BS: Obama and torture

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 01:27 PM

Correction: Carol has made my point for me in her second to last post, Slag.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 02:17 PM

Thats right Amos. The aphorisms as you put it are lazy attempts at editorial cartooning without the work of actually drawing the thing.

Like my imagined cartoon of Rush Limbaugh Glen Beck and Michelle Bachman dressed as pirates in an outboard chasing the USS Obama with grappling hooks bouncing off and labeled "facist" "socialist" "communist" etc.

I'm too lazy to make them.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 02:56 PM

The question of whether torture works or not misses the critical point: even if it works, it is no good.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 03:02 PM

Pardoning the people who just followed orders does nothing to change the culture of obeying evil authority without question.

If you are not even going to punish the people who did the torturing
at least its time to elevate those people who did rise above just taking orders and had the courage to say no.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: GUEST,jj
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 05:11 PM

Sitting in your safe chair, feeling no fear, you say torture is evil. But, is war honorable, war is hell and torture is one little part of hell. If you are sickened by torture, then don't dare fight (violence) back. Sit and wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:43 PM

And who says that fighting back must include torture?

Wars are won not by torturing people, but by defeating them in 2 crucial places:

1. the field of battle
2. and the field of ideas!

Torture enshrined as an official policy is a despicable idea, but it's one that has been commonly embraced by tyrants, sadists, moral cowards, and fanatics throughout the ages.

I prefer not being led by tyrants, sadists, moral cowards, and fanatics.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 08:17 PM

On this topic, "All Things Considered" interviewed Co. Stephen Kleinman, an AirForce reservist and expert on interogation today who opposed the interrogation methods being used in Iraq when he was sent there.

Here is the link.

These are the observations and opinions of a very informed person on these issues, and he addresses not only the violation of our values, but also the ineffectiveness of these methods.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 08:26 PM

Oh, hear, hear, Little Hawk. What a pity you were not born an American citizen.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 08:46 PM

I believe we have ourselves a world class president who fully understands that the ends do not, indeed, always justify the means. We have lost much of our power in the world by so obviously talking the talk, but not walking the walk.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: artbrooks
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 09:27 PM

"Just following orders" isn't really the issue here. People in the US military are very well trained (say "indoctrinated" if you prefer) in the basic concept that they are obligated to disobey an illegal order. However, when the nation's highest legal authority tells them that these techniques are within the letter of the law, what are they to do? IMHO, releasing those who actually carried out these interrogations from possible punishment is entirely appropriate. The people who ruled that torture was legal - and those who "encouraged" the senior lawyers to come to that conclusion - are the ones who need to be brought to trial.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 09:46 PM

Others who may be brought to trial are those who went beyond what they were told was legal. There appear to be some people who did that.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 10:29 PM

It may be that one might sympathize with the dilemma underlings face, but the United States is on record for having prosecuted people who said they were just following legal orders.   The basis for the trials was the belief that there are basic human rights that cannot be violated, and that those who do violate them are subject to punishment. You might not agree with the scope of this, but the fact is that the United States did prosecute such people, and has signed international treaties to this effect. Obama has no standing to argue that those who were following orders are not to be prosecuted. Political convenience is no excuse.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 03:30 AM

"I believe we have ourselves a world class president who fully understands that the ends do not, indeed, always justify the means. We have lost much of our power in the world by so obviously talking the talk, but not walking the walk."(Janie)

If that is the case, why does he not ban the practice of "special rendition"
To send your prisoners out of the country to be tortured is even worse than committing the act yourselves. God knows what horrors these people face!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: artbrooks
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 08:04 AM

It is very true that President Obama hasn't specifically banned "special rendition". He also hasn't specifically banned sodomy involving sheep. He signed an Executive Order on Interrogation and Detention policy January 22nd that requires that all interrogations of detainees in armed conflict, by any government agency, follow the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines. It also establishes a "task force" to look at rendition and other policies for transferring individuals to third countries to be sure that our policies and practices comply with all obligations and are sufficient to ensure that individuals do not face torture and cruel treatment if transferred.

