of genocide. I also saw Kennedy speak on the Senate of the Japanese soldiers executed for waterboarding. I have not heard Kennedy argue that the CIA agents should be executed or even tried. The argument was made then was to stop the practice. Even Feingold, the strongest Senator on this said:
"Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., though, released a statement suggesting that anyone who gave "improper legal advice" or authorized the program or used non-approved techniques should be prosecuted." This statement is stronger than Kerry's in that it argues for when to prosecute rather than when not to prosecute - but there is no explicit contradiction between them.

You say, "hold Kerry to a higher standard for another reason: he protested the Vietnam War, put himself out there, and repeatedly evoked the Geneva Convention to make his point (especially well done in his debate with John O'Neil)." I think this would be valid if Kerry had said that torture could be useful in some cases or that violating the Geneva Convention was ok. His 2006 comments against the war and torture were strong enough that had he run for President as he planned they would have been used against him. They were FAR stronger than things said by any of his peers. Kerry is STILL arguing that the Geneva Convention standards be met. He has all along been one of the politicians most willing to say torture is never justified. I was very happy when Obama finally said similar things after he was elected. (Contrast that to many who voted for the torture bill or who agreed there could be exceptions (HRC)) Here he is still saying that torture was wrong.

What I was saying was that his statement here might not be just having Obama's back - in 1971, he was not calling for the soldiers who spoke out about things they did to be punished. He held the leaders responsible and has been an advocate for trying to minimize the likelihood that rampant violations would occur in the future. He sounded proud in the SFRC the day he opted not to run speaking of how training manuals were changed because of things he said to Congress then. Here, Kerry still speaks of accountability. He also speaks of getting the truth out. The balance to his willingness to forgive those acting within the framework is his fierce determination that the leadership not give illegal orders.

I am not saying this is right - It might be out of empathy or sympathy for the complicated position they were in or the fact that it will be tough to keep or hire CIA agents if we prosecute them even when they stayed completely within the rules given them. I know this contradicts the Nuremberg decisions. I also know that in one account in Tour of Duty, Kerry intentionally disobeyed orders that he thought wrong when he brought in the 40 some people who were in a hut in the free fire zone, rather than leave them there to be killed by the next group - yet he never used that to defend himself when O'Neil questioned Kerry's own actions. He instead spoke of things he did that he learned later were against the Geneva Convention. In speaking out there was confession and atonement.

In answer to your query on the German, I would bet that John Kerry would have argued that he not be executed - especially as he was always against the death penalty. (I know he made an exception for terrorists, but that doesn't apply.) I would expect that he would have the same complicated feelings about this soldier as he did for those he spoke of in the Senate hearing. I doubt he would be a hypocrite.

As to it being inappropriate to give an opinion on who should be tried, the reason there is any lack of appropriateness for Obama to say so is that the AQ is suppose to be independent and as he was appointed by Obama, there is concern about the President influencing the Justice Department. There is no similar problem for a Senator. His opinion is just that - an opinion. He was asked and there was no reason to avoid the question.

Internationally, wouldn't the interest be more on whether the people who directed the policy are held to account?

[beachmom]

26. This has opened up some very interesting questions.

It goes without saying that I think this is an important debate, and no one is necessarily wrong here, just seeing it from a different POV.

I guess I take the Nuremburg trial to heart, and feel that WE the Americans tried the Nazis on all kinds of war crimes and human rights abuses, and to me WE the Americans still exist. I just feel like we should treat our own as we did the Nazis -- we gave them a fair trial, and then afterward the Geneva Conventions was amended and agreed to. America was the leader in getting many countries to sign onto the Geneva Conventions. Frankly, it was one of our finest moments. We didn't make it JUST about the Germans, or the losers of WWII. We made it about all of us, and that there are certain rules humankind should adhere to, even during times of war.

But, alas, it seems that won't be possible. If Kerry and Feingold won't even think that way, no one will. We will do something, no doubt. I think at the minimum, all the information needs to come out. At least some people should be shamed. That being said, the Right (and the followers of the conservative movement) has decided that one of their core values is that torture is O.K. during times of war. This is settled for them. Now regular Republicans, especially the smarter ones like Condi Rice's lawyer who was on Rachel Maddow last night, beg to differ. But they are not given much respect among the Tea Party Set. This is depressing, and of course, it means little can be done in Congress. The GOP thinks this is a partisan issue, which means nothing bipartisan and truly meaningful can come out of the Congress.

[beachmom]

20. I just wanted to clarify one important thing in my thinking on this issue:

the people who ordered and justified the torture in the Bush Administration are the ones who should be pursued first. I do not believe in scapegoating the CIA agents, and leaving it at that. However, I think prosecution of the people who actually did the torturing, as set as precedent in the Nuremburg trials and the Geneva Conventions, should not be ruled out, but only AFTER the top people are exposed.

At the least, ALL EVIDENCE should be released.

If the CIA agents are put on the hook for this stuff, then maybe next time they won't be so quick to ask for legal justification for actions they KNEW violated the Geneva Conventions. They will be another line of defense against this happening again.

[YvonneCa]

27. Beachmom, did you hear Obama...

...speak the other day at CIA headquarters? My local paper had an article in it about why he had gone there that said CIA was in a huge uproar after Obama decided to release the torture memos, and Panetta had asked him to calm things down.

I was glad that Obama released the memos...as Kerry had said, he had to, due to FOIA request...as I want the truth to be made public. I also agree with you about not scapegoating CIA agents, releasing ALL evidence, and pursue the higher-up guys first.

But we differ on prosecution of those who followed the policy. For me, it is an awareness issue and a directional issue. Some who participated may not have known...like a young JK...what Geneva/Nuremburg meant. Feith, etc. KNEW better. The directional part is that CIA are not asking for an excuse and saying 'I was following orders'...if they were, the answer is NO. Obama is making the top-down decision for them. Does that make sense?

[wisteria]

14. Interesting- perhaps a non-partisan panel to discuss this. n/t