No, it's an unwillingness to prosecute.
That is your claim.
Prove it
Find any record of anyone even looking at it.
:doh
What a lame reply. And again you have failed to support your argument. Obviously because you can't.
You should really stop making claims you can't back up.
The interrogation methods were deemed legal, which makes them legal.
Those who ordered them and those who carried them out can not be prosecuted.
:laughat:
Because I know a little more about cause and effect. I don't limit my
rerading:
Dilawar and Habibullah died, in part, because they were hooded and shackled to the wire mesh ceiling of their holding cells for hours at a time so that the blood flowed to their legs, turning peroneal strikes into death blows. But the illegal practice of overhead shackling was not the work of bad apples. It was routine at Bagram. It was policy.
Killing Wussification - The Atlantic
And if you have been paying attention, after this came to light, they started limiting these stress positions.
You do not limit your
rerading, huh? iLOL
What you shouldn't do and have, is limit your understanding of what you read.
You clearly do not know anything more about cause and effect.
And you certainly have just shown you do not know the difference between "quoted" information the source cited from a Death Certificate (which I provided), and a non-quoted, unsupported, non-official, non-medical opinion given by a reporter (that you provided).
Death Certificate trumps unsupported reporters opinion.
The Death Certificate listed the cause(s) and contributing factors of death.
No "stress position" was quoted as being a cause or contributing factor.
Funny that you do not know that. :doh
Funny how you think what a reporter's opinion is relevant at all.
No wonder you just do not understand why you are wrong, you just know so much which isn't true. :doh
Wrong. The fact that there were no charges does matter.
No, not one bit.
Wrong again,
as usual.
It most definitely does matter. Especially as the "why" there were no charges is what we are discussing.
Something isn't only wrong when someone is charged. It's wrong because it is wrong.
:doh
We are talking about legality.
Stop trying to conflate the issue.
No, much wrong happens that reasons other than guilt or innocence leads to charges or no charges. The question has nothing to do with whether charges have or have not been filed.
A bunch of nonsense. Your claim is on you to support, and you have failed repeatedly to do so.
And you can't, simply because what you asserted isn't true.
What you do not seem to understand is the whole premiss under which the CIA was working.
The interrogation methods were authorized as
legal, and therefore the actions from ordering, to carrying them out
were legal.
Period. That is how it works.
No later body can come and make those actions illegal, because they were legal at the time. Period.
There was no unwillingness as you claim as no laws were broken at the time to prosecute.
You can argue until you are blue in the face that the legal justification was unsound, ill advised or whatever you want. That is nothing more than opinion and will not change the fact that is, and was, the legal position they were operating under.
And that is, and will continue to be how our System operates.