Can you provide any information to indicate that any indiviual has been subject to "special rendition" since he took office?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 10:18 AM

"Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere... I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture."

-- George W. Bush, June 2003

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 10:45 AM

Sean Hannity, a vociferous defendant of right wing party lines and supporter of "enhanced interrogation", has volunteered to be waterboarded for charity. LEt us hope they televise the event, and may he crap himself.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 10:47 AM

NEW YORK - In a letter addressed to a federal court today, the Department of Defense announced that it will make public by May 28 a "substantial number" of photos depicting the abuse of prisoners by U.S. personnel. The photos, which are being released in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2004, include images from prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan at locations other than Abu Ghraib.

"These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib," said Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU. "Their disclosure is critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse."

The letter follows a September 2008 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit requiring disclosure of the photos and the court's subsequent refusal in March 2009 to rehear the case. The Defense Department has indicated that it will not ask the Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit's ruling.

Since the ACLU's FOIA request in 2003, the Bush administration had refused to disclose these images by attempting to radically expand the exemptions allowed under the FOIA for withholding records. The administration claimed that the public disclosure of such evidence would generate outrage and would violate U.S. obligations towards detainees under the Geneva Conventions.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: GUEST,CrazyEddie
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 10:59 AM

"The administration claimed that the public disclosure of such evidence would generate outrage and would violate U.S. obligations towards detainees under the Geneva Conventions."

Are they saying that the actual activities shown in the photos would NOT "generate outrage and violate U.S. obligations towards detainees under the Geneva Conventions."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:12 AM

That was the Bush line, Eddie, not the present administration. Their capacity for twists of logic and Wonderland reasoning rivals thatof Sean Hannity.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:18 AM

I believe there are privacy issues, including exploitation of prisoners' dignity, that are forbidden by the Geneva Conventions (I can't locate the precise clauses).

Of course the whole thing is a totally absurd use of the Conventions.   

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 02:46 PM

This issue is not going away because it goes to the heart of what we call American
democracy. If nothing is done to indict the torturers, this will undermine everything
Obama does for his agenda. Moving forward is not sweeping dirt under the rug.

If Holder does take action, this would be a step in the right direction. As indicated by
Madow and Olbermann, torture was used to extract a false confession linking Saddam
to 911. It didn't work when it was proposed and it didn't work under 183 or 80 waterboardings.

This torture did not quash any conspiratorial attempts at blowing up the Library Building in L.A.   That was a manufactured plot. It happened reputedly in February and the torture
was allowed in August after this canard.

Obama better be nice to other world leaders such as Chavez because our country is in danger of being compromised on this issue. No decent civilized country will take our country seriously as long as torture is not prosecuted.

Torture will be up for grabs by any country in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: gnu
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 03:48 PM

See The Daily Show with John Stewart? Oh my! Check it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 10:37 PM

Obama's handlers are not going to let him go through with investigating members of the Bush Administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:20 PM

The trouble is, to attempt to prosecute all those who committed torture and those who gave the orders would set in motion a huge and viciously partisan firestorm that would consume the energies of the administration probably for the next four years, and with what result? Meanwhile, there's a lot of other stuff that vitally needs to be attended to in the real world.

That makes it a very tough choice to decide what to do, seems to me. I think Mr Obama would probably rather not get involved in a lengthy period of partisan vendettas comparable to the Bill Clinton brouhaha or the Watergate affair.

I think he'd rather deal with the future than the past.

What do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:36 PM

I agree, LH, and I think it is the wise course to follow.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:51 PM

Has enforcing the laws of this country and also international law and the Geneva convention become somehow, "political vendettas"?

That's very strange, because I had always thought enforcing the law was enforcing the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:52 PM

Excuse me: "partisan vendettas".

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 12:54 AM

It would be characterized as one, no matter how carefully it proceeded. It goes without saying that the rabid rumormongers of the far right would make up, stir up, throw up, and put up any and every possible kind of defamation about it.

