• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

George W Bush could pardon spies involved in torture

Jessica

Bank killer.
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
878
Reaction score
188
Location
The (soon-to-be) Divided States of Amerika.
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent

This President is just beyond belief. Well, he hasn't pardoned them yet, but I can see him doing so. He cannot help Compean and Ramos, but perhaps 'war criminals' acting presumably under his (in)direct order? Then there is the article about Bush trying to pardon himself... :roll:

George W Bush could pardon spies involved in torture - Telegraph
 
Last edited:

I don't know where to stand on this one.

techniques including water boarding, which many believe crossed the line into torture
Click to expand...

Is waterboarding torture? Or is it just considered torture by "many" like the article states?

And also, should they be punished if they were following direct orders?

I guess I just don't really know what to think.
 
Shewter said:
Is waterboarding torture? Or is it just considered torture by "many" like the article states?
Click to expand...

Just those who have undergone it.

Shewter said:
And also, should they be punished if they were following direct orders?

I guess I just don't really know what to think.
Click to expand...

The Nuremberg Trials have already set a precedent for those who were "just following orders."
 
This is interesting. I have no absolutely no faith in the justice system's ability to hold Bush accountable (he is above the law, after all), but I am curious about how he'll eventually manage to weasel out of being charged with war crimes for ordering torture.

Seems like G-dub would be best off pardoning them and hoping that makes them more amenable to staying quiet. Failing to pardon them could earn their enmity and result in verbose declamations in front of a court.

Cardinal said:
You don't know how you feel about torture?
Click to expand...
A testament to how good of a job they've done in mangling the definition of torture.
 

That is a separate affair from what I posted above. Although I believe someone did post a topic in these forums about him doing just that, as well as if you google and search for "bush trying to pardon himself for war crimes" will supply you with oodles of links. Here are two :

The Washington Independent What if Bush pre-emptively pardons himself and his cabinet for war crimes?

        : Information Clearing House - ICH

No wonder he was so nice to Obama and trying to make a smooth transition. Even Bush is kissing Obama's ass now! :2razz:
 
The sick bastard - we should have tested waterboarding on him :S
He is surprisingly clever tho. Thank God normal politicans over here cannot pardon - I don't see why Americans would still want Politicans and especially Presidents to have this ability :/
 
It makes no sense to target the underlings that did the dirty work of the big boss. If anyone should be targetted, it's the boss himself. Why would you charge loyal agents who were just following orders? I realize "following orders" is a convenient excuse for many, but the Bush admin presumed legal jurisdiction to do what they did at Guantanamo, therefore those involved were acting under the presumption of legality at the time, no?

It's like if, in 5 years, we suddenly decided that the Iraq war was unjust and illegal, and suddenly started charging soldiers who were following orders at the time -- I don't think that would make one bit of sense.

Even though I disagree with Bush and his policies regarding Guantanamo, I actually respect his desire to protect the people who were following his orders, because once Obama gets to power, there's no telling who will be dragged in and put on the pedestal.

That said, if the agents themselves were used to give witness testimony as to what practices the Bush admin was having carried out at Guantanamo, it would be unjust to prevent those agents from testifying if an inquiry asked them to. By protection, I am assuming that Bush means they can't be charged... but if by protection he means that they cannot even be questioned, then I wholeheartedly disagree.
 
Last edited:
Don't let articles get you bent out of shape, you know just because someone writes something doesn't mean it's true.
 

Say we have a drug ring. Would you only wait until you're sure you can get to the boss to make any arrests? Or would you start off at the bottom and turn up the heat until you get to the top? I'm not sure but I'd start off at the underlings and threaten them to the point where they feel they need to save their own skin.
 
I guess there would have to be some incentive for those agents to talk about the things that went on, and what better way than a negative incentive. Or we could offer them a really interesting missions overseas somewhere... maybe on a tropical island?
 

Nah. Just put them up in San Quen' with general pop. They'll crack after an hour.
 
I think they should be pardoned. They were following orders, what else could they really have done? I know all the blah blah about refusing an illegal order but it's a fantasy world where that works. However, I don't think Bush & Co should get off so lightly.
 

I'm with you on that. What other choice did those soldiers have?
 
Middleground said:
I'm with you on that. What other choice did those soldiers have?
Click to expand...

Possessing a moral compass of some kind? The photos of from Abu Ghraib depicted some people who were pretty into their job. They certainly didn't look like they were complaining to me.
 
I do not think a simulated anything should be considered torture.If we continue to let little ******s label anything they do not like as torture we are going to screw ourselves in the long run. That said If any one deserves a pardon it is those two border guards and sheriffs deputy that were wrongfully imprisoned.


Deputy Gilmer Hernandez FINALLY released from prison | Illegal Protest

A former deputy sheriff in Texas, jailed for shooting at a van loaded with illegal aliens whose driver was trying to run him down, has been released from prison and says he was set up by the Mexican consulate and the prosecutor.

Former Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez was released yesterday from a halfway house, finishing the prison term to which he was sentenced for the shooting incident, in which two fleeing Mexican illegal aliens were wounded. He was in federal prison from Dec. 1, 2006, to Sept. 13, 2007, about 10 and a half months.

While he’s happy to be home, Hernandez feels he suffered an injustice at the hands of the U.S. government, which acted at the direction of the Mexican government.

“The prosecution was not right,” he told WND. “The prosecution used their tactics, which was a bunch of lies, let’s put it that way, I would never have been prosecuted if the Mexican consulate had not demanded it.”


