So...I guess you can't charge...anyone?

[jonsonite]

Here's a Wall Street Journal article about the CIA's handling of terrorist interrogations. Henniger seems to think that it's not legitimate to try CIA agents because the agency "received 'multiple written assurances its methods were lawful.'"

That's fair. If the government's lawyers tell you that something is legal, you shouldn't be on the hook for

Comments

[sonofzeal]

Henniger seems to think that torture is an effective means of interrogation. This is not the case. He is arguing from a faulty premise. The CIA grunts absolutely should be tried for war crimes. Soldiers in the military are required to disobey unlawful orders; is it not the same for intelligence officers? A memo is not a law, and I expect better of CIA agents.

As for the lawyers (and indeed, however far up the chain it goes), they were deliberately misleading intelligence agencies in order to cause them to use unlawful and ineffective intelligence gathering techniques. I can only conclude that they either did this because they wanted to get faulty information so as to waste the military and CIA's resources to deliberately reduce the effectiveness of their anti terrorism efforts or because they were simply sadists. If it is the latter case, they should be tried for war crimes. If it is the former, then for treason.

[rdbelcher]

If lawyers gave false information regarding the legality of an action, isn't there supposed to be some kind of account-holding for them? If I were to ask you, as a lawyer, whether I had a good legal case for murdering someone, and you told me, "Yeah, murder's not illegal. Go right ahead. You have my assurances as a lawyer," I'd still be held accountable (since, as the old cliche goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse) but you'd have to answer to someone for giving me what you should have known was clumsy advice at best, or criminal manipulation at worst.

[jonsonite]

Yeah, it's usually in the form of malpractice. I agree with you, but in the realm of high executive action, what's legal often seems to change from administration to administration. The danger is that republicans and democrats will always be looking over their shoulders in fear.

Wait, maybe that's a good thing...

You unreliable reader you.

[ursako]

The differentiation here is that some people (not me) argue that the law on interrogation methods wasn't clear at the time the memos in question were drafted. So unlike murder, which is CLEARLY and indubitably illegal, the lawyers in question were working in a legal gray area and thus can't be held accountable for getting it wrong.

This is clearly not the case, however, because waterboarding and certain other techniques used were clearly crimes within the meaning of the statute. So, fuck'em.

[troglodyteking]

I'm inclined to agree that there is a good case for not prosecuting the interrogators. But I don't think there's much justification for not prosecuting, or somehow holding accountable, the lawyers

[ursako]

'Following orders' isn't actually a defense, either at international or domestic criminal law. There's something similar called qualified immunity in civil law, so if a detainee sues, that's probably what an interrogator would argue.
But if the administration decided to prosecute under the domestic criminal torture statute, interrogators might not have much to fall back on. Lucky for them the administration won't prosecute.

[boopsce]

"But then he goes on to indicate that going after the lawyers is a problem because then lawyers will be afraid to make any tough decisions about the issue in the future if they're worried about being prosecuted."

Sure, and now let's repudiate our actions at Nuremberg because we're worried that, if our generals have to worry about being hanged if they make a tough decision, they won't be able to do their jobs.

(Side note: I have a problem with the Nuremberg trials, but it isn't that.)

[ursako]

(Side note: I have a problem with the Nuremberg trials, but it isn't that.)

... 'victor's justice'? Because that seems to be the one most people mention.