That does not mean it should not be done. I can understand Obama wanting to focus on positive accomplishment, but the Attorneys General could move in the right direction without his prompting, no?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 12:56 AM

WHich raises a tangential question. I know there were large rewards proposed by the US government for Osama bin Laden's capture of corpse, but have there been any formal prosecutions lodged against him in absentia by American courts or the Hague? Is he legally wanted for crimes against humanity? Are his lieutenants and agents?





A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 03:19 AM

Not sure how well I can express this, but will try. I guess what I am putting out here are simply ideas to ponder.

In my view, there is a difference between expediency and effectiveness, but the two are easily confused, and the differences can be subtle.

Rigid enforcement of laws is not always effective. Neither is scapegoating.

Retribution has it's place.

Forgiveness has it's place.

Some combination of the two are probably necessary for reconciliation.

There is no such thing as moral perfection, and certainly no agreement on what is moral.

However, in the western world there is some significant, though quite generalized, agreement about our stated values with respect to what we in the West view as inalienable human rights.

The pursuit of individual justice sometimes enhances, and sometimes impedes the promotion or expression of those values at a societal level. Ditto the reverse.

Finding synthesis is both nuanced and subjective. Failure to acknowledge all of the above is ultimately ineffective in either expressing or actualizing those values.

Absolutism is ineffective, illogical, and ultimately, arrogant. No one has a corner on the market on truth. Values are not fact or truth. They are values. Most of us are very selective when it comes to our notions of absolutism and the law. If we are both in full agreement with the values expressed by the law, and are also not personally injured or negatively affected by application of the law, then we are likely to be very strongly in favor of strict application of the law.

And visa versa.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 10:54 AM

Watergate a "partisan vendetta"? Jaysus, someone needs to read some real history.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 02:22 PM

Greg:

Well, the initial breakin was certainly partisan, no?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 02:37 PM

Well said, Janie. Those were the points I had in mind.

Much of the impulse behind some people's zeal to prosecute a whole lot of people from the past Bush administration is driven as much by a desire for vengeance as anything else. To seek justice is wise. To seek vengeance is, in my opinion, exceedingly unwise.

If Obama is wise, he won't involve himself much in taking vengeance on the past administration, he'll get on with whatever needs to be done now.

I understand that as a matter of legal principle it is important to take some action over illegal acts committed by a previous administration, if only establish a precedent against some future repetition of such illegal acts. Fine. Leave it to the courts and lawyers then, but don't let it become a political football for the new administration to kick around, because I think it will waste their energy and bring them a lot of trouble they don't need.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 02:52 PM

Many people in the Republican Party did view Watergate as a partisan matter, and they went after Bill Clinton in the 90's with that in mind, hoping to exact a similar retribution on the Democrats.

They were driven by the desire for vengeance (and the desire to damage their competition) far more than by the zeal for justice, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 04:59 PM

No, no, no. The three foundational principles of a democracy have to be (1) the rule of law; (2) the dignity of the human -- everyone is worthy of dignity; (3) innocent until proven guilty.

Not one person, not one, has been brought to a fair trial. Therefore they were innocent when they were tortured. They were tortured on the say so of the people who tortured them.

The United States has signed -- Ronald Reagan signed -- an International Treaty against Torture. It violated that treaty (as far as I can tell). This makes it a nation whose promises and signed oaths and legislative laws mean nothing.

Do these things mean nothing to you? If they mean nothing to you, then it means that the government of the United States is allowed to do what it wishes with its own citizens, who have no recourse in a lawless state (this is before we even get into illegal wiretapping. That is what it means.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 09:18 PM

Well, in that case, why do we even bother to have a law against torture?

We executed people in the past for doing the same things we ourselves have now done. Where was our forgiveness then? I think if we are only willing to enforce laws on other people, while "forgiving" ourselves for doing the same things, that makes us far worse than hypocrites. And it compounds the criminality of what we have done.

If our government prosecutes people who are responsible for torture, it's not something we are doing to others. It is our country taking responsibility for our transgressions against others. If we say, "Oops. Sorry. Get over it." We are sending the rest of the world the message that we really don't give a goddamn shit about anyone but ourselves.

