A Response to Those Who Say Don't Prosecute Bush's Torture Lawyers
As we reported earlier,
Justice Department investigators are likely to recommend that the
Bush-era torture memo authors should not be criminally prosecuted,
rather they recommend the department refer "two of the three lawyers
[who authored the torture memos] to state bar associations for possible
disciplinary action... where the most severe possible punishment is
disbarment."
Over the past few weeks, I have been extensively reporting
on the efforts to hold Bush-era torturers, their bosses (ie Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, etc.) and their lawyers (including Jay
Bybee, Steven Bradbury and John Yoo) accountable through criminal
prosecutions. Some people have argued the torturers themselves shouldn't be prosecuted, only the top officials, while others have publicly (and in emails to me and in comments on my Facebook and web pages) suggested that the lawyers should not be prosecuted.
In
short, I disagree completely. I believe that all of those who were a
part of this torture system need to face justice for their crimes. I
also believe the Democrats who were briefed on the program as early as 2002 should also face the music.
As
for the individual torturers, they have committed crimes under both US
and international laws and should be dealt with as such. But what about
the lawyers? I was recently asked to "identify the punishable conduct
and applicable law(s)" regarding prosecution of Bush's torture lawyers.
This
is not some political debate. This is a matter of law and US
obligations to its international treaties, which the Constitution
explicitly states the US will respect and enforce.
First, I would recommend that anyone who thinks it is a "stretch" to prosecute lawyers who provided legal justifications for torture to read the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which was signed by President Ronald Reagan. Specifically, read these portions:
Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective
legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts
of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No
exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a
threat or war, internal political instability or any other public
emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.[...]
Article 4
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences
under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit
torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or
participation in torture.[...]
Article 7
1. The
State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to
have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in
the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him,
submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of
prosecution.
The US is legally bound to this convention and I would argue that
the attempted legalizing and authorizing of torture, such as was done
by Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury is exactly what this treaty addresses and
bans.
Then there is the precedent established at Nuremberg in the United States v. Altstoetter, which, according
to constitutional and military law expert Scott Horton found "that
lawyers who dispense bad advice about law of armed conflict, and whose
advice predictably leads to the death or mistreatment of prisoners, are
war criminals, chargeable with potentially capital offenses."
According to Horton:
[Hitler's] lawyers were indicted and charged with crimes
against humanity and war crimes arising out of the issuance and
implementation of the Nacht- und Nebelerlass. The United States charged
that as lawyers, "not farmers or factory workers," they must have
recognized that their technical justifications for avoiding the
application of the Hague and Geneva Conventions were unavailing,
because these conventions were "recognized by all civilized nations,
and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war."
That is to say, they were customary international law.[...]
After
trial, the two principal [German] Justice Department lawyers, one a
deputy chief of the criminal division, were convicted and sentenced to
ten years' imprisonment, less time served. This judgment clearly
established the concept of liability of the authors of bureaucratic
policies that breach basic rules of the Hague and Geneva Conventions
for the consequences that predictably flow therefrom. Moreover, it
establishes a particularly perilous standard of liability for
government attorneys who adopt a dismissive attitude towards
international humanitarian law.
These are just a few of the arguments for prosecuting the torture lawyers. More to come.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
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 has always been 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, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
As we reported earlier,
Justice Department investigators are likely to recommend that the
Bush-era torture memo authors should not be criminally prosecuted,
rather they recommend the department refer "two of the three lawyers
[who authored the torture memos] to state bar associations for possible
disciplinary action... where the most severe possible punishment is
disbarment."
Over the past few weeks, I have been extensively reporting
on the efforts to hold Bush-era torturers, their bosses (ie Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, etc.) and their lawyers (including Jay
Bybee, Steven Bradbury and John Yoo) accountable through criminal
prosecutions. Some people have argued the torturers themselves shouldn't be prosecuted, only the top officials, while others have publicly (and in emails to me and in comments on my Facebook and web pages) suggested that the lawyers should not be prosecuted.
In
short, I disagree completely. I believe that all of those who were a
part of this torture system need to face justice for their crimes. I
also believe the Democrats who were briefed on the program as early as 2002 should also face the music.
As
for the individual torturers, they have committed crimes under both US
and international laws and should be dealt with as such. But what about
the lawyers? I was recently asked to "identify the punishable conduct
and applicable law(s)" regarding prosecution of Bush's torture lawyers.
This
is not some political debate. This is a matter of law and US
obligations to its international treaties, which the Constitution
explicitly states the US will respect and enforce.
First, I would recommend that anyone who thinks it is a "stretch" to prosecute lawyers who provided legal justifications for torture to read the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which was signed by President Ronald Reagan. Specifically, read these portions:
Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective
legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts
of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No
exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a
threat or war, internal political instability or any other public
emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.[...]
