The Justice Department released Bush administration memos describing brutal interrogation techniques that were permissible for the CIA to use. President Obama said CIA officers who used those techniques would not be prosecuted. Should this end investigations into torture and preclude prosecution of everyone involved?

GREAT question!  Easy answer:  Only if we don't care about our credibility as an example to the world.  Can't wait to see what your panel does with this one.  I am a devoted fan!

 This will be an interesting one to think about.  I saw a news blurb just a moment before seeing the new topic that said that Spain recommended not investigating the Bush administration officials over the alleged Gitmo torture issue.  Here's the story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090417/ap_on_re_eu/eu_spain_us_torture

I'll have to stew on this for a bit, because while I think we need to work on how we handle prisoners considering how things are in today's world, I'm not sure going after past officials is the right way to do it.  Plus, I can see in some circumstances how some of these tactics can help glean information we might not have otherwise obtained...but it's one of those extremely fine line issues, and is largely dependent on what each person thinks is acceptable.  Some people think some of the things done down there are awfully torturous, while others may not see a problem with it.  It's all relative, and that's what makes this a very sticky issue.

The use of torture against one's enemies is unequivocally wrong and inexcusable.  That's the moral answer, but not necessarily the legal answer.  In fact, the President has the authority to pardon anyone for any crime, and presumably he has the authority to ask the Justice Department not to prosecute an individual or class of individuals.  Clearly, Mr. Obama wants to get past this terrible chapter in American history and get on with his agenda.  I'm not comfortable that this is the right thing to do.  Instead, I think a careful investigation of the facts is called for, and if we find there are individuals who committed acts that they knew (or should have known) were illegal, they should be subject to prosecution.  It should be up to the courts to decide whether crimes were committed and to mete out the appropriate punishments.  It does not seem OK to say "We've put a stop to that behavior, so now let's turn the page."  This situation doesn't rise to the level of the Holocaust or other cases of genocide, but some of the principals are the same.

The documents show that we stopped short of going medieval-brutal on the detainees, a la Saddam. I myself was furious about the attacks & envisioned doing far worse to them without regard. I was prepared to hold all of their society responsible for the attacks.

The documents show that the Bush team earnestly thought the methods to be allowable. I do not think that these actions add up to War Crimes, or that the leaders responsible should be proscecuted, and so far I do not see a compelling reason to investigate further. The truth has been told.

In retrospect, we can say the methods in question as a matter of fact fit the new definition of torture. We must therefore renounce them, and resolve never to use them again.

I typically do not read others' responses prior to answering the question.  But today I did.  I don't know how one could say it better than Mark McClain's response.  It is concise yet broad in covering the aspects of the subject.  Well done, Mark!  I concur with your thoughts and hope that the Obama Justice Department follows your recommendations.

Abraham Lincoln (so the story goes): “If I call a lamb’s tail a leg, how many legs does a lamb have?”

Respondent: “Five, I guess.”

Lincoln: “Nope, just four.  Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.”

Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, extended nudity, slamming heads into walls, crating with insects, and so on, are all torture.  You can call them ‘enhanced interrogation,’ or call them ‘jelly doughnuts,’ but they’re still torture.  I know that, everyone with any familiarity with the U.S. Code of Contact, any of many treaties (that became U.S. law when we ratified them) or just common sense knows that.  If I refuse to pay my taxes or my credit card debts and justify myself by saying that some internet dingbat said it was okay, I will of course be laughed at on my way to jail. 

The operators who tortured, their immediate superiors, and the enablers all the way up knew it was torture, of, if they were sufficiently self-deceived, should have known and can be held responsible for deceiving themselves. 

We as a nation are responsible for bringing torturers and those who order torture to justice.  The lowest in the pecking order might be able to claim obedience to orders as a mitigating factor, but not even they are in any way justified.  They should be charged, and their bosses, and their bosses, up through the head of the CIA, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Vice President, and the President.  It’s not optional.  It’s our duty.

P.S.  We’ve known, at least for decades, that information obtained via torture is no more reliable than horoscopes.  But actually that is irrelevant to the illegality and immorality of torture.

