Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama Should Prosecute Bush Officials Who Designed Torture Policy
One of Barack Obama's first acts as president should be to instruct his attorney general to appoint an independent prosecutor to initiate a criminal investigation of former Bush Administration officials who gave the green light to torture.
At Obama's press conference on Dec. 1, he spoke of upholding America's highest values as he introduced Eric Holder as his choice for attorney general. Holder insisted there was no tension between protecting the people of the United States and adhering to our Constitution.
A few months ago, Holder was even more explicit. "Our government authorized the use of torture, approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens, secretly detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants and authorized the use of procedures that violate both international law and the United States Constitution," he said. "We owe the American people a reckoning."
The day of reckoning is fast upon us.
If Obama and Holder want to adhere to our Constitution and uphold our highest values, they must pursue those in the Bush Administration who violated that Constitution, broke our laws, and tarnished our values.
Read the words of Lt. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal for the Pentagon. "There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," he concluded. "The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
Despite Taguba's words and reams of documentation supporting his statement, there has been little discussion about holding officials accountable for their design and implementation of the torture program.
We need to make it clear, just as we do in cases with the most minor offenses, that actions have consequences. To simply let those officials walk off the stage sends a message of impunity that will only encourage future law breaking. The message that we need to send is that they will be held accountable.
A popular refrain in Washington these days is that criminal prosecutions would be an unnecessary look backward. Some argue that in order for the new administration to move forward, presidential pardons should be granted and a Truth Commission assembled to investigate the circumstances that gave rise to the brutal interrogations and deaths of prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and CIA black sites around the world.
But pardons would be the final refuge for an administration whose egregious violations of human rights have, for all too long, gone unpunished. And a Truth Commission is not applicable.
This is not Latin America; this is not South Africa. We are not trying to end a civil war, heal a wounded country and reconcile warring factions. We are a democracy trying to hold accountable officials that led our country down the road to torture. And in a democracy, it is the job of a prosecutor and not the pundits to determine whether crimes were committed.
Criminal prosecutions are not about looking to the past; they are about creating a future world without torture. They will be the mark of the new dawn of America's leadership and our new era of accountability.
Prosecuting these officials would help the United States regain its moral standing in the world and to prove our commitment to upholding international human rights standards.
In his first nationally televised interview, President-elect Barack Obama made this promise: "I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm going to make sure that we don't torture."
The best way to do that is to prosecute those who designed the torture policies.
60 Comments so far
Show AllThe fact that this debate even exists is an outrage. "The past is not dead, it is not even past"
A lack of prosecutions for these treasonous offenses is an invitation to the next would-be tyrant to show less restraint. The lesson is obvious: A coup in the USA is easy if it is done quickly, in less than four years.
abdosoliman46
Some writers suggested to start with fact finding commission with the authorized by congress to accept complaints, listen to witnesses , investigate torture allegation ,illegal detention or radiation and other unconsititutional measures committed by members of the Bush administration. The reports of this commission can form a foundation for further legal procedure. Meanwhile the commission should have the discretion to immediately refer cases to the US attorney general.
I am having something of a difficult time believing that all of the responders here actually believe what they are suggesting. To bring the Bush Administration to Trial any where else by the International Court of Justice, would be not only a travesty of justice the world could watch in horror being smugly applied by the American Justice System. The American Legal system does not have highest authority here in this matter. Since the crimes were committed by the Bush Administration on and from foreign soil, against (mostly) foreign nationals the Trial(s) of these crimes, all directly in violation of international law, can only have the proper court of authority.
The Bush administration would not receive a "fair trial" in the United States jurisdiction. Mr. Bush willingly allowed Saddam Hussein to be tried in Iraq, which was with the full knowledge that the proper authority was the ICJ, and knowing that Husein would not receive a "fair trial"; even in the opposite than Mr. Bush could expect. Mr. Bush should expect to be the first to go into custody, since he is on record very clearly stating that he was "the decider".
Actually the ACLU would have the authority to file the proper charges with the International Court of Justice, and take Mr. Bush (first) into custody, where he would swiftly provide the names of those who should take the "trip with him" to court. This is not such an absurd idea, and the United States is on record for having held the Trials of the former Nazi and Japanese POWs who committed the same crimes, i.e. kidnapping, false imprisonment, toruture, etc.
Anything else would be a joke, a sham, and a shame to the American People for generations to come.
The World is watching us. They fear us, and for cause.