Now, I realize this is a stance that this country has taken for a very long time, but I thought we had decided that we were going to do better than that now. Perhaps I was mistaken.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 09:19 PM

My post was not in response to the one immediately before it.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 09:31 PM

I think it needs to be remembered that when we committed torture. And I say "we" because it was the government of this country that did it to people of other countries. When we committed torture, we were not the victims of that crime. If we prosecute the people who were directly responsible, we aren't taking revenge on people who harmed us. We are taking responsibility for the harm we did to others.

And if we don't do it, I hope like hell that other governments will. Because this sort of thing can't be allowed to happen in the "civilized West" without the people responsible being brought to justice. Otherwise, we're no different than Saddam. Oops. I guess we would be different then, because HE was brought to justice for his war crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 09:46 PM

As long as all of this was done for the benefit of Israel, Obama's handlers won't have a problem with it, any of it!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 11:30 PM

Peter, I am not saying that no one should be prosecuted or that national or international law should be ignored. As I understand Little Hawk, that is not what he is suggesting either.

Obama, as he already knows, made a significant mistep in making statements regarding prosecution or pardon prematurely. As LH noted, the appropriate branch of government to address and speak to these issues is the justice system.

It is going to be a difficult business within our nation to address that our government sanctioned policies that endorsed torture, and to right those wrongs through a process that ultimately leads a significant number of our population to the conclusion that prosecutions are in pursuit of justice and not more political throat-cutting.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: GUEST,Janie
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:02 AM

Had to switch computers so my son could go to bed.

To say it will be a difficult and tricky process is not to say it can not, should not, or will not be done. To howl for immediate blood, however, certainly gives the appearance of vengeance rather than justice being the primary motive. And we all know that in the public arena, appearance matters.

I also think it very naive to believe, as apparently many people in this country do, that the Bush administration is the first ever in the history of the USA to condone the use of torture. It is ironic that the Bush administration's efforts to provide a legal basis for allowing torture resulted in public disclosure of the practice of torture by agents of the US government that have likely gone on since we first became a nation - only it was "off the books" or "under the table."

Maybe we should thank them for bringing these practices into the public domain in such a way that we average citizens can no longer turn a blind eye.    I imagine that in previous administrations, these activities were of the sort that most presidents took the position of "I won't ask, and don't you tell me."

I should say I certainly have no evidence or knowledge that US agents have used torture in the past in a systemic, albeit covert, way.   But I have no reason to suppose otherwise, based on our history of other covert operations that run contrary to our values (i.e. arranging for assassinations, covert funding of rebellions that were politically expedient, or overt support for oppressive regimes when it was in our material interests - The Shah of Iran, for example, or any number of dirty little Central American operations).

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:11 AM

All kinds of heinous things were done in Vietnam by the USA and allied forces...summary execution of soldiers and civilians, torture, throwing live people out of helicopters, massacring villages...

Yes, many of these war crimes have happened before.

During the Reagan administration the USA funded paramilitary forces who, with CIA and American assistance, tortured and murdered thousands of people in Latin American countries.

During the occupation of the Phillipines after the Spanish-American War, the USA occupying forces waged a brutal war against the Filipinos (who wanted independence). Many thousands of Filipinos died.

It's not that unusual, it just doesn't get talked about much in the American media, that's all, and they don't teach it to the schoolkids. Bush and his cronies were a little more blatant about it...maybe because they were a lot prouder of themselves...as can happen with ideological zealots. Maybe, as Janie say, it's a good thing they were so arrogant, because now it's been brought out into the open.

Yes, as Janie is saying, it's a matter for the US Justice system to deal with...or the World Court (which the USA simple ignores when it says something against the wishe of the USA). Obama would be wise, I think, to leave it to the US Justice system and apply his own energies elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:24 AM

Well, it seems to me that it's about time we started prosecuting all of our war crimes and that we stop committing any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:35 AM

Yup, I'd certainly agree with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:40 AM

I also do not happen to think it is simple, in the real world, to sort out what is for "the greater good."   I am always suspicious of "either/or" thinking..