Now that I've had a chance to think this over, here's what I think:

An investigation into the tactics alleged to be used at Guantanamo Bay and other facilities run by the US government certainly seems warranted, if we're going to be able to rightfully tell the world that we do not torture.  It needs to be determined if we did, and if so, what methods were used and why.  I think plenty of argument can be used to justify past actions though, based on what we knew at the time, so I don't think we should lean toward prosecution after the investigation concludes.  There are many things that have been proven to have occurred that I don't feel constitute true torture, but others likely feel otherwise based on their perceptions.  I think what needs to come out of any investigation is a set of very clear rules and regulations regarding the imprisonment and interrogation of enemy combatants and other persons of interest with connections to terrorist groups or cells, not in connection with any declared wars since there are plenty of regulations for those times.  I think something on that order, done in a world-wide fashion, is needed.  Times have changed considerably since the Geneva Conventions and other treaties were developed, so we need more modern guidance on how to handle these situations.  We can and should be the leader on this.

(Luanne, this is not an official answer, just some miscellaneous comments.)

This will be an interesting question to ponder. To use a weather analogy: The forecast is not good and storms are imminent. It seems that while President Obama allowed for government sunshine with the release of interrogation details, the plan to not prosecute will result in storms caused by past officials and policies. At a minimum, our country needs strict guidelines and policies. Are we not still expected to adhere to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or other world standards?

I think it would be beneficial if President Obama would follow-up the sunshine with an explanation. The people of the U.S. and world need solid and straightforward reasons for why prosecutions of CIA officers will not be sought. Call it damage control. Valid reasons could be convincing. Our country has already experienced negative world opinion. This is our chance to demonstrate true leadership and strength based on doing what is right, lawful and just--minus any Machiavellian behaviors. As this story develops and I learn more, it is possible that I could agree with the lack of prosecutions, but right now, it seems unlikely. 

I enjoyed the responses thus far. I hope the panelists don't mind these selected quotes:

Sandy: "GREAT question!  Easy answer:  Only if we don't care about our credibility as an example to the world."

Mark: "The use of torture against one's enemies is unequivocally wrong and inexcusable...I think a careful investigation of the facts is called for, and if we find there are individuals who committed acts that they knew (or should have known) were illegal, they should be subject to prosecution."  

Edward:  "...The documents show that the Bush team earnestly thought the methods to be allowable. I do not think that these actions add up to War Crimes, or that the leaders responsible should be prosecuted, and so far I do not see a compelling reason to investigate further. The truth has been told..."

Harlan: "...Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, extended nudity, slamming heads into walls, crating with insects, and so on, are all torture.  You can call them ‘enhanced interrogation,' or call them ‘jelly doughnuts,' but they're still torture...We as a nation are responsible for bringing torturers and those who order torture to justice...It's not optional.  It's our duty."

John: "An investigation into the tactics alleged to be used at Guantanamo Bay and other facilities run by the US government certainly seems warranted, if we're going to be able to rightfully tell the world that we do not torture...I think what needs to come out of any investigation is a set of very clear rules and regulations regarding the imprisonment and interrogation of enemy combatants and other persons of interest with connections to terrorist groups or cells..."   

The short answer to the panel question is yes as to not prosecuting members of the CIA who took part in the unlawful acts. While it would be tempting and perhaps would make us feel better, it could have the effect of demoralizing an already demoralized agency when we need the CIA’s services more now then ever before. By just revealing the practices of the Bush administration, President Obama has accomplished several goals: He has effectively begun to put a stop to the unlawful and illegal acts of torture committed by the previous administration, has reinstituted the rule of law and respect for international law including the Geneva Convention and has begun the long process of regaining America’s place in the forefront of human rights in the world.

Having said that the rank and file should not be prosecuted does not in any way exonerate those who promulgated the rules governing the interrogation practices. It appears from the memos that have been released that those in the Bush administration were willing to bend and twist laws and policies to meet their ends. In other words, the ends justified the means. My feeling is that all involved in preparing the “torture” memos knew implicitly that what they were doing was illegal and in contravention of federal and international laws. If you have read any of the memos, they are chilling by their almost casual attitude towards the processes being considered for use such as sleep deprivation, walling, and of course the infamous water boarding. It is an exercise of Alice in Wonderland or perhaps, more fittingly, one flew over the cuckoo’s nest.

While I am in favor of tough interrogations, I must remember that we as Americans have a special place in the world as the repository of high ideals, ethics and morals. If we stoop to the level of the beast, are we not, too, susceptible of becoming a beast ourselves?

Moran:

While I am in favor of tough interrogations, I must remember that we as Americans have a special place in the world as the repository of high ideals, ethics and morals. If we stoop to the level of the beast, are we not, too, susceptible of becoming a beast ourselves?

"Tough interrogations" is not a very well defined concept in my mind, Mr Moran.   I wonder if you could elaborate.  What kind of "tough" techniques would be acceptable to you?

