Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLetter to the Editor:
Torture prosecution isn’t up to Obama
Saturday, April 25, 2009 | 2:03 a.m.
The media are doing a good job of making another mountain out of another molehill. This time it has to do with the “torture” memos.
Here is the simple truth: President Barack Obama should not, and legally cannot, decide to prosecute or not prosecute anyone for using torture on prisoners. It is not within the president’s constitutional duties or powers to decide whether legal action will or will not be pursued. That decision is reserved for the Justice Department (that is, the U.S. attorney general) and/or Congress.
If President Obama were to attempt to make a decision on whether to prosecute anyone, he would be violating the Constitution. He exercised his power as president to authorize the release of the memos. That is the extent of his power in the matter.
So let the speculation about a “change in policy” or a “flip flop” end now. Congress and the attorney general have the ball in their court now, and they will make the decision, not the president.
Discussion: 34 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Police: 3 arrested in officer’s death have gang ties
- Corrections officer with Metro killed in U.S. 95 crash
- System fails to catch contractor’s family tie with county
- Fontainebleau contractors say sales process is flawed
- Where to watch UFC 106
- UNLV and Southern Illinois will be guarded tonight
- Findlay guard Joseph scores 33, talks about UNLV
- Bishop Gorman takes Sunset Region title in win over Cimarron
- Fighters make weight, Dana White talks Rampage/Rashad
- Reid clears major health care hurdle, daunting weeks ahead
Blogs
The Kats Report
For props, Lewis Black needs only his manic delivery and torrid material (5 Comments)
Elsewhere
Sands China raises $2.5 billion in Hong Kong IPO (1 Comment)
Marquardt v. Sonnen scheduled for UFC 109
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Will a fourth consecutive title by Jimmie Johnson be good or bad for NASCAR? (4 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The Jet Stream: And then there were four
Top Chef Episode 12: On keeping it simple
Miech Again
Chilly start for Chace, but Stanback says he'll warm up (2 Comments)
- Live chat
- Tuesday, noon PST
- Chat with Krista Creelman
- Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question
Calendar »
- 22 Sun
- 23 Mon
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
- 26 Thu
-
The Four Tops at The Orleans Showroom
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
The Chase at Downtown Cocktail Room
Downtown Cocktail Room | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Lady Gaga album release party at Revolution Lounge
Beatles Revolution Lounge | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Food drive at Christian Audigier
Christian Audigier The Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Above & Beyond at Moon
Moon Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
I agree whole-heartedly! This is something I've been trying to get across to the people that I know. President Obama certainly has the right to express his opinion on the subject as we all do, but at the end of the day, it is not his decision to make. It is NOT actually a decision at all. It is a procedure, an equation if you will. If X occurred then Y must follow, no ifs ands or buts about it. That's the law. If the procedure is intentionally ignored for any individual, the law is moot, the "crime" is no longer a crime, and no other individual, now or in the future, can be held accountable for their 'uncriminal' actions.
President Obama says he wants to look forward and not back. Respectfully, Mr. President, this is all about the future. The future of torture, the future of our nations credibility, the future of these laws and for that matter all laws.
Nonsensical letter. Under the Constitution, the president is the chief law enforcer. The attorney general is his appointed law enforcement agent. He serves at the pleasure of the president. Therefore, President Obama's opinions on "torture" are the only ones that matter. Under the Constitution, Congress makes laws. It doesn't decide whether legal action to enforce them should or should not be taken. That is up to the president.
"Here is the simple truth: President Barack Obama should not, and legally cannot, decide to prosecute or not prosecute anyone for using torture on prisoners"
But Obama did.
The fact is that Obama has already interfered in the normal process of non political prosecution by promoting a public trail in the press.
Obama has said interrogators will not be procecuted and lawyer will be procecuted.
Obama and Eric Holder took the coward's way out in refusing to use selective prosecutorial discretion to prosecute the alleged torture interrogators.
Instead the President and the Attorney General are holding a Public Trial in the newspapers without a jury.
On 4-20-2009, Obama said "With respect to those who formulate those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws....And I don't want to prejudge that. ... There are a host of very complicated issues involved there."