Now, my own values are that torture is never "for the greater good." The United States has had an official policy for the past several years that allowed torture. That has to stop immediately, and apparently it has. Should halting the practice of torture be up at the top of list? In my view, yes. Once that practice has been stopped, however, I am not convinced that a huge fight over to what extent past transgressions should be punished should remain at the very top of the list given the number of pressing and difficult issues we face as a country, and as a world.

Others may choose to interpret the above paragraph as saying no prosecutions should occur, or that the whole issue should then be swept under the rug and forgotten about until the next time. It is likely that some will choose to interpret what I wrote in that manner. However, that would be others' interpretations, and not at all what I wrote or implied.

The thing is, we all interpret. We all read into the statements of others much that is not actually said, or even implied. We make assumptions. We react emotionally. We distort. We filter. And we fail to examine this tendency within ourselves.

In my opinion -and it is only an opinion - informed, influenced and distorted by my own values, priorities, experiences and personal needs and concerns for myself and my family, is that what should come next, once the torture is stopped, should not be front and center, or the number one priority of national debate or partisan politics.   I don't think it is for the "greater good."   Tending to the immediate needs of people out of work, health care and environmental issues are all much, much, more important issues to me, and more in the interest of the greater good, than is fighting about who/whether/etc. should be punished for creating or implementing an official policy that said torture is OK, given that said policy has been terminated.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:48 AM

Again, very well said. You are mirroring my own thinking on this matter, Janie.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 02:28 AM

I don't think we frame our discussions about whether or not to prosecute people for murder, for instance, using some of the language in some of the above posts. We don't say, for instance, oh, we wouldn't want anyone to think we're scapegoating or seeking vengance if we prosecute you for murder, so you just go on ahead and get on with your life, and we'll just pretend it never happened.

Why is it that only the little crimes get punished?

This is the main problem with our society. If we held the people who commit the most heinous crimes responsible (like the people who have gotten us into the mess we're in now, including the ones who took us to war, killed hundreds of thousands of people, and kidnapped and tortured a lot of innocent people), maybe people wouldn't think they could do whatever they want with impunity. And maybe they wouldn't do those things.

Because that is the message we're sending. We're saying that certain people in this country can pretty much do whatever they want, and if they do it big enough and cause enough mayhem and harm enough people, nobody's going to bother to hold them responsible for any of it, because we wouldn't want people to think we're looking for vengeance. There is no way out of that mess. We might just as well give up trying to make the world a better place, because with that kind of double standard, it just ain't going to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 08:34 AM

I respectfully disagree Janie (and I mean respectfully). The whole enterprise of the last eight years has been about force and power, and to hell with the "collateral damage". There is a kind of carelessness and hardening of hearts that goes along with that that is supremely dangerous (the Bible goes on about it at great length as essentially the only succour the poor have, i.e., eventually the rich become stupid with their power). Without the rule of law nothing else matters. I have been in third world countries where the judiciary is completely corrupt, and nothing means anything: not health care, not education, nothing. People are forced to live their lives for themselves, and corruption is the only protection against raw power.

The United States has been way down on that slide. It is a military empire, and this sort of thing begins by corrupting abroad, and then corrupting at home. The only thing that has kept it from turning into a tyranny has been the last election. It is absolutely crucial that the legal system be reinstated. The only reason why it appears to be "partisan" is that the rot had spread so far that almost all of Washington was complicit in the slide towards tyranny. I'm not speaking as a crazy (or not much): I think that is a sober assessment of where it was going. Everything depends on turning it back.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:37 AM

Going forward is not sweeping dirt under the rug.

The black mark on US history has already been set.

Psychiatrists and medical doctors were employed in the use of torture.

Those who did it were "only following orders".

Does this sound familiar?

This is not going away any time soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:54 AM

The problem in part comes from the fact that the people of Rome see themselves in Caesar's face, and their will in his acts, even when Caesar goes mad.

Bush and Company and the heinous crimes done under the stresses of their time are, sadly, our own; we elected them, on the whole, and gave them our highest titles to borrow and use.

That's why all this rationalization occurs, where for an individual committing a crime against society there would be no question.

Personally, I think we should do as Germany did: pay the price, stand up to the trial, and then rebuild with strength.

A