Torture

Torture is a big topic in the media again following Obama's release of memos relating to treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/20/waterboarding-alqaida-khalid-sheikh-mohammed

I still find it absolutely shocking that the use of torture could have been officially 'sanctioned' under/by Bush. I'm also not clear about the legal basis for 'authorising' it. Does it really just depend on the whim of the President? I'd be grateful if any legal eagles could explain.

The decision at the moment not to prosecute the officials in charge is interesting and will no doubt not be accepted anytime soon.

I'm also not clear about the legal basis for 'authorising' it. Does it really just depend on the whim of the President? I'd be grateful if any legal eagles could explain.

In nation like the US where the figure President has the authority of pardon available to them, the law has a greater degree of flexibility. Therefore where an action is not prescribed or specifically prohibited, you could seek authorisation for that action in the interests of a defined greater good (often national security). In the UK, which is much more of a democratic state, it would take a greater degree of debate and consensus to approve such activity.

All this authority then provides for is safety from pursuit of prosecution through the nations legal system. The whim is effectively that of the President, but not to decriminalise an action but to assume culpability for it. In this instance it would be the situation that the torturing individuals justification for doing so has been accepted and approved. Therefore, any prosecution would have to go from the top downwards. If you can't take out the ex-president, you can't take out anyone below them.

All this authority then provides for is safety from pursuit of prosecution through the nations legal system. The whim is effectively that of the President, but not to decriminalise an action but to assume culpability for it. In this instance it would be the situation that the torturing individuals justification for doing so has been accepted and approved. Therefore, any prosecution would have to go from the top downwards. If you can't take out the ex-president, you can't take out anyone below them.

Thanks, TSK. That explains it very well. But what (if anything) grants an ex-president immunity from prosecution? Presumably, Obama is at least acting out of raison d'état here, but what other obstacles would there be to prosecuting Bush?

Thanks, TSK. That explains it very well. But what (if anything) grants an ex-president immunity from prosecution? Presumably, Obama is at least acting out of raison d'état here, but what other obstacles would there be to prosecuting Bush?

Fuck prosecuting Bush he is a puppet of the US Billionaires and Big Business. Prosecute Blair, being a fuckwit is a start and there are enough witnessess in the UK to that one.

Nothing grants an ex-president, or even a serving president immunity from prosecution. The obstacles that would need to be overcome would be public will, public and foreign perception, foreign relations, fiscal justification and judicial need. Mostly it's a matter of public will though. The US is obviously proud of its power and would hate to see that waned. There would be a lot of resistance to seeing even the least of it's presidents prosecuted for an action taken in the name of national security.

Fuck prosecuting Bush he is a puppet of the US Billionaires and Big Business. Prosecute Blair, being a fuckwit is a start and there are enough witnessess in the UK to that one.

Sadly no statute exists to prohibit fuckwittery.

Sadly no statute exists to prohibit fuckwittery.

He has a fat ugly wife that should be oooohhh hold on a sec, punishment enough.......

for an action taken in the name of national security.

Much as it achieved the exact opposite. :(

Thanks again for the explanation!

It is, as ever, a definitions game.

This isn't the thread I thought it was going to be.

hahahahaha!!

If torture resulted in stopping a bomb exploding and killing 1000's of people would it still be wrong? Do the families of the 9/11 and 7/11 victims hold the same views as you? Do you actually know anything about torture and the circumstances in which it's administered?

Way too many variables to have a constructive conversation about this. Too hot a subject.

This isn't the thread I thought it was going to be.

I was disappointed as well, back to BME hard eh?

If torture resulted in stopping a bomb exploding and killing 1000's of people would it still be wrong?

Certainly a difficult a question to answer as it forces us to draw a line somewhere on what is and isn't worth torturing for. However, it does seem redundant in this instance as the people are already dead.

The government is constantly stopping terrorist attacks we hear nothing about.

I'd like to think that there is very little chance a completely innocent person could become embroiled in a terrorism investigation. It's been a while since I frequented a radical gathering or downloaded beheading videos and bomb making manuals.

Way too many variables to have a constructive conversation about this. Too hot a subject.

I don't think that this is ever actually true. To me, the existence of variables demands conversation, if not least to properly understand alternative opinion on a subject. I also don't think that the controversiality of a subject should ever be a prohibiter to discussion

It's been a while since I frequented a radical gathering or downloaded beheading videos and bomb making manuals.

Tuesday nights must be very boring for you.

wire their testies to the mains, that's what i reckon

The government is constantly stopping terrorist attacks we hear nothing about.

Yea right.....

A German moaning about torture, fuck me, whatever next?? ;-)

The government is constantly stopping terrorist attacks we hear nothing about.

1) If we hear nothing about it, how do you know they are doing it.

2) Even if this is the case, does their prevention still require torture.

Tuesday nights must be very boring for you.

On Tuesday we go to the Christians hate Muslims gathering, then Wednesday is Orange Wednesday then Tursday we frequent the radical gathering and download beheading videos and bomb making manuals at the Crabtree.

A German moaning about torture, fuck me, whatever next?? ;-)

Ha Ha Ha Ha Sieg Hail

I'd like to think that there is very little chance a completely innocent person could become embroiled in a terrorism investigation.

Just because the subject of a terrorism investigation isn't actually innocent, is it still right to torture them, and why?

If torture resulted in stopping a bomb exploding and killing 1000's of people would it still be wrong?

Yes, that is easy.

A vast proportion of the world has agreed that it is wrong. Prior to Dubya, the US also agreed.

Geneva Convention (for PoW's), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Rules for Treatment of Prisoners, etc, etc. All of these include articles prohibiting torture.