Humanity always destroys that which it fears.
Unless I overlooked it, no one of these posters noted that Obama's "transition adviser" on intelligence policy was (and may still be) John Brennan, whose name was "floated" as CIA director and got shot down supposedly on the protest of "liberal bloggers" (a rare success there!) and a letter from American psychologists. But the fact that he expressed views tolerant of torture and has been Obama's "intelligence adviser" is another indication, added to those of several posters above, that as far as an Obama/Holder prosecution of Bush officials for torture, "it ain't gonna happen."
I suppose it is good that this article drew so many repsonses. Thank you to Epraim and jj, to whom I would add: "The King cannot be sued in his own court." But we don't have a king. All right, "The junta cannot be sued in their own court."
Obama would have to punish every conservative in the country. They were all complicit in getting the neocons into office.
As were liberals and leftist's, don't excuse us.
Thomas More:Hi. TGIF. How's the food pantry? I ask to be excused, re your comment. Go see the article under headlines column at L on happiness is catching. Yay, Friday.
You are certainly excused!
The donations are coming in, thanks for asking. The women are delighted. People are so much better than many say, if they just know the problem, most are always willing to help.
Though I'd note the lower the income, many times the more generous the help.
We've been torturing Iraq for 6 years--even more if you include the invasions under Bush Sr. and Clinton. We've subjected the entire country to wholesale torture for many years. Both Republicans and Democrats have validated the practice repeatedly and systematically, in the White House and both houses of Congress.
We all know this. Obama knows it but has promised to NOT pursue the matter of the Bush administration condoning torture, not to even mention their illegal attack, invasion and occupation of Iraq, an in-your-face war crime if there ever were such, not to prosecute Bush or anyone else for torture or war crimes, because that would be just too too divisive and we're now devoted to happy bi-partisanship, putting behind us all that messy history and Moving Forward.
So unless Obama does a surprising about face, he isn't going to order a congressional inquiry, truth commission, special prosecutor, or make any other moves that suggest he wants to get to the bottom of all this. He wsnts "all this" to disappear into a cloud of bi-partisan memory loss, because he knows how fully complicit his own party has been in this ongoing war crime. And we all know he knows it. He's never made anything but the mildest objections to the Iraq invasion/occupation itself, calling it a "stupid war" and "the wrong war at the wrong time," and other similar equivocations, and then proceeding to vote for every funding bill to keep it going.
He wants the Right War, and thinks he'll find it in Afghanistan, a delusion equal at least to the one that sent Bush bumbling and wrecking into Iraq. Obama can't prosecute Bush because he wants to bring the US "victory" in war, somewhere, anywhere, how about Afghanistan? Or Pakistan? Maybe turn Hillary loose on Iran, let her obliterate Persia to her evil heart's content. We have to make our imperial stand effectively somewhere! No, Obama will continue to hide behind "bi-partisan" smokescreens to avoid bringing justice to the Bush/Cheney crime syndicate because he knows he needs that unconstitutional Unitary Executive power they exercised, only he means to use it more calmly and efficiently.
Obama will be a calm and rational murderer on the imperial watch. He won't smirk and swagger like Bush, and he'll speak in complete, coherent sentences. He'll bring dignity back to the Oval Orifice. America will be able to hold its head high again, as we go on slaughtering everyone standing in our divine way, as Obama brings a new methodology to achieving full spectrum dominance, restoring our good name. Happy days are almost here! A new age of reshaped denial is beginning!
I agree with you in every assertion.
My only input would be that since the Obama administration will most likely show little or no change, except for perhaps the racial mix of the Commander in Chief, any true change will be by the people, i.e. you, me, and the other you's and me's.
The people of the United States have a wonderful tool at their disposal. "Collective power", and should make the move n-o-w, to assert that power.
We cannot expect the body politic to make the move I am suggesting, for many of them either participated directly or indirectly or showed no participation except for their silence.
President Bush should as soon as possible be rendered to the custody of the World Court in the Hague to face charges for his many international crimes. He being the coward that he most certainly is, will immediately begin to give the names of his accomplices and the "ball will start to roll down hill from then on".
Without affirmative action, and please, impeachment is a joke since impeachment is only considered for relatively small crimes, and Mr. Bush is a world class criminal, as was his father and his grandfather. Without affirmative action by the "People", the world will someday, and perhaps sooner than later, stand in judgement against all of us; for not taking the appropriate action.