"Those who formulated" would include Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, Bob Graham, and others whose approval was required.
A public hanging by newspaper trial is more "torture" than interrogation by caterpillar (bug-in-a-box).
lazyfaire,
You are correct sir, as is Future (up to a point). It is up to the President to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed. The Justice Department is his tool for doing so. The President should never tell the Justice Department to back off an investigation where there is solid evidence of a crime. If the President doesn't want people prosecuted, let him exercise his power to pardon these people.
Future,
Nancy Pelosi has stated publicly that she was never told by the Bush Administration that torutre techniques were being used, only that they were being contemplated. Until we see some evidence indicating that she and other members of the Committee were aware of what was going on then we ought to be careful of hurling accusations.
Anyway, this insistence of those on the right in hammering away at Pelosi on the torture issue shows the moral bankruptcy of their position on torture from the very start. They assume that if Democrats are also made to pay the price for facilitating torture then those of us who want torturers punished will drop the issue. They assume that people are opposed to torture on political, rather than moral, grounds.
This position is so cynical it's beyond belief. Those of us who detest torture don't detest it only when the torturers are Republicans. We don't have respect for the rule of law only when lawbreakers are Republicans. And - unlike those who would justify torture - you won't find us tying ourselves into illogical knots and trying to deflect attention from those responsible in order to justify the indefensible.
What these torturers did was beyond any reasonable limit of decent human conduct. It was also against the law. Those who tortured and those who ordered torture need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of their political party. President Obama is wrong to stand in the way of a criminal investigation.
JohnF:
You seem to understand the Constitution, up to a point. You say, "the president should never tell the Justice Department to back off an investigation where there is solid evidence of a crime. If the president doesn't want people prosecuted, let him exercise his power to pardon these people." The power to pardon after a guilty verdict certainly must incorporate the power to order an end to an investigation, whether solid evidence exists or not. You're letting your conclusions run away with your reasoning. You want "torturers" punished, and you would even call your president, whom you adore, wrong for not prosecuting them.
As for all of your outrage about "torture," you are fulminating about nothing. Someone said that if the technique is something that you might see on a reality show, it isn't torture. Waterboarding, the most severe interrogation technique that occurred, is something you might someday see on a reality show. Detainees were put under stressful conditions, no question, but it wasn't torture. That the CIA broke them without doing any bodily harm attests to their cowardice. The techniques used saved American lives, and I commend them for it.
"That decision is reserved for the Justice Department (that is, the U.S. attorney general) and/or Congress."
Every one of you but lazyfaire and JohnF need to go back to school.
Our republican form of government has a Constitution and three separate but equal branches. Where do you think the Justice Dept. fits in? That's right, the executive. Who is the current executive? That's right.
Since you already know how to use the internet, at least to show your ignorance, you might want to look up a thing or to first. For this topic go to http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/
School's out, chilluns.
"The power to pardon after a guilty verdict certainly must incorporate the power to order an end to an investigation, whether solid evidence exists or not."
And there lies the abuse that got Nixon in trouble. Remember the "Saturday Night Massacre"?
The Justice Department must not be used by Presidents to bury inconvenient or damaging investigations. Justice, after all, must be impartial or else it loses ALL credibility.
"Nancy Pelosi has stated publicly that she was never told ... Until we see some evidence indicating...."
Will Obama release the information on Nancy Pelosi ....we will see.
Lazyfaire,
I suppose the President could pardon people for what they might have done, but DouglasDemocrat is correct in pointing out that that way leads to disaster. He also fails to mention that President Ford issued his pardon of President Nixon without Nixon ever being convicted of a crime. Where's the justice in that?
Saying I "adore" President Obama is going a bit far. He's much better than what we've had lately, he is far from perfect. This torture prosecution decision is one area where he is wrong.
You need to take a look at what the Geneva Convention, the UCMJ, and United States law define as torture. Waterboarding, forced prolonged stress positions, and sleep deprivation all fit the description and were all favorite tactics of Stalin. Read volume one of the Gulag Archipelago.
Our country has held that waterboarding is torture. We prosecuted and convicted several Japanese soldiers after World War II for war crimes specifically for waterboarding American prisoners. Torture is not something for which there is an evolving standard of indecency. What was torture then is torture now.
