Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Let's Hold Bush Officials Accountable for Torture
The ACLU's executive director joins with a military officer to ask for a special prosecutor for torture
Torture is a crime and the United States engaged in it. Those are two indisputable facts. Given the mountains of evidence already in the public domain, any effort to deny or soften that harsh and devastating reality is either disingenuous, uninformed or a result of the human instinct to avoid painful truths. But one of the things that allows our democracy to endure is that time after time, no matter the misdeed, we have been willing to look ourselves in the mirror, acknowledge our wrongdoing and hold ourselves accountable.
Both of the authors of this piece chose professions devoted to protecting democratic principles, human rights and the rule of law. One of us is an Army prosecutor who resigned from six pending Guantánamo cases due to ethical failings of the tribunal system, and the other is the leader of the premier civil liberties organization in the U.S. We both understand that the process of self-examination and accountability has been, and remains, the only way to move forward and regain our moral and legal grounding.
To date, the evidence that U.S. officials engaged in widespread and systemic torture and abuse of detainees with the authorization of the highest Bush administration officials comes from a wide range of sources. There are congressional reports, journalistic investigations, detainees' own accounts, and even -- astonishingly -- boastful admissions by some of the highest officials of the Bush administration, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has been aggressively forthright in his defense of torture methods including waterboarding. An ACLU Freedom of Information Act lawsuit has also produced more than 100,000 pages of revealing government documents, including the now well-known Justice Department memos laying out the legal framework for the Bush administration's torture policies. And despite President Obama's unfortunate decision to reverse his administration's earlier intention to order their release, we know there are thousands of photographs depicting detainee abuse in overseas prisons beyond Abu Ghraib. While likely to be disturbing -- as they should be -- these images of human brutality would serve to confirm the pervasive and orchestrated nature of these crimes.
But notwithstanding all this evidence that domestic and international laws were violated, there are still those who would reduce these crimes to discretionary policy decisions subject to legitimate debate. There is even a robust public discussion about whether "torture works" -- a jaw-dropping debate to be having in the United States of America -- as if that could be reliably determined, and as if that would make it OK.
This cannot be the way forward in a country committed to the rule of law that applies to everyone, regardless of status or position. We have a Department of Justice for a reason, and now it's up to Attorney General Holder, the nation's top law enforcement officer, to do his job and appoint an independent prosecutor to follow the evidence where it may lead. In this country, we investigate crimes and, when appropriate, we prosecute them. Once we start compromising our principles and laws because it is too messy, too inconvenient or even too painful to enforce them, we render them meaningless. This is not a political issue, but a moral and legal one.
To date, the highest-ranking officer to be prosecuted for detainee abuse is a lieutenant colonel who was acquitted by a court-martial panel. Yet there is simply too much evidence of high-level orders and authorization for the use of torture and abuse to justify limiting criminal investigations to those in the field. What does it say about our commitment to justice when we are willing to sacrifice a few at the bottom but unwilling to hold accountable those at the top? When we are willing to prosecute military personnel but not the civilian officials and contractors who were also part of this horrific enterprise? What kind of legacy does that leave for future generations, and future administrations, when it comes to the consequences of those in power breaking the law?
There are some who might find it surprising to be hearing from the two of us together -- a civil libertarian and an Army officer. But to us, the fit is quite natural. While having taken different paths, we have both sought the same destination: the preservation of American values, the rule of law and human rights. Without accountability, we cannot preserve those ideals. Without holding ourselves to the standards we wish to impose on others, we cannot move forward and we cannot hold ourselves out as a nation that adheres to a legal and moral code of conduct. It is critical that we hold accountable those who authorized, those who legally sanctioned and those who implemented the torture policies of one of the darkest periods in our nation's history. What is at stake is nothing less than our democracy.
- Posted in
26 Comments so far
Show AllWhile the authors of this article provide a compeling case, I would not expect any trials or prosecutions to take place. The O Wise One wants to look forward. The remarkably inept Nancy Pelosi declared "impeachment is off the table." If any investigation does take place, even by the oxymoron "truth commission" there are too many Dimocraps who also will be exposed in the criminal scandal. Nicely written article, but wishful thinking.
Democracy? Didnt that go out of fashion in 1963 ? The boldness of the "Homelanders" that pushed the weak Gore machine off the deck came after of decades of torture and terrorism - at home and abroad.