If you would be willing to join me in the beginning of the process, leave a method for me to contact you, and we, along with other people of conscience and integrity will begin the process.
Thank you for your valuable time.
Obama won't prosecute the war criminals, for if he were going to, he would hardly be appointing their enablers- Robert Gates being a prime example- to his cabinet.
For some reason, people are in denial that black politicians can be as venal as anything that ever came out of the other cultural backgrounds that make up the U.S. ruling class, but maybe the realities of what Obama will bring will clarify things for those who need a dramatic refresher course.
Of course, there are those who voted for Obama because he wasn't Jackson or Sharpton. Silly rabbits. Obama is worse than Jackson or Sharpton, because unlike them, he has a neural capacity to completely invalidate the reality of racial experience for black people in the United States. He is, as Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report has stated many times, the kind of black that many whites want to see in national politics. Colin Powell, Condi Rice and Obama. Patrons of the empire. LIve with it.
Does the phrase, "When pigs fly" come to mind to anyone in the context of bringing the torturers to justice?
I say waterboard Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, the whole bunch of the PNAC Criminals. After all It's NOT TORTURE, right?
That's what a I always tell neo-con asshats after handing them a verbal beating, I'm glad to see some one else gets the "it's not torture" meme can be turned against neo-cons.
Prosecute, or forever be known as the United States of Torture.
To not prosecute is to accept torture as a legitimate means of interrogation, that will be used on all future US POW's.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Not only must perpetrators of crimes against humanity be prosecuted and punished, but presidential pardons must not be allowed to circumvent justice. If Bush issues such pardons, the universal jurisdiction applicable to such offenses permits the accused to be extradited to stand trial in another country, be it in western Europe, Syria, Iraq or Iran. If Bush and his co-conspirators prefer to stand trial abroad, it's fine with me.
Alex
yea right, that Bilderbur bilarybush-cheney loving oreo stop this
you got to be kidding, only infuriates those Muslim teenagers moreso
if he was righteous, truly, he would bring all to justice and torture those that killed Kennedy,King and Lennon, letnthem be stoned in public, on TV
NOW!
wait till all the Mexicans druggies really know about Monsanto, as now on you tube, introducing GM corn clandestinely into Oaxaca and Chiapas, [see Book of the Dead, re 'Chiapas]pobrecitos
hope they TORTURE all Monsanto CEO's and scientists dead b 4 they cut the heads, use for fertilizer
the street addreses are published
torture, they have just started i assume
until demand stops
17 Million in Viagra sales to GM executives, what a shame this country is a joke, greed and avarice and the other 7 deadly sins
try yohimbe, same thing, ONLY natural
or eat well and exercise, doing dope is a reward for accomplishing your goals for the weekend
slobamanos, needs to get a grip, Richardson passed over?
what all OTHER countries say, he is the only USA rep for US , not bilary coke mena lover,hypocrite
130 dead in Mena, a few hispanics?! yes, see that Sinaloa, and Veracruz boy's go get them
if cheney and all bush family is brought to Hague, and all NATURAL herbs and plants legalized, then it will stop
she needs to come clean
or the war has started
Viva La Revolucion
how about then 22 suitcase nukes, ummmmm missing?
easy to cross the Rio Grande
love my rants?
vale verga you stupid USA 'sheeples'
wake up
.There is no such thing as a suitcase nuclear device.....unless you consider something larger than a footlocker and weighing in excess of three hundred pounds to be such.......
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The same thing happened in the 1970s during the Church Committee investigation hearings. The CIA broke the law spied on Americans, murdered the President of Chile, and tortured people all over the world; and when it was finally investigated, nothing was done. Helms got a $2000.oo fine for lying to Congress. A slap on the wrist - so that he woud not have any 'discovery" in his defense. The CIA is set up precisely to KEEP the President from having to know anything specific about what they are doing.
Everyone knows what they are doing - they are torturing and murdering people - they have been doing it for decades. We only have to go back to Congressional records to find that the President of the USA has known about the illegal activities of the CIA (and the torture) since Nixon/Kissinger were in power.
It is well known that the system is set up to allow crime, with of course: plausible deniability! The idea that any more proof is needed to convict Bush/Cheney and especially Rumsfeld is rediculous. We don't need proof - we needed Congressional oversight and we're not going to get it. We will have to wait till January to find out what Obama plans to do - he's not an idiot - he'll wait till he's in the white house.
