Osler's Razor

I'm sorry, but "torture techniques"?

I know the media keeps throwing that phrase around as shorthand for the interrogation techniques practiced recently, but -- to be precise -- I haven't seen one piece of journalism or one memo tying those techniques to some definition of "torture" under any US law.
 

Here is one good argument: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1115906
 

Did you take that photo last night? It is beautiful
 

Prosecute them for what exactly?

I think the most important paragraph of the article you linked to was this one:

"While the senators deemed some of the legal analyses "deeply flawed," they said that criminalizing bad legal opinions 'would have a deeply chilling effect on the ability of lawyers in any administration to provide their client — the U.S. government — with their best legal advice.'"

These lawyers were asked for a legal opinion and they gave one. I suppose they could be sued for malpractice, though I doubt the US government wants to do that since it might cause US attorneys to rethink the way they offer opinions in such cases, but I can't imagine what the criminal charges would be.

This stinks of populism and a sad effort by Obama and Democrats to keep the focus on the past 8 years instead of on our current situation.
 

The so-called swing voters I talked to on phone banks, in my office, in my neighborhood, in my Church, etc. that told me they weren't voting for the Republicans this last time because they wanted change... A change to a more positive attitude and hopeful outlook.

A witch hunt is not change. And it will just lead to the Republicans doing the same thing the next time they win the White House.
 

While I can agree with iplawguy about a witch hunt not being change, I also don't think it's fair to completely let illegal behavior off the hook simply to avoid upsetting the status quo and being perceived as being on a witch hunt.
 

I'm pretty sure that slamming people into walls, blasting music at ear-splitting levels, pouring water over someone so that they can't breathe, etc. etc. would be considered torture. I think anyone here would consider it torture if it were done to them. All of these have been admitted to, by the way. Do we need to start removing innards from live people before it's regarded as torture? It's *torture* - the act of inflicting extreme anguish on the body or mind. It doesn't have to be something that's in the Tower of London torture chamber to be torture.

Anyway...

I think that the transparency of government that the Obama administration is trying to achieve by issuing those memos is admirable. The shroud of secrecy was what made so many of us nervous about the Bush administration, after all. I don't think that people calling for someone to pay for these inhumane acts is unreasonable either. Nor is the fact that the administration responding to these calls unreasonable or unexpected. Isn't this why we have elected leaders? To act for us - to ask "Why?" when something has gone wrong and to give us answers when they've found them?

That being said, I don't think that anyone can be prosecuted for these acts. And as horrendous as I think torture is, I'm on the fence about whether they *should* be prosecuted. On the one hand, these people need to have immunity so that they and others after them can do their jobs in the ways they see fit. And no, we as a country may not always agree with those methods - hence, democratic elections. On the other hand, I'm very wary of the "but we were told it was okay" and the "it was necessary" type excuses - they ring hollow after the Nuremberg trials.

I don't think we should push this all under a rug, as some believe. I think it needs to be addressed and redressed. A witch hunt *wouldn't* be conducive to anything, but a careful scrutiny of what went on and what we can do to make sure it doesn't occur again would probably go a long way. Now it's just a question of whether the Obama administration can stick to the latter and not the former. *That* I am not so sure about yet.
 

Osler - are you at a convention or something? What brings you to our fair city on a sublimely beautiful day such as today?
 

Political posturing. The goal of restoring the image of America can be accomplished by NOT TORTURING anymore. These prosecutions would punish people for making tough decisions in anxiety-driven times, and they would not better our position now in any significant way other than further vilifying an already notorious administration. Follow the PAC's advice-- MOVE ON... (and don't torture anymore).

I also advocate a general rule for future interrogations: if you need to ask if something is torture, don't do it.
 

Publicly exposing the the specific actors, their specific actions, and their motivation for taking such action accomplishes everything that the administration seeks, I think.
 

I would like to interject one comment that relates to Thomas G Paine's point. What is torture? Torture is relative, essentially. What is torture to the average citizen, many on this blog, would not be torture to a highly trained marine that is trained to withstand "torture." As an example, once I turned a certain age, I would laugh whenever my mother spanked me. However, my younger brother would wildly cry after the same spanking. To us, the pain differed based on our experiences and pain toleration. Accordingly, I would suggest we look through the perspective of the person on the receiving end of these techniques to determine whether the techniques are torture, rather than our own average citizen, emasculated view of what torture is. The question should be, based on the likely training to withstand these techniques of the terrorists who were subjected to the techniques, were the techniques "torture"? I would likely say no.
 

Anons--

I'm in DC working on a new project that's very exciting, but which I can't make public yet.

As for the topic of the post, my own view is (1) that by any reasonable definition waterboarding is torture, and (2) the lawyers should not be prosecuted.
 

I think....

that I'm pretty sure the jersey says, "Natinals."

Or did they finally get that fixed?

Oh ya, also, I think they should be prosecuted if they have a viable case. Or say they are going to and then 3 years later say they have no case, and maybe the peoples will not care anymore.
 

In a shocking move, I don't think prosecutions for torture would benefit anyone.

Was it wrong? Yes. Illegal? Maybe. Some official sanction, like suspension of bar licenses, etc., is probably appropriate. I would say it's a lapse of professional judgment to support them at best; at worst, it's a total failure to be a moral being.

But does it rise to the level of crime? Nah. There are better ways to achieve transparency and make amends.
 

I want to applaud everyone here for being imminently reasonable on this issue. I agree with basically all of you in one way or another and do not feel the need to post a 27 paragraph diatribe today. Everyone wins!

Now, let me think...is there a reason why on a law professor's blog where a bunch of lawyers post comments that everyone would agree that the lawyers shouldn't be prosecuted...hmmmmm...nope, can't think of anything.
 

Hey wait - I'm not a lawyer although Mr. Twiddy suggested law might be a good career for me in 12th grade. I think he knew I would make a BAD SCIENTIST - very insightful man.

I think that prosecuting lawyers or the people who followed orders and performed these acts is like a dog chasing their tail. IF these people have any type of conscience they are already haunted by their own actions or should be.

The whole thing will turn into a huge circus and cost the American people a lot of money as no side is ever going to be happy with the outcome. This is currently displayed by the past VP who now wants to de-classify documents that he felt should be shrouded in secrecy for eternity. Give me a break.

I think reasonable people can see that those acting on behalf of the US went to far. It is far better to address what happened to ensure it doesn't/won't happen in the future (as much as we can limit future actions).
 

Look... McCain, for whom I did not vote, said it best: This is about *us*.

"We" don't do that. Or at least, we didn't used to, not systematically.