The Loft
With a little over two months left in office, President Bush has the opportunity to right an incredible injustice. He has the constitutional power to pardon former Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. Unlike President Clinton in his last days in office, who used pardons as political pay-back, President Bush should step forward and grant freedom to these agents who were doing their job protecting America.
 
When we seriously put forth the defense that "they were just following orders," or equivocating over which kinds of torture are acceptable, I think it's safe to say we've lost our way. If Obama is able to steer our country to a place where we value freedom and human life as principles than just rhetoric, we're going to look back on this day and wonder what the hell happened, and we're not going to be very proud of ourselves.


Not pictured above: soldier unwillingly following orders.
 
jamesrage said:
I do not think a simulated anything should be considered torture.
Click to expand...

I like that. "Simulated drowning." It makes it sounds like it's happening in cyber space, or actors are all putting on a play for us or something. You know, like it's not happening in real life. Except it is happening. With this moral compass, all forms of, er, alternate means of persuasion, will be acceptable so long as the nerves are stimulated but no permanent damage is actually caused.
 
Cardinal said:
Possessing a moral compass of some kind? The photos of from Abu Ghraib depicted some people who were pretty into their job. They certainly didn't look like they were complaining to me.
Click to expand...

This isn't about grunt level troops, it's about intelligence officers. I seriously doubt you've ever seen pictures of them doing their job. And even if you want to make this about the horrid pictures that came out of Abu Ghraib, a pic may be worth 1000 words but it still doesn't necessarily tell the truth. It may tell the truth, it may tell a half truth and it may tell an outright lie. I've always felt sorry for Lynndie England, I think she got a really bad deal, but I'd much rather not mix these two discussions.
 

The point is that in just one war and with just one president we've moved our moral parameters to a place where we're equivocating, as if it makes any difference whether the torturers are grunts or intelligence agents, whether the torture causes permanent harm or not, whether it was on American soil or not, etc. This is about a complete slide away from any respect for human dignity and life. Now, a healthy skepticism is one thing, but if you expect me to look at the pictures and not see someone totally into her work, you're not convincing me. She may have been "just following orders," but judging from the glee in her eyes, I really doubt she put up much of a fight.
 

I'm not really following your argument. It's like you're saying this started with Bush... but that aside....

I really don't think you're being fair to Ms England. Study after study shows how even college students (ostensibly smart people) will fall right into the role of brutal custodian. People in our society are trained to follow orders, and will do so even if they know it will cause harm. Now take Ms England, poor, under-educated, and in love with Charles Graner who egged her on. I'm not arguing that what she did was right, or even ok, just that it isn't fair to mold people into something, then condemn them for being what they were made. I think you'd have a stronger argument against the intelligence officers so I'm a little confused as to why you'd go back to these people.
 

Bush is beyond belief because the Constitution empowers him to pardon people you think should not be pardoned? Uh, I think this is more a reflection of you than Bush.

The pardon power can be exercised by the President at his discretion. All Presidents can exercise this power. Bush is no different.

Was Bill Clinton any different when he pardoned those 18/19 FALN terrorists or that Weather Underground chick, Rosenberg (?)? Of course not.

That Bush possesses the power to pardon an individual doesn't make him beyond disbelief. Why don't you wait until he actually does something with it first, eh, before going off the deep end???

My goodness, some of you don't even require someone to do something to attack them anymore, huh? :roll:
 

They shouldn't be pardoned simply because they were following orders. If they are to be pardoned it should be because they believed they were following a lawful order. In other words, they were assured by their superiors that the action they were taking was considered lawful.

As well, if Bush & Co. received legal assurances from the DoJ that their detainee treatment administration was lawful, I don't see why Bush & Co. should be punished. At that point what you're punishing is not unlawful actions but a political disagreement.
 
Kayleigh Katz said:
I'm not really following your argument. It's like you're saying this started with Bush... but that aside.....
Click to expand...

As a legitimate inclusion in the national dialogue, yes it absolutely did. Before the War on Terrorism, seriously putting forth torture as a thing to be debated and pondered would have been unthinkable.

Kayleigh Katz said:
I really don't think you're being fair to Ms England. Study after study shows how even college students (ostensibly smart people) will fall right into the role of brutal custodian.
Click to expand...

I read that study, and I'm pretty sure I remember seeing that it was actually a hoax, or there was at least something more to the study than meets the eye. I'll look into it.

People in our society are trained to follow orders, and will do so even if they know it will cause harm.
Click to expand...

I would say that some people just kind of take to it more than others.


I understand your point, but in my opinion, from looking at her face, I would say she's one of those people who, like mentioned above, just sort of take to it.

I think you'd have a stronger argument against the intelligence officers so I'm a little confused as to why you'd go back to these people.
Click to expand...

As you said, pictures are worth a thousand words. What I find distinctly unsettling is the cool detachment the dialogue of torture has become from the reality of it. The pictures are here to remind us that we can parse words over whether someone is a grunt or an intelligence officer, on American soil or not, or whether the torture causes permanent damage or is only "simulated." And on the other end of those words real human brutality is going on. The introduction of qualifiers for why torture is acceptable or forgivable is the shift in our moral parameters that I find shameful.

People have always asked how the German people could have gone along with or been complicit in the actions of the Nazis, and by looking at our own country and after just one terrorist attack on American soil, the answer is "very, very easily."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…