ACLU Head's 'Pardon Bush' Op-Ed Sparks Controversy
ACLU director publishes controversial op-ed reasoning that presidential pardon for torturers only way to end government torture
In preparation for the much-anticipated release of the Senate's summary report on CIA torture, the head of one of the country's leading rights groups on Monday proposed a controversial solution to ensure that such crimes are never committed by the American government again: pardon President Bush and those who tortured.
Published in the New York Times op-ed pages, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero argues that an executive pardon by President Obama "may be the only way to establish, once and for all, that torture is illegal."
Romero, as head of one of the organizations that has lead the fight to disclose the United States' illegal torture campaign and demand accountability for those involved, acknowledges that prosecution of those responsible for the systemic abuses in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks would be "preferable."
"But let's face it," Romero writes, "Mr. Obama is not inclined to pursue prosecutions -- no matter how great the outrage, at home or abroad, over the disclosures -- because of the political fallout."
Romero continues:
He should therefore take ownership of this decision. He should acknowledge that the country's most senior officials authorized conduct that violated fundamental laws, and compromised our standing in the world as well as our security. If the choice is between a tacit pardon and a formal one, a formal one is better. An explicit pardon would lay down a marker, signaling to those considering torture in the future that they could be prosecuted.
Mr. Obama could pardon George J. Tenet for authorizing torture at the C.I.A.'s black sites overseas, Donald H. Rumsfeld for authorizing the use of torture at the Guantanamo Bay prison, David S. Addington, John C. Yoo and Jay S. Bybee for crafting the legal cover for torture, and George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for overseeing it all.
Without such forthright action, Romero argues that Obama would leave open the possibility for government officials to "resurrect the torture policies in the future." Romero cites historic pre-emptive pardons as precedent for this action: Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson's pardoning of Confederate soldiers; Gerald Ford's pardoning of Nixon after Watergate; and Jimmy Carter's pardoning of Vietnam War draft resisters.
"Pardons would make clear that crimes were committed; that the individuals who authorized and committed torture were indeed criminals; and that future architects and perpetrators of torture should beware," the op-ed concludes.
Published in advance of the Tuesday release of the executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA torture, Romero's proposal was met with immediate criticism by fellow rights advocates.
Baher Azmy, who as legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights has represented numerous U.S. torture victims, wrote in response that a pardon for torture would compromise of our fundamental rights.
"The notion that torturers should be shielded from any consequences for their actions only makes sense in a society in which human rights and constitutional protections have been demoted - no longer our highest values, they are now repeatedly expendable whenever the specter of 'national security' is raised," Azmy said. "Reorienting our institutions toward accountability is a fundamental prerequisite to preventing future criminality."
Investigative journalist Marcy Wheeler argued that Obama would never do such a thing because he himself has "authorized war crimes," in the form of drone strikes, "using the very same Presidential Finding as the Bush Administration used to authorized torture."
And international law professor Kevin Jon Heller wrote that the "fatal flaw" in Romero's argument is that the Bush administration's torturers "will continue to believe that they did nothing wrong."
"No amount of evidence will pierce the veil of their self-delusion -- and no pardon will have any effect whatsoever on their own perceived righteousness," Heller writes.
Others shared their critiques online, arguing that such a move by the administration would be akin to a call for "amnesty" for war criminals.
FINAL DAY! This is urgent.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
In preparation for the much-anticipated release of the Senate's summary report on CIA torture, the head of one of the country's leading rights groups on Monday proposed a controversial solution to ensure that such crimes are never committed by the American government again: pardon President Bush and those who tortured.
Published in the New York Times op-ed pages, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero argues that an executive pardon by President Obama "may be the only way to establish, once and for all, that torture is illegal."
Romero, as head of one of the organizations that has lead the fight to disclose the United States' illegal torture campaign and demand accountability for those involved, acknowledges that prosecution of those responsible for the systemic abuses in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks would be "preferable."
"But let's face it," Romero writes, "Mr. Obama is not inclined to pursue prosecutions -- no matter how great the outrage, at home or abroad, over the disclosures -- because of the political fallout."
Romero continues:
He should therefore take ownership of this decision. He should acknowledge that the country's most senior officials authorized conduct that violated fundamental laws, and compromised our standing in the world as well as our security. If the choice is between a tacit pardon and a formal one, a formal one is better. An explicit pardon would lay down a marker, signaling to those considering torture in the future that they could be prosecuted.
Mr. Obama could pardon George J. Tenet for authorizing torture at the C.I.A.'s black sites overseas, Donald H. Rumsfeld for authorizing the use of torture at the Guantanamo Bay prison, David S. Addington, John C. Yoo and Jay S. Bybee for crafting the legal cover for torture, and George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for overseeing it all.