"Obama Should Prosecute Bush Officials Who Designed Torture Policy"
Should, yes. Will, no.
Elitists look after each other, remember?
I don't think they'll get too far since all these crooks have to do is appeal their cases all the way to their "ace-in-the-hole" Right Wing Majority Supreme Court.
A good start though, would be to try to have Justice Scalia impeached on the grounds of "conflict-of-interest", for failing to recuse himself when he went duck hunting with Cheney while a case against Cheney was before the Supremes.
Once Scalia is replaced with an "unconflicted" justice, "let the prosecutions begin."
PATRIARCHENEMY:
TORTURECHAMBERS
CHAINEDTOCHAINY
BEWARE OF WAR
WAR IS MURDER!
WAR IS TORTURE
WAR IS TERROR!
- Gg Re
poetreefree.us
Strictly (legally) speaking:
There doesn't need to be an evidentiary finding of a government-sanctioned, formal 'torture policy' in order for a certified investigator to document to a court, and for a court to accept, pre-trial evidence demonstrating its probable, and therefore actionable occurance; nor in order to allow a civil plaintiff's prosecution of said torturers, to recover damages on civil and grounds.
If torture is credibly alleged by pre-tiral evidence against a backdrop of government-certified government criminality, then, additionally, any claiming victim can sue not just its direct implementers, but also any and all persons in a governmental chain of command who personally enabled it -- consciously or otherwise.
But in this case, you can be sure that the official 'finding of facts' by any government investigative panel, office, or person (whether conducted under the aegis of the new executive, or the congress, or a government-appointed 'independent prosecutor/investigator'), -- won't be alllowed to go too far.
Because, especially in this case, there is too much credible, pre-trial evidence showing, at minimum, widespread malfeasance resulting in, at minimum, the de facto reality of torture - enabled across both executive and congressional initiatory and oversight functions [Google this body of pre-trial data, if you have doubts...).
This corrupted government of ours, will, by definition, never indict itself; never adduce or publicly set its imprimatur upon any evidence that proves its own criminal malfeasance, let alone its constitutionally criminal intent.
Assuming that a half-way real investigation even occurs, the best we can hope for is perhaps a few lite-censures here or there, surrounded by a blather of 'O Tempora, O Mores' handwringing.
If any investigation went further than this, there would then be an even greater, utterly impossible scandal to deal with: The official lying that led to the illegality of the Iraq Invasion itself.
Legally speaking, can you write a good law to enforce these ideas: http://www.thoughts.com/RedNeckPossie/blog/a-way-to-give-power-back-to-the-people-184665/
Obama has to worry about the Nation Wide Spy network created by the Bush Republican Law Enforcement agencies.
Dismatle the the Patriot Act,and the nation wide spy network.
Put the Constitution back into play.
Then stop all warrant less survielllance, and get the supreme court to act like the supreme court and use the Constitution to protect Americans.
End the Wars!!!
Thats why we voted for him, the economy is a crap shoot at best, the thieves have done great damage.
BornFreeMen
I supported Obama. Gave him money each month, at least until he broke his word by signing Nancy P's heinous FISA bill. That awful Bill let Bush and the telephone companies off the hook for illegally spying on US citizens, and worse. I not only stopped giving him money, I seriously thought of not voting.
But I got over it when Palin reared her ingorant beauty pageant head. I again starting donating to Obama, wore his T shirts and buttons and of course voted for him... But only because I saw him as the lesser of the two evils, yet have little faith that he'll try to correct the wrongs done to the constitution... But if proven wrong, and Obama actively pursues the Bush adminstration criminals, I'll happily eat crow.. But since I strongly suspect Obama takes orders from the same Oligarchy as all democratic and Republican Presidents, Senators and Congressmen, I won't hold my breath..
All of these suggestions are noteworthy but implausible.
As in the case with all criminal endeavors the responsibility as well as the orders come from the top. Whether most Americans would care to admit the fact, their president is the Commander in Chief, whether he gave direct orders to torture is irrelevant, he was/is responsible the same as a crime boss is responsible for the crimes that are committed by the lowest member of his organization.This is the great responsibility of "Command" and any Veteran, or even Business executive will admit that "what happens when you are in charge is your responsibility, either good or bad, expect to be held responsible".
The United States has never had a very respectable reputation except for the other criminal nations, and those members are of the same cabal as the US.
If the American people allow these and so many other crimes to go unanswered in the world court they can expect no less from those they encounter in the future; little mercy and no sympathy. A Democracy demands no less.