Evan Wallach, a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, wrote an excellent column on the subject for the Washington Post about a year and a half ago. I suggest you read it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
If waterboarding is not torture then you should be in favor of allowing it for all police investigations here in the United States. Whadda ya say?
JohnF -- excellent link to that Washington Post article! Shows the Imperial Bush Regime was not only criminal but hypocritical as well. No wonder the world hates U.S.
To back you up on this point, a post in another Discussion included the link for federal criminal law on point here. I give you the definition of torture under the federal criminal law - 18 USC Sec. 2340:
"As used in this chapter -
(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) "United States" means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
JohnF and KillerB:
I read the article and am unconvinced. The Japanese engaged in actual torture. In our post-war desire to hold them accountable for that, we apparently included waterboarding in the list of tortures. In a Japanese prison, that would have been the most benign technique used. If it was the worst they did, I doubt there would have been any "war crimes" trials.
Police forces must abide by civilian laws. The people they arrest have rights and cannot be subjected to punishment of any kind before due process is carried out. The individuals cited in the article should have been prosecuted, but that doesn't make waterboarding torture.
The Geneva Convention and the UCMJ provide no cover, either. Both apply to uniformed members of a legitimate military force. Terrorists, or enemy combatants, or insurgents, or whatever you want to call them are not protected by either. I served 25 years in the Air Force, and I know what's in them.
Supposedly, two prisoners were subjected to waterboarding 266 times. If that was 133 times each, you might think they would have figured out after maybe the fifth time that the procedure was not life-threatening. I don't feel sorry for those murdering cowards. They got better than they deserved, and if we succeeded in protecting heroic American soldiers, I am not only glad, I am proud.
""Those who formulated" would include Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, Bob Graham, and others whose approval was required."
You fundamentally (and probably intentionally) misinterpret what actually happens in briefings. Briefings are not forums. They do not request the approval of members of Congress. They do not need it. The decision to undertake these torturous methodologies were made by senior CIA officials and the Bush administration. Once that decision was made, any Congressional member with that knowledge was bound by to keep such information secret and could not consult their own staff, nor even their own attorney to verify if such behavior was legal.
The briefings are one-sided, members are informed of what's going on, not asked to approve individual methodologies, and even if they did object, their objections would hold no authority.
Future(2012), I challenged you on this before and you ran away with your tail between your legs when I asked you for proof of a vote. Your characterization of a briefing as something any member of Congress "approved" is evidence of your complete lack of understanding of the issue.
lazyfaire -- how does anything in your last post apply to me?
KillerB:
Perhaps I misread that you back up JohnF?
lazyfaire -- I liked the linked article. I then made my point about criminal hypocrisy. That was it regarding JohnF.
If you read the legislative notes to 18 USC 2340 you would see it was a prelude to the U.S. being a signatory to an international treaty on torture. Just one of the many treaties the U.S. has violated at will.
The threshold issue on all this is torture itself, not the finer points of the methods used and so on. Torture became national policy in spite of U.S. criminal law and the treaty it signed (international law which then became part of the Supreme Law here under the Supremacy Clause). This made the Bush Regime's executive directives to use torture, and Bush's repeated "the U.S. does not torture" criminal acts. No one is above the law, not even presidents and their lackeys.
For perspective I suggest you find and watch that excellent documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side." At least read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_(to...)
lazyfaire,
Perhaps you ought to acquaint yourself with the law.
The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. War crimes under the act include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It also includes violations of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; ...outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.
It is illegal under US law for Americans to violate the Geneva Conventions on torture.
A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined as an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control. A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victims death.
Note that the torture is illegal when inflicted on "another person within his custody or physical control." The law does not specify soldiers of some recognized military unit, only that it be a person in our custody.
You can't have it both ways with the civilian police forces. If waterboarding is a legitimate interrogation method, our police ought to be able to interrogate either one of us using waterboarding. Right?
lazyfaire,
You may have been in the Air Force for 25 years, but you obviously did not learn a lot about the UCMJ.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is a federal law, enacted by Congress. Its provisions are contained in United States Code, Title 10, Chapter 47.
