Hacker News Reader

> "Just following orders" didn't work at Nuremberg because we were trying the people who gave the orders too.

The only reason the Nuremberg trails happened at all, was that Germany lost. No-one was indited over fire-bombing Dresden, or nuking Hiroshima. People didn't go to prison over atrocities committed in Vietnam.

While there should be prosecution over this, it seems unlikely to happen in the current US system. I'm not holding my breath, but with the continuing unrest in the country, there might be some actual changes in the coming years. But a lot would need to happen -- for example there's the need for a viable political power-block other than the Democrats and the Republicans -- I sadly don't see that happening any time soon.

There were trials for crimes committed in Vietnam, and the commanding officer was found guilty:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

I meant in the sense of the Nuremberg trials, but still: I stand corrected, thank you. I think the sibling comments illustrates the point I was trying to make.

> People didn't go to prison over atrocities committed in Vietnam.

Well, one guy was grounded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley

"William Laws Calley, Jr. (born June 8, 1943) is a former United States Army officer found guilty of murdering 22 unarmed South Vietnamese civilians in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968, during the Vietnam War. After several reductions, Calley’s original sentence of life in prison was turned into an order of house arrest, but after three years, President Nixon reduced his sentence with a presidential pardon."

I guess that'll be as good as it gets.

Low-level grunt takes a bullet for the team, during one of the most revolutionary periods in American history. There were some low-level prosecutions (and even convictions) of American even during the Iraq war. But the higher-ups were never held accountable.

How could they have known what the people they command do? They could never possibly even dream of doing anything wrong, and if they did, they always did it in the best interests of those they lead and governed. And if it was illegal, well, they'll make it legal; and if convicted, the conviction will be overturned on appeal, or you'll get pardoned.. unless you piss off the wrong man in power. Then you could get shot in the face, and made to apologize for being in the way of the gun.

According to this study, the public did not support torture: http://academic.reed.edu/poli_sci/faculty/rejali/articles/us...

Also, I don't think election votes can ever count as approval; Congress has approval ratings nearing single digits yet incumbents usually get re-elected.

> The public supported it directly. We've known for a long what was going on.

We know what goes on in North Korea too but that doesn't mean we approve.

And the US is under ubiquitous NSA surveillance, along with domestic propaganda now legalized. Given this, I think the US people are, if anything, being subjugated by the government, not conspiring with it.

The fact that "24" with Jack Bauer routinely using torture ran for eight years with high ratings surely reflected the US public's tacit approval.

I don't think you can sensibly infer anything of the sort from television ratings.

As I recall, The Sopranos, Breaking Bad and Dexter all rated pretty well too.

Jack Bauer is supposed to be the good guy; good guys aren't supposed to use torture, yet he does.

I don't know about other shows, did "good guys" use torture ? Were they able to walk away without any problems ?

Don't underestimate the power of fiction. Heroes are not necessarily "good." Read some Dashiell Hammett for example.

Since we're talking about fiction... In Burn Notice, they routinely stop people from using torture to try to get actionable intel, because "people will say whatever they think you want to hear, just to make it stop"

A lot of cop shows use the sort of light torture that America used. Rough the suspect up and get him to talk.

Tony Soprano is the protagonist. He has people killed and kills people. He isn't set up as a villain.

24 is a terrifically evil show and helped sell torture by showing Jack routinely torture people and get the right actionable information every time without any ramifications.

That always ruined shows for me. They punch someone, they say nothing. They punch them again, and they immediately give them the truth and stop the torture. But they can't check the truth for quite a while, possibly not without killing or letting the suspect go.

Yeah and the popularity of the Sopranos showed tacit approval of the American mobsters.

Even worse, "Madam Secretary" is now spreading torture apologist rhetoric by framing the character that worked for the CIA and approved torture as a successful but war-worn, down-to-earth realist that acknowledges that "life is more complicated than you think," while the character that vehemently opposed torture is framed as an overly-idealistic young adult that dropped out of college in protest and has to work menial jobs in retail to "learn how the world works."

Do you have proof Bush ordered it? I love theories, but I also love facts. I'm not sure I see equal outrage in te denial of due process to Americans killed by Obama's drone strikes. Let's be consistent in our outrage. Shouldn't Obama be brought up on murder charges since he ordered the execution of Americans, bypassing the Constitution, the courts and the law?

Absolutely. These guys are basically on one and the same party, constantly covering each other's asses and continuing each other's policies (except when it's politically expedient not to do so, or when there's a power struggle).

Bush wrote in his memoirs about how advanced interrogation wasn't really torture. Cheney says that both he and Bush knew.

There is a huge difference between torture and killing people with drone strikes abroad after they joined al Qaeda. Once captured, a person is no longer a solider or a combatant.

But some American citizen who is fighting for al Qaeda? He is a soldier.

The DOJ would say they do give him due process, but I think their definition is bullshit and can be dangerous.

But I don't think an enemy solider gets any due process. We didn't read the Confederate Army their rights at Gettysberg. We just shot at them. I just don't think someone at war and at large gets due process.

There is a little bit more nuance to it. Everybody knew but the time line is critical and congressional oversight didn't just approve torture, they found out after it happened and there was maneuvering to keep those who knew quiet. They told congress it would be illegal to reveal clandestine information and such, congress didn't exactly go to the mats to change anything though.

Overall, yes, everybody knew "enhanced interrogation" was in use and was effectively "okay" with it. Not that many knew what that was or what it included beyond sleep deprevation and water boarding. I think the way it was out sourced is absolutely interesting, there is a lot more than meets the eye there...

A lot of people involved sure aren't proud of it all though

Agree they should all be tried but in practice the best sequence may be to start at the bottom and establish there that crimes took place and have the defences establish the orders given as mitigation to build that case against the politicians and senior leadership.

Having the juniors in prision would build political pressure from those who follow orders (military etc.) for the politicians to join them and hopefully make it less of a party political issue.