The American people are the most capable collection of humanity to ever take the stage , in all of history. When they finally recognize that their silence in this as well as so many other matters will be their consent, my hope is that they will act decisively and take the guilty to the proper "world court"----no less would be acceptable.
As the now silent "Native Son" might say; we may not have too much time left to act on this; before the world does. In that case we may all pay a heavy price for the criminal actions of a realtive few.
"bipartisan"
Joe Hope demurely (and probably disingenuously) asks, "Where is the evidence that Bush personally authorized torture?"
You need look no further, Joe, than White House counsel Alberto Gonzales's secret legal memo to George Bush in February, 2002, advising him that he should issue an executive order declaring persons seized and detained by US military forces to be deemed "enemy combatants", not subject to the Geneva Conventions.
Alberto's memo expressly says issuing such a Presidential declaration would be a wise move, specifically in order to shield those following their orders at Bagram, Gitmo, and elsewhere from the likelihood of future criminal prosecution.
Bush followed Gonzales's legal advice (which David Addington allegedly helped to draft). President Bush issued that fateful secret executive order, purporting to create a black hole in the treaties and felony statutes defining and outlawing prisoner torture, in early March, 2002.
These documents have been in the public domain for over five years.
How many more smoking guns do you want?
Bill from Saginaw
You make some good points, but I'm not convinced you have found a "smoking gun". You still haven't provided evidence that the US "supported torture". Laws are often changed to prevent overzealous or excess prosecution. If the laws are so strict as to hold an agent personally accountable for just following orders, then you wouldn't find many people willing to be agents.
Where is the actual evidence that Bush "supported torture", as opposed to merely drafted stricter legal protections? Remember that "torture" is a relative term. The administration might have been simply protecting themselves from the possibility that a prisoner would claim that non-violent harsh interrogation techniques were actually torture. I think there is a difference between the two things and we should be careful not to propagate unsubstantiated accusations. Even beyond Abu Ghraib, I don't doubt that torture has occurred in some situations where the US was at least partially involved. But I find high level support for actual "torture" to be far fetched.
Look at it this way, torture is still illegal, and it always was, even during the Bush years, and if crimes were committed it's not like the statute of limitations that will expire. So if any high ranking official actively supported torture, Obama's administration would quickly find out find out, and they would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The Bush administration may be evil, but they aren't dumb. There is no way they would leave themselves open to that kind of prosecution. So I would want more convincing evidence before I say that Bush actually supported torture, even if it did occur under his watch.
I would suggest that since the present head of the Justice Dept. has just finished explaining why GWB would not have to pardon the folks that designed said program of torture, you can be fairly certain it existed.
"The Bush administration may be evil, but they aren't dumb."
I believe you should rethink this statement. Given the more than adequate examples, deregulation, failing to enforce laws, trade policies...........
If the only "smoking gun" you can ever accept is a document signed by Bush that explicitly states Torture Is Acceptable and I Fully Support and Order It on All Detainees, then you may as well be working for John Yoo, or change your name to his, Mr. No Hope. Every argument you make is a Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity talking point on the issue.
Nowhere has the Bush administration come right out and condoned torture by using the word itself, but no lawyer going forward with a case against them expects to find anything so simplistic. "Enhanced interrogation techniques" are code words for torture, and your reliance on sheer sophistry to ignore this only makes you an apologist to what is conclusively known all over the world for what they've done, which, in a word, is torture.
Look at Scott Horton's essay on the matter in this month's Harper's, if you want to clear up your rather late in the day confusion. Or check out the interview on Democracy Now! with Matthew Alexander, by Amy Goodman, just yesterday. Alexander (pen name, he needs cover for protection) participated in many interrogations in Iraq for a number of years that involved torture and finally had to come clean, even though he himself never tortured a prisoner and always advised against it. BUT HE WITNESSED IT! And he doesn't need a "smoking gun" in form of a written statement from Bush saying "I just love torture, and I order it on all our prisoners."
If someone broke into your house and shot your wife and kids and then got rid of the gun, would you hesitate to prosecute them because you couldn't find the smoking gun, even though you'd witnessed the act? Plenty of people have witnessed it, plenty have participated, and plenty more have been on the receiving end. But maybe all this is just entirely too "relative" for your persnickety taste. After all, what Matthew Alexander is calling torture may to you merely be "stricter legal protections." Maybe you can get a job with David Addington after he leaves Cheney's office. He could use an obfuscator like you.