Article 4
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences
under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit
torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or
participation in torture.[...]
Article 7
1. The
State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to
have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in
the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him,
submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of
prosecution.
The US is legally bound to this convention and I would argue that
the attempted legalizing and authorizing of torture, such as was done
by Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury is exactly what this treaty addresses and
bans.
Then there is the precedent established at Nuremberg in the United States v. Altstoetter, which, according
to constitutional and military law expert Scott Horton found "that
lawyers who dispense bad advice about law of armed conflict, and whose
advice predictably leads to the death or mistreatment of prisoners, are
war criminals, chargeable with potentially capital offenses."
According to Horton:
[Hitler's] lawyers were indicted and charged with crimes
against humanity and war crimes arising out of the issuance and
implementation of the Nacht- und Nebelerlass. The United States charged
that as lawyers, "not farmers or factory workers," they must have
recognized that their technical justifications for avoiding the
application of the Hague and Geneva Conventions were unavailing,
because these conventions were "recognized by all civilized nations,
and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war."
That is to say, they were customary international law.[...]
After
trial, the two principal [German] Justice Department lawyers, one a
deputy chief of the criminal division, were convicted and sentenced to
ten years' imprisonment, less time served. This judgment clearly
established the concept of liability of the authors of bureaucratic
policies that breach basic rules of the Hague and Geneva Conventions
for the consequences that predictably flow therefrom. Moreover, it
establishes a particularly perilous standard of liability for
government attorneys who adopt a dismissive attitude towards
international humanitarian law.
These are just a few of the arguments for prosecuting the torture lawyers. More to come.
As we reported earlier,
Justice Department investigators are likely to recommend that the
Bush-era torture memo authors should not be criminally prosecuted,
rather they recommend the department refer "two of the three lawyers
[who authored the torture memos] to state bar associations for possible
disciplinary action... where the most severe possible punishment is
disbarment."
Over the past few weeks, I have been extensively reporting
on the efforts to hold Bush-era torturers, their bosses (ie Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, etc.) and their lawyers (including Jay
Bybee, Steven Bradbury and John Yoo) accountable through criminal
prosecutions. Some people have argued the torturers themselves shouldn't be prosecuted, only the top officials, while others have publicly (and in emails to me and in comments on my Facebook and web pages) suggested that the lawyers should not be prosecuted.
In
short, I disagree completely. I believe that all of those who were a
part of this torture system need to face justice for their crimes. I
also believe the Democrats who were briefed on the program as early as 2002 should also face the music.
As
for the individual torturers, they have committed crimes under both US
and international laws and should be dealt with as such. But what about
the lawyers? I was recently asked to "identify the punishable conduct
and applicable law(s)" regarding prosecution of Bush's torture lawyers.
This
is not some political debate. This is a matter of law and US
obligations to its international treaties, which the Constitution
explicitly states the US will respect and enforce.
First, I would recommend that anyone who thinks it is a "stretch" to prosecute lawyers who provided legal justifications for torture to read the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which was signed by President Ronald Reagan. Specifically, read these portions:
Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective
legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts
of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No
exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a
threat or war, internal political instability or any other public
emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.[...]
Article 4
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences
under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit
torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or
participation in torture.[...]
Article 7
1. The
State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to
have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in
the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him,
submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of
prosecution.
The US is legally bound to this convention and I would argue that
the attempted legalizing and authorizing of torture, such as was done
by Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury is exactly what this treaty addresses and
bans.
Then there is the precedent established at Nuremberg in the United States v. Altstoetter, which, according
to constitutional and military law expert Scott Horton found "that
lawyers who dispense bad advice about law of armed conflict, and whose
advice predictably leads to the death or mistreatment of prisoners, are
war criminals, chargeable with potentially capital offenses."
According to Horton:
[Hitler's] lawyers were indicted and charged with crimes
against humanity and war crimes arising out of the issuance and
implementation of the Nacht- und Nebelerlass. The United States charged
that as lawyers, "not farmers or factory workers," they must have
recognized that their technical justifications for avoiding the
application of the Hague and Geneva Conventions were unavailing,
because these conventions were "recognized by all civilized nations,
and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war."
That is to say, they were customary international law.[...]
After
trial, the two principal [German] Justice Department lawyers, one a
deputy chief of the criminal division, were convicted and sentenced to
ten years' imprisonment, less time served. This judgment clearly
established the concept of liability of the authors of bureaucratic
policies that breach basic rules of the Hague and Geneva Conventions
for the consequences that predictably flow therefrom. Moreover, it
establishes a particularly perilous standard of liability for
government attorneys who adopt a dismissive attitude towards
international humanitarian law.
These are just a few of the arguments for prosecuting the torture lawyers. More to come.