Our "standards" had been long gone before the short days of
"...those who legally sanctioned and those who implemented the torture policies of one of the darkest perionds in our nations history."
The truth? The truth is much better presented by Russ Baker in "Family of Secrets". You can let yourself get all tied up in Gitmo, or your head blown off in Dallas - either way the same guys don't get caught.
These men are to be commended for selfless dedication to restoring the faithful observance of, and adherence to, the precepts establishing the Rule of Law set forth in the United States Constitution.
They are to be all the more commended for undertaking this worthy mission in the face of a degraded and malevolent political culture which has deliberately forsaken and abandoned the rule of law, save as a foil for undiminished lip service.
The present maladministration, despite its leader's vaunted familiarity with Constitutional Law, has persisted in its predecessor's predilection for flinging down that venerable and hallowed document and dancing upon it. It's even adding choreography of its own, alas!
And the new monarch's determination to scrape these indigestible issues from the royal plate into the Memory Hole, as his servant scrapes the leavings from his dinnerware into the First Garbage, is reinforced by the reactionary low-information troglodytes, the demagogues who run them, the corporate media celebrity infotainwhores, and especially the feckless, craven, and self-serving politicians-- all of whom also have other, fresher fish to fry.
As usual, the superficially distinct parties will make common cause, and the lions will lay down with the wolverines to frustrate the pursuit of justice and thwart the righteous exercise of law ostensibly deriving its authority from the consent of the governed in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Both men, but especially Lt. Col. Vandeveld, risk alienation and disapprobation, professionally and socially, from within the ranks for resisting the top-down undertow towards Moving Forward.
These men deserve thanks for undertaking such a thankless task.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Truer words were never spoken! Thanks!
Yr Obd't Logarithmic
Sioux Rose
OBEDIENT: A fine analysis indeed!
I would like to add to your castigation by speaking of cowardice. Our military is like a big thug with well-oiled muscles that likes to pick on the skinny, sickly kid on the block. And in torture, this bullying propensity also makes use of disproportionate force against a powerless individual. But the greatest cowardice of all enacts acts that no civilized nation should countenance, and then sees its perpetrators hide behind other "authority" figures. In short, the absence of accountability is its own testament to failed conscience, and also speaks volumes about the dearth of genuine bravery. The only courageous persons are those like these two men who show their commitment to justice by standing up to the beast! Bravo to them!
Words are useless in the absence of action.
Both of these men are 'members of the bar'---and professional 'lawyers'----
I would make a contribution to the 'project' founded by either of these or both of these 'fine lawyers'-----in a campaign to bring as many members of the Bush administration as possible to 'justice'---in the International Courts (since all of their crimes were 'conspired to' in the USA--but conducted in other countries--these are therefore 'international crimes'). Both or either of them have the knowledge and power to organize a movement that would take action----arrest the 'conspirators'---bind them up for trial----and show the world that the USA is a "nation of laws' where the 'rule of law'----'rules'------------
'Any takers out there?'
Good Luck America, you really need it.
(since all of their crimes were 'conspired to' in the USA--but conducted in other countries--these are therefore 'international crimes')
excellent point!
it looks like the Homeland team has fallen back on the tried and tested ignoring of treaties and it will be up to the international community to act, against not only the US, but the entire Coalition of the Swilling.
Veterans for Peace stands implacably for an end to torture and for indictment where warranted. So Col. Vandeveld may br unpopular in some circles but he has admiration, professionally and socially, from one group that understands defense of the Constitution and the evil he stood against.
Where are the freakin activists? Sure just yell and complain about how screwed up it all is. If that's all you do, then you are part of the problem. Get organized, get out in the streets and protest loudly with banners and signs and keep yelling until you make the president do what is right. All anyone does these days is yell on the internet. They just turn you all off and don't listen. Get organized and fight for what is right. Fight for freedom and I am not preaching violence, I am preaching activism. Where are you computer rebels? Sitting at your desk, reading the next blog? Yeah, that is exactly what they want you to be doing. In the 60's and 70's we marched and demonstrated and protested in the streets. Guess y'all are too lazy for that now. Got it too easy. You all need to be starving before you rise up and yell and scream and march. And I belong to organizations that do get out there and I have gotten out there. Put your body where your mouth is.!!That's all I have to say for now.I'm frustrated with the politicians as well on both sides but I'm frustrated with you too. DO SOMETHING!
