The Obama administration will not prosecute CIA officers who participated in harsh interrogations that critics say crossed the line into torture, CIA Director-nominee Leon Panetta said Friday.
Asked by The Associated Press if that was official policy, Panetta said, "That is the case."
It was the clearest statement yet on what Panetta and other Democratic officials had only strongly suggested: CIA officers who acted on legal orders from the Bush administration would not be held responsible for those policies. On Thursday, he told senators that the Obama administration had no intention of seeking prosecutions for that reason.
Panetta, in an interview with the AP after a second day of confirmation hearings with the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that he arrived at that conclusion even before he began meeting with CIA officials.
"It was my opinion we just can't operate if people feel even if they are following the legal opinions of the Justice Department" they could be in danger of prosecution, he said.
To me.. whatever.. as long as they go after the people who authorized law breaking.. but still, this is essentially saying that if your boss tells you to break the law, just do it.
I'm reminded of a well known psychological test that was done years ago. Students were told by professors to shock other students with electricity at increasing rates. It was a fake test, and the people getting shocked were just faking it, but the one's pushing the button didn't know that.
The results of the test showed the ability of most moral people to submit to authority figures. They'd do just about anything they are told, even when they know it's wrong. That's just human nature.
However.. the "Allies" did prosecute a whole lot of Germans and Japanese under the premise that committing a crime is not excusable simply because they are told to commit the crime.
That is.. the Nuremberg Defense. The United States government is now saying that the Nuremberg Defense only applies to other nations.. which we've all known is true, but I don't think it's been this vividly displayed before.
In other words, if the German's had won the war.. countless war criminals would not have been prosecuted.
Are the crimes of the Germans on the same moral level as those who tortured prisoners? Heck no.. but in terms of the law, the issue is not to what degree law breaking happened, but whether the law was broken at all. The severity of the crime matters naught.
...
Ask yourself if you'd break the law if you were told to. It would be depend on the circumstances and the law that you would break, right? If you were told you had to torture, even kill, a "terrorist" after the attacks on 9/11, would you do it?
I don't see things in shades of gray like most people. I would not do it.
2 comments:
They are called the Millgram (might be one L) Experiments. I think the Standford Prison Experiments might also apply here.
It occurs to me that there must be some connection between the submission to authority that is the most basic part of raising a child, and the results of those tests.
Parents don't typically encourage independent thought, nor teach personal integrity.
John and I were talking tonight about what sort of child we'd adopt if we were going to do that. I'd want an 8 year old, who has already qualified for Mensa. Younger than that, and they are a pain in the ass.. older than that, it's hard to shape their ethics and values because it's already set in.
and I know some 20 year olds that want us to adopt them so we can pay their way through college.. heh
Post a Comment