Those doing the torture were not/are not subject to the UCMJ. In addition Bush Admin lawyers determined torture was legal.
Both statements are false.
Detainees under military custody do legally fall under the UCMJ and DOD regulations. If the personnel who are committing or facilitating torture are members of the US military, obviously they fall under the UCMJ. No person in the US military is exempt from the UCMJ under any circumstances.
Bush era lawyers did NOT find that torture is legal. To vastly oversimplify the Opinion, Yoo claimed that torture only occurs if organ failure is involved. This opinion is the "
Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, from Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§2340-2340A" (aka Bybee Memo, aka Torture Memo, aka 8/1/02 Interrogation Opinion). This Opinion was rescinded on Oct 2003 by Jack Goldsmith (chief of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice). This Opinion was found to substantially contradict 18 U.S.C. § 2441 (d)(1)(A), and per the Office of Legal Counsel should not be considered as valid under any circumstances.
OLC Opinions, by the way, are not law nor binding in any court of law. They are merely opinions. They are a defense, but the courts are not bound to them. A person can follow guidance provided by an OLC opinion and still go to jail.
Prescient aren't we. Yeah those things have happened and will become more and more common as time goes on (it's a function of the moral decay the US is experiencing - why is another thread) but that's not got a thing to do with torture being used as a legitimate interrogation technique against terrorists. If the powers that be try that on US Citizens and it becomes common knowledge (and it's debatable whether it would/could become common knowledge) - well - at that point all bets are off.
The same law forbidding the US govt from torturing US citizens is exactly the same one forbidding them from torturing foreign nationals. That happens to be why some of us are irate over this whole situation. I could really give two cents over the detainees in Gitmo. I am deeply concerned about our govt waterboarding or torturing US citizens. One will lead to the other because there is no legal difference.
That's 4 and the list doesn't include extracting useful intelligence information that could be used to capture or destroy other terrorists.
In addition I find it difficult to believe that agents of the US would torture for any of the reasons RevDisk's sources provided. With the possible exception of sending a message none provide any short or long term benefit to those involved or to the US. Any agent of the US torturing prisoners, even terrorists for the reasons listed by RevDisk deserves what he gets.
Ironically, those sources were official terrorists (on the State Department list) before Washington changed its mind and declared them allies.
You could probably imagine why I generally personally paid attention to their opinion on such matters... My old terrorism prof (Dr Henry Fischer, retired now, but I highly recommend his work) certainly got a kick out it.
I assure you, despite attending public schools, I really can count. That's 3. Emotional stuff, intimidation, and getting a confession. And you are correct that torture used to obtain "useful intelligence" is not on the list. You can get information by torturing a person. It's not "useful intelligence" (ie reliable) by itself. It CAN be used to collaborate reliable intelligence, but is not directly useful by itself. Information obtained by torture is unreliable intelligence until it is compared with reliable intelligence. That's why it's not on the list I was provided. No sane person would trust information provided by coercion without verifying it through other means.
What's so shocking? Someone physically commits torture for one of two reasons. They are either 'just following orders', or they don't mind work (means either they like the work, or really hate the workee). The folks obviously issuing the orders must be doing so for SOME reason. Would you be shocked that brass occasionally issue orders on emotional grounds? Or to send a message of intimidation? Or the brass realize there's a chance that said person might be innocent, and they really want that person to be guilty?
Extracting information used to shut down terrorist networks and bring their barbarism to a halt by means of torture is justified and a legitimate use for torture.
Perhaps. That is subjective, and you are always welcome to your opinion. It's up to your own moral code to decide if it's justified or not.
But, it's currently not legal. Justified and legitimate or not.