Indict Bush?
Then you better bring Obama along.
He hasn't changed any of it. Gitmo is still there, and rendition is still on the table.
He's still bombing civiliams and expanding illegal wars for resources.
Bush, Clinton, Obama, Bush the First, all the smae.
Sure, why not indict Obama?
There are a number of different reasons given for criminal punishment of law violations, but probably the most important is sending a message to prevent similar violations in the future. Torture is not only a crime, it is a heinous crime; and it is one that is almost always committed by people with the best of intentions who have lost sight of the law and its purpose.
We would not fail to prosecute a murderer who committed the act to save babies from an abortion. We would not hesitate to prosecute a rapist whose intent was to condemn female exhibitionism or to make a social statement. Torture is at least as heinous a crime as those.
If we allow our government to ignore these crimes in order to avoid distracting us from the future or some other high sounding reason, we certainly invite future administrations to act illegally, unconstitutionally, and immorally whenever they believe that they are serving a greater good.
Torture is a crime period. If we allow the men who happen to be in office at some particular time to decide which laws they will choose to enforce, we are no longer a government of laws, but a government of men, and God help us if those governing turn on us and we have no laws to turn to for protection. The torturers and those who directed and aided and abetted torture must be prosecuted or America will have lost its soul and there will be nothing worth preserving.
What happened was obviously wrong. HOWEVER, Congress had the power, the authority and the responsibility to investigate and to prosecute while the Rupblicans were still in power and for two years when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress but not the executive branch. Congress failed to do it's job. The electorate failed to do IT'S job when it re-elected many member who were derelict of duty. Going back and trying to prosecute political leaders after they are out of office is a VERY slippery slope. If people wish to continue to live in a democratic (somewhat) society, people have to accept the responsibility of citizenship. It is not enough to just go out and vote every two or four years, people need to be 'active' at all levels. Attend local governmental meetings, WRITE to elected officials and letters to the editor, talk to your neighbors, be a volunteer for a cause....
Yes, we should find the TRUTH, the actual facts, and there should be "changes". Perhaps there should be some sort of criminal charges, but once we start down that pathway, we are opening Pandora's Box. Perhaps it is the only way that the world will accept us as world leaders again. Most of all however, we need to look in a mirror and question if the reflection is that of a citizen or that of a passive bystander, who only wished to be a Monday morning quarterback.
"Perhaps it is the only way that the world will accept us as world leaders again."
what arrogance and exceptionalistic misconceptions makes you think the world WANTS US leadership?
just work at being accepted as equal world citizens again.
Really doesn't matter does it? There has NEVER been "equal world citizens", and never will be. Since the US is already a member of the security counil of the UN, and since we still have one of the biggest economies and since we have undisputedly the largest armed froces in the world, the US most certainly IS one of the world leaders. My musing was not based upon "arrogance" or any "misconceptions", but upon reality. We hold the position, but it would be much better if we held the position with the respect of others rather than have them fear us. Why not try to be constructive in your comments some time rather than be an 'ankle biting turtle-socialist', jumping in to snip at once sentence espousing a Zeitgeist one world order utopia and pulling your head back in.
"There has NEVER been 'equal world citizens', and never will be."
So - all men are not created equal?
This idea is nothing but a philosophical construct?
"and since we have undisputedly the largest armed froces in the world, the US most certainly IS one of the world leaders"
leading where?
Accepting the US as "world leaders" generally involves a gun to the temple.
or leashes and collars
Yes, let's
I'm all for the prosecutions Romero and Vandeveld advocate, but so are nearly all CD readers. This was preaching to the choir. Let's move on to practical matters.
First, it's nearly impossible politically for the Department of Justice to appoint a special prosecutor to prosecute former or current high officials for the interrogation techniques the Bush administration carried out. The article presumes that DOJ must act on this. Seems to me that there may be prosecutorial agents who don't have to wait, maybe forever, for DOJ to act: U.S. attorneys, federal grand juries, even state prosecutors and grand juries. That needs to be carefully explored.