  Can you say 'chain of command'? If the top link of the chain is not held accountable, certainly the lower links should not be held accountable. Feel free to ponder both sides of the torture 'moral' coin, should we or should we not, or to what degree?  But don't pass by and glance away from both sides of the 'real coin', the one flipped in combat, when job one is to kill the enemy, when war is declared, when other troops depend on you for their very lives, when fellow troops are falling by your side, when ones family is in harms way, when using whatever it takes to extract information to save an entire Platoon, or Division, or even save ones entire Country with information which would never be extracted via words alone, such as "you better tell me or I will flick your ear lobe with my finger".
  I do not condone torture, or severe torture tactics. Torture by definition is despicable, evil, and against nature...as is war. Who in this arena can say information derived from a captured enemy troop one very much intended to kill, information which may save the lives of 1000, 10,000, 100,000 souls, is not justifiable? What happens when the enemy loses fear of being captured, knowing it is three meals and a mattress, with limited interrogation?
 How can one quantify torture, when all roads in combat lead to intended and strategical death of the enemy? If job one is to kill the enemy, does poking the enemy with a fork while tied and blindfolded cross the moral compass line? War is hell, and if one steps into the 'war arena', know up front the ramifications of such an evil act, and such an evil act as torture used to extract enemy information if captured.
  War is a deadly ruthless endeavor, a last resort decision. Don't 'declare it' if one must weigh whether certain tactics are, or are not allowed. If there are unanswered questions about the rules of war, or the ramifications of war, do not go to war. Gip

Gibson Brown:

Torture by definition is despicable, evil, and against nature...as is war.

Way to step up Gip!  Now I can sit back and watch while you take the hits.  Don't worry, I'll be right behind you -- well, I'll be behind you, anyway.  I'm still reading the reports, but in the greater picture of the obvious horror of war and violence, it appears that what we did was the equivalent of giving "noogies" to some really bad people, all while experts monitored the process to make sure we didn't exceed international standards of "nooginess."  Had it been done during the administration of an unloathed war-time President, very few people would be saying anything.

 What was the point of releasing these memos in the first place? One of President Obama's first executive orders after his inauguration was suspension of the questionable techniques of interrogation practiced by the CIA and banning said practices by the military as well. OK, we're not going to do that anymore. End of story, right? I guess not.

Is this new wave of transparency meant to show the world in general and al Quaeda specifically that we're nice guys now and that the war on terror (recently renamed the 'Overseas Contingency Operation' by the current administration) is no longer necessary? Remember who we're dealing with here. These are Islamic extremists who did not think twice about lopping of the heads of Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg and bragging about it. How likely is it that our promise not to lock up suspected terrorists in a box with a couple of cockroaches or deprive them of sleep will convince them to give up their terrorist practices?

According to Harlan Miller " We’ve known, at least for decades, that information obtained via torture is no more reliable than horoscopes." I find it unrealistic that useful, perhaps lifesaving information has never been extracted from enemy combatants. I despise war and torture as much as anyone who is remotely civilized. When homo sapiens evolves into a peaceful species, these discussions will no longer be necessary.

Clonnie..."Way to step up Gip!  Now I can sit back and watch while you take the hits."

Clonnie, why do I feel as if I rolled myself under a bus, and you are sipping lemonade up on the curb, shaking your head saying "that poor ignorant bast..."? I'm sure you are aware of the tactic of tying tight lipped enemy captives together, with ten feet of rope between them, going up to 500' or so in a helicopter, and asking a few particular questions the captives have sworn not to answer, with the intent being to shorten a nightmare such as combat. When the first captive does not talk, the tight lipped captive is pushed out the door, and swings from the rope now held by the remaining captives on board. If tight lips still rule, another is pushed out, and another, until lips start flapping big time. Information is obtained, and hopefully lives are saved via the gathered information. Outrageous and horrible as it seems from the comfort of our homes, one must understand in a killing field rules are hard to come by, and even harder to enforce. Reality, much like war, stinks. Deny it if you must, but we certainly did not invent 'torture' or interrogation tactics, and I doubt seriously anything will ever change our using it for acquiring information from those wanting nothing more than to kill ourselves, family, friends, and our way of life as we know it. We may make some more rules, or laws, and spray the propaganda around the headlines for the world to see, but when a Country's very existence is challenged, things will resort back to what works in the name of self-preservation, and ones Motherland. So easy for one to be compassionate and gallant when not being fired upon or stepping on mines, but war changes things, and is not a game, and rules fly out the window in the heat of battle. Gip