.Careful, Joe, you are certainly going to hurt yourself stretching and dodging like that.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
But that wouldn't be "nice," you know, "partisan," would it? Democrats aim to please (please the Republicans, that is).
My husband served in WWII, stepped on a landmine and spent months in Walter Reed. His scars, besides the memories, is life as a double amputee. He doesn't regret "his" war and his sacrifice as he feels our engagement was justified. But he doesn't have anything good to say about our present administration luring our young men and women into this undeclared mess. His remedy: an amendment to our constitution that says "we cannot declare a war without declaring a draft."
My Opinion
try'm & fry'm
If they won't talk, it would be a nice irony to use on them the "enhanced interrogation techniques" they themselves advocated. Too bad it's against the Constitution they and what will be the prosecutors swore to defend.
Signed: Lawlessone [for more irreverence, see resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com]
I believe war crimes are punishable by death. I've never believed in the death penalty as I don't think it has ever been established that it actually serves as a deterrent. But, hey, I could be wrong. This could be a good test case IMO.
If the death penalty is reserved for only the most hideous of cases, I do believe mass murder would qualify.
Did you hear what Leahy said when asked if there would be prosecutions for torture? He said no, NOT IN THIS COUNTRY. Does he know something we don't know?
How do we really know there was a "torture policy"? We know there were enhanced interrogation techniques, but other than abusive situations like Abu Ghraib, where is the evidence that Bush personally authorized torture? I'll repeat what I've said before, we should make sure there’s a process for investigating and opening up past wrongdoing in a way that doesn’t even have the appearance of partisan retribution. So that there isn’t a sense of the kind of retribution we’ve seen at some points in the last decade or two that’s not healthy. I don’t think it’s appropriate at this stage to attempt to impeach two presidents consecutively. The idea that it’s an impeachable offense to adopt an incorrect interpretation of the President’s power, I think, is too far-reaching.
If we adhered to the 'Nuremburg' principles we applied to the Japanese and Germans, (otherwise known as 'victor's justice') every president since Truman would have been impeached, and probably incarcerated if not ultimately hung.
.There exists a myth that the Ostrich hides it head in the sand when frightened. You may not be an ostrich but the fact that you reject that which does not neatly dovetail with your political beliefs makes you sort of similarly in hiding.
We know there was a torture policy because there have been documents and numerous references to it. Please try harder to stay within this universe, Joe.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"The idea that it’s an impeachable offense to adopt an incorrect interpretation of the President’s power, I think, is too far-reaching."
What's far-reaching is calling it an "interpretation".
Obama & Holder do not have the courage in them to do this, nor do many in congress. The american government is rotten to the core.
Prosecuting everyone (including the soon-to-be-ex-President, and thank God for that) who had anything to do with torture policy is of course the right thing to do. Whether it happens or not is another matter. Impeachment of the President and Vice President for high crimes and misdemeanors is also the right thing to do. Whether it happens or not, I leave to your imagination.
Whats with all this "should" talk? There are people that get paid good money to do a job, and that job is to hold criminals accountable, and not doing that job, is the same as conspiring with those same criminals. It seems that our "judicial system" can't lock up "citizens" fast enough, lets see some REAL criminals (politicians)in jail for a "change".
"One of Barack Obama's first acts as president should be to instruct his attorney general to appoint an independent prosecutor to initiate a criminal investigation of former Bush Administration officials who gave the green light to torture."
Yeah right. Not going to happen. The Democrats can NOT start dragging up the torture issue as they are COMPLICIT. That's why they say it would be "divisive" or "partisan posturing", or any other bullshit line they can come up with. You need not look any further than Nancy "I love George" Pelosi to find a Democrat complicit in torture.... Think she's going to fall on her sword for approving of Bush's torture policies? Hell no.
I support Ratner's proposal 100%, even if the effort failed to bring criminal convictions.
Personally, I would prefer to see the ordinary federal criminal grand jury process utilized, rather than a special prosecutor who could be politically attacked by the GOP as being purely a partisan tool as Ratner recommends. Treating the Bush higher-ups to the regular indictment process would restore some measure of faith in the professional independence of career Justice Department people, and underscore the fact that it was the politization of DOJ at its very top by people like Alberto Gonzales, Addington, and Yoo that prevented these high crimes and misdemeanors to go unpunished until Bush/Cheney were finally out of power.