Without such forthright action, Romero argues that Obama would leave open the possibility for government officials to "resurrect the torture policies in the future." Romero cites historic pre-emptive pardons as precedent for this action: Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson's pardoning of Confederate soldiers; Gerald Ford's pardoning of Nixon after Watergate; and Jimmy Carter's pardoning of Vietnam War draft resisters.
"Pardons would make clear that crimes were committed; that the individuals who authorized and committed torture were indeed criminals; and that future architects and perpetrators of torture should beware," the op-ed concludes.
Published in advance of the Tuesday release of the executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA torture, Romero's proposal was met with immediate criticism by fellow rights advocates.
Baher Azmy, who as legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights has represented numerous U.S. torture victims, wrote in response that a pardon for torture would compromise of our fundamental rights.
"The notion that torturers should be shielded from any consequences for their actions only makes sense in a society in which human rights and constitutional protections have been demoted - no longer our highest values, they are now repeatedly expendable whenever the specter of 'national security' is raised," Azmy said. "Reorienting our institutions toward accountability is a fundamental prerequisite to preventing future criminality."
Investigative journalist Marcy Wheeler argued that Obama would never do such a thing because he himself has "authorized war crimes," in the form of drone strikes, "using the very same Presidential Finding as the Bush Administration used to authorized torture."
And international law professor Kevin Jon Heller wrote that the "fatal flaw" in Romero's argument is that the Bush administration's torturers "will continue to believe that they did nothing wrong."
"No amount of evidence will pierce the veil of their self-delusion -- and no pardon will have any effect whatsoever on their own perceived righteousness," Heller writes.
Others shared their critiques online, arguing that such a move by the administration would be akin to a call for "amnesty" for war criminals.
In preparation for the much-anticipated release of the Senate's summary report on CIA torture, the head of one of the country's leading rights groups on Monday proposed a controversial solution to ensure that such crimes are never committed by the American government again: pardon President Bush and those who tortured.
Published in the New York Times op-ed pages, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero argues that an executive pardon by President Obama "may be the only way to establish, once and for all, that torture is illegal."
Romero, as head of one of the organizations that has lead the fight to disclose the United States' illegal torture campaign and demand accountability for those involved, acknowledges that prosecution of those responsible for the systemic abuses in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks would be "preferable."
"But let's face it," Romero writes, "Mr. Obama is not inclined to pursue prosecutions -- no matter how great the outrage, at home or abroad, over the disclosures -- because of the political fallout."
Romero continues:
He should therefore take ownership of this decision. He should acknowledge that the country's most senior officials authorized conduct that violated fundamental laws, and compromised our standing in the world as well as our security. If the choice is between a tacit pardon and a formal one, a formal one is better. An explicit pardon would lay down a marker, signaling to those considering torture in the future that they could be prosecuted.
Mr. Obama could pardon George J. Tenet for authorizing torture at the C.I.A.'s black sites overseas, Donald H. Rumsfeld for authorizing the use of torture at the Guantanamo Bay prison, David S. Addington, John C. Yoo and Jay S. Bybee for crafting the legal cover for torture, and George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for overseeing it all.
Without such forthright action, Romero argues that Obama would leave open the possibility for government officials to "resurrect the torture policies in the future." Romero cites historic pre-emptive pardons as precedent for this action: Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson's pardoning of Confederate soldiers; Gerald Ford's pardoning of Nixon after Watergate; and Jimmy Carter's pardoning of Vietnam War draft resisters.
"Pardons would make clear that crimes were committed; that the individuals who authorized and committed torture were indeed criminals; and that future architects and perpetrators of torture should beware," the op-ed concludes.
Published in advance of the Tuesday release of the executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA torture, Romero's proposal was met with immediate criticism by fellow rights advocates.
Baher Azmy, who as legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights has represented numerous U.S. torture victims, wrote in response that a pardon for torture would compromise of our fundamental rights.
"The notion that torturers should be shielded from any consequences for their actions only makes sense in a society in which human rights and constitutional protections have been demoted - no longer our highest values, they are now repeatedly expendable whenever the specter of 'national security' is raised," Azmy said. "Reorienting our institutions toward accountability is a fundamental prerequisite to preventing future criminality."
Investigative journalist Marcy Wheeler argued that Obama would never do such a thing because he himself has "authorized war crimes," in the form of drone strikes, "using the very same Presidential Finding as the Bush Administration used to authorized torture."
And international law professor Kevin Jon Heller wrote that the "fatal flaw" in Romero's argument is that the Bush administration's torturers "will continue to believe that they did nothing wrong."
"No amount of evidence will pierce the veil of their self-delusion -- and no pardon will have any effect whatsoever on their own perceived righteousness," Heller writes.
Others shared their critiques online, arguing that such a move by the administration would be akin to a call for "amnesty" for war criminals.