Second, Romero and Vandeveld don't even mention the efforts to take away the law licenses of people like Yoo, Bradbury, Bybee, and Gonzalez. The disciplinary bodies of the state bars are set up, and venue and jurisdiction are clear (the same can't be said for criminal prosecutions). Yanking law licenses won't create a backlash in the current climate; indicting someone like Cheney would. But yanking law licenses would help change the climate, making it more feasible to move against both lawyers and non-lawyers (like Cheney).
Finally, notwithstanding the disdain Romero and Vandeveld express, there's still a small seed of doubt about whether torture ever produced valuable intelligence. I believe more can and must be done to clear that up decisively. If valuable intelligence was obtained, then (again I disagree with the authors) thought should be given to whether the laws could be changed to allow "enhanced interrogation" in rare instances, under very strict internationally accepted guidelines. The existing laws don't allow any defenses or justifications for torturing detainees. Nonetheless, Cheney wins if any good intelligence is shown to have come out of the torture but those of us wanting prosecutions refuse to accept that an internationally accepted defense could be devised -- a distant cousin of the right of self defense. We have to swallow hard and face the fact that most of the public won't be willing to support criminal prosecutions if we who want prosecutions are viewed as refusing to recognize the necessity to protect the country from terrorism. A great deal turns on the empirical question: does interrogation by torture ever work?
You idiotically suggest torture "in rare instances".
You gonna decide which baddie has the info?
People are prosecuted based on probable cause. I would suggest that if (that's IF) any justification could be legally established for torturing detainees, the standard would have to be much stronger, probably beyond any reasonable doubt. Persons on the scene would have to decide whether, under carefully designed guidelines and close supervision, torture would be justified.
It's well to remember that even with categorical prohibition against torture, if interrogators really believed they could prevent a successful terrorist operation, they would go ahead and torture, knowing that if it became known that they did prevent such an operation, they would be considered heroes even if prosecuted. Some would do it out of moral necessity even if they thought no one would ever know they prevented a successful terrorist operation.
"Persons on the scene would have to decide whether, under carefully designed guidelines and close supervision, torture would be justified."
This has already been decided - torture is illegal.
And, most importantly, it is immoral.
vdb June 19th, 2009 1:29 am: Not to belabor, but the point I'm making is that there may be justifications for torture. Justifications in law often arise from moral principles. Compare the situation in Germany when a police official authorized threatening a suspected kidnapper with torture to get him to disclose where the kidnapped child was (the child was discovered as a result, but already dead). The official said he acted from moral necessity; he was mildly punished for violating German law, which provided no justification for torture, or the threat of it, even in that situation.
I know full well that the laws governing the suspected terrorist detainees doesn't now contain any justification for torture. I also know that the common-language meaning of "torture," like "murder" and "rape," includes a connotation of immorality. In the area of interrogations, I would rather refer to EI or "techniques that could be described as torture," but people jump to the conclusion when such terminology is used that the speaker is trying to excuse all torture. So I'm left with the idea of justifying torture in "rare instances" and under "strict guidelines and supervision," etc. By the way, the famous torture memos never approached the subject in this way, and I totally disagree with their approach.
The main reason for discussing justification in this way is that I prefer to try to persuade people who agree with Cheney instead of merely cursing at them and calling them names.
Hello Manning -
Firstly, there are no laws covering the holding aand prosecution of said "detainees" which were not created epso facto. This goes against the Constitution. Many of those rounded up on the unwarranted say-so of the war criminal bush the lesser, were not even suspect; they were poor saps turned in for a bounty proffered by the US. OK, some have been released - and I read that the US may even contribute to their resettlement: gosh, the generosity - but none were ever held legally.
The people who were/are responsible for these crimes are all public servants, hired under authority of the Constitution. To suggest that they can carry out activities in these capacitites outside of the Homeland borders and not be subject to this same contract is almost farcical were it not so seriously detrimental to the rights of the "detainees".
There may be some held who wish the US ill, even some who wished such before their capture. There are laws to deal with such, IF they act on these sentiments. bush and blair's claims that "the rules have changed" are total BULL.
Secondly, if you feel that there may indeed be "rare occasions" which warrant torture, I suggest you get in touch with the script writers of "24". I'm sure they are always after fresh ideas.
I think you are deluding yourself and sincerely hope you come to your senses soon.
Torture "in rare circumstances" would make those circumstances awfully common, don't you think? I imagine retroactive identification alone would make such circumstances far, far more common than they are now.