As to the widely held cynical belief that this will just "never happen" because the web would be cast too wide and some major Democratic players (specifically, Nancy Pelosi, Harmon, and Jay Rockefeller) might be implicated, this is precisely what the Justice Department's power to grant immunity in exchange for testimony is all about. I'll bet whatever was disclosed to the loyal Democrats under the guise of the White House cooperation in providing "Congressional oversight" came larded up with plenty of heavy breathing warnings about what the criminal penalties would be should anybody leak this super, super secret classified information about torture techniques and rendition to the press or to their colleagues. Even if Pelosi or other Dems were willing enablers, that is still precisely what immunity in exchange for testimony is designed to accomplish.
Finally, I hate to throw some cold water on Ratner's proposal (I repeat, I wholeheartedly support a torture prosecution effort), but there is this messy legal loose end that must be dealt with first: the Military Commissions Act expressly granted the torturers immunity for their crimes. Both the House and Senate voted for this measure, and George Bush signed it into law. You cannot prosecute people for criminal behavior that has been expressly declared legal by a duly enacted federal statute that is part of the Criminal Code.
Therefore, I suggest that a very early legislative priority should be straight up repeal of the Military Commissions Act's grant of immunity to the torturers and their supervisors. Eliminate the shield. Let the grand jury process then run its course. If the political will exists, the necessary legal mechanisms are all already set in place to do exactly what Mr. Ratner urges.
Let Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Alberto, Addington, Yoo, and their cohorts have their day in court, in front of a jury of their peers. That's the American way.
Bill from Saginaw
Thank you, Bill. You are 100% right.
How did we come so far that so many people would be involved in this that we could never prosecute the crime? Don't act surprised, the exact same level of moral cowardice appeared from our leaders in the S&L ripoff, the Iran contra crime, etc, etc... If you are expecting justice from this bunch of criminals, you will be wating a long time.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, 1962
As usual, Michael Ratner makes the case:clear, short, to the point. To which I say, "YES!". Appoint independent prosecutor. Investigate, charge/indict, go to court/ trial.
To THIS day? ~Unfazed & Neoconfused?
http://flickr.com/photos/frankenhut/2764053215/
First up on the docket should be John Yoo and David Addington. They are a case-in-point of Hannah Arendt's thesis about "the banality of evil."
www.wunderman-comics.com
There is a cogent reason why the suggested prosecutions will never be done. During the trials the accused will reveal all persons who knew about specific cases of torture but did nothing to bring the perpetrators to justice. "All persons who knew" is a huge cabal, including numerous Democratic and Republican "lawmakers". Ergo: forget about special prosecutors and the like. It will not happen.
Dittos. Not gonna happen. What we have in place now in Washington & Wall Street is an outright warring, killing machine. They won't stop because we can't make them stop.
I'll join the group of posters saying it won't happen. Nancy Pelosi was in fact asked to join a panel of four representatives by George tenent, then Director of the CIA, in 2002 to discuss the legality of "aggressive" interrogation techinques, inluding the use of waterboarding. Nancy Pelosi gave her nod of approval, and some (whether Pelosi herself was one of those is unknown) even questioned whether or not waterboarding was in fact "tough enough."
Yup, there is no telling (yet?) how many of our beloved senators and representatives condoned or encouraged the use of torture against "high level Al Quida" suspects. Because of this, there will be no in depth investigations and if attempts are made to do so, they will be vigorously resisted simply due to the fact that there are so many legislators involved in the same game of torture as Bu$h and his gang of Jackboot thugs. To comply with investigations would be to reserve a very small long term room with poor accomidations at the Levenworth Crossbars Hilton.
Absolutely right! It'll never happen. The United States tortures people? Are you out of your minds?! The Democrats live on the Top Shelf alongside the Republicans. In matters like this, where it would be necessary to a make a public declaration that our government has been, and still is, chock full of out-and-out criminals, the Top Shelf Boys and Girls will protect each other, no questions asked.
Yep, not gonna happen. And you know that wave of revulsion that comes over you when you think about Palin-class conservatives? Magnify that a thousand-fold. If Bush/Cheney ever went to trial ultra-conservatives would come out of the woodwork, like they did to vote for McCain/Palin.
Either prosecute them or join them - behind bars.
When all the people that condoned torture are prosecuted and behind bars, then maybe we will see real change, but I remain skeptical because for the most part, you have the unjust being prosecuted by the unjust; but I would love to be proven wrong!