From http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C...
"SEC. 1402. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
"(a) In General. - No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation."
That's "no person" not "no soldier in a formally recognized foreign military."
So please, tell me where the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation authorizes waterboarding or any other form of torture.
JohnF:
What is your military background? You obviously read a lot about the UCMJ and Geneva Convention, but you understand little about them. Your conclusions again are running away with your reasoning. Where does UCMJ prohibit waterboarding? Torture does not include making someone have a bad day. Nothing you offered would exclude waterboarding. We are dealing with people who want to kill us. They want to kill you. Maybe you want to give them a lollipop.
Some hurdles to overcome in your presentations.
UMCJ applies to military personnel.
None of the personnel who ran the water boarding were active military personnel.
Also water boarding was done before the Supreme Court (2006) ruled that Article III of the Geneva Convention covered non-state actors,like al-Qaeda terrorists, who are captured in a country that is a signee of the Geneva Convention Treaty. Before that point, the law was never understood by any US legal body or US executive body to cover captured non-state actors under Article III.
So if Obama's justice system wanted to prosecute an CIA employee they could not under UCMJ because the personnel were not US military.
They also can not retro-actively apply a court ruling and deem acts as criminal that were not considered criminal before the ruling.
That leaves 18 USC CHAPTER 113C which allows pain and suffering and short term mental harm to occur. It does not allow severe suffering and severe pain that results in prolong mental harm. One would have to prove that CIA employees knew that water boarding inflicted severe pain to a degree that prolong mental harm occurred.
Water boarding last less than one minute.
Many of our troops and CIA employees get water boarded during training.
Water boarding was used as a faternity hazing ritual at collegs like VMI where famous people like Gen. Marshall got water boarded.
There are news reporters that have been water boarded.
"There are news reporters that have been water boarded."
Yeas, and if you recall Christopher Hitchens lasted less than 30 seconds and then admitted it was torture. And Hitchens, who is one of the biggest proponents of the war on terror, was in a controlled environment where he could stop it at any time.
"You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it "simulates" the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning--or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure...I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: 'If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.' Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture." - Christopher Hitchens, August 2008
lets just face it...the far left liberal democrats and their sheep like followers are more concerned about the fellings of self proclaimed terrorists who want nothing more than destroy this country.....1,000's people died on 9/11....they continue to cowardly attack our military, who also have died, but please lets not make these cowards uncomfortable when trying to get info that will and HAS saved american lives.....lets worry about how they feel as more americans could die if we dont get info.... and its crazy with the ways we have done it there have been no further attacks on u.s. soil since 911....maybe the far left ultra liberal self serving cowardly democrats and their sheep followers need to thank the prior administration for that instead of trying to tear this counrty down further....
"maybe the far left ultra liberal self serving cowardly democrats and their sheep followers need to thank the prior administration for that instead of trying to tear this counrty down further...."
Simple concept, smoke - "I would not do something unlikely to work but likely to cost me my soul; I would uphold the laws of my nation and the norms of civilized society; I would in short be a morally responsible human being."
I had friends who were profoundly affected by 9/11. I was profoundly affected by 9/11. But NOTHING that happened that day justifies throwing everything we're supposed to stand for away because it's inconvenient.
We have principles, and laws, and morals. And they're supposed to be more than pretty words. And if you think for one second that I'm going to sit quietly while people discard them, you are sadly mistaken.
It's unbelievable that anyone in their right mind would even attempt to argue that waterboarding isn't torture - IT IS!
I know from experience, as a (former) professional soldier who volunteered to go through SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistence and Escape) training, waterboarding was a part of the core curriculum used to prepare us to resist this form of horrible mistreatment should we ever become POW (Prisoners Of War). Believe me, even when we were in a "controlled" training environment and had the advantage of academically understanding what each torture technique caused in the psycho/physical response of the human mind and body - the experience was still horrific!
I was able to struggle effectively enough to get a good full breath of air before the instructors started pouring water into my nostrils - (and, at the time, I was a combat experienced soldier and had matured into mid-career as a Non-Commissioned Officer) - keeping in mind that we had the option of signalling our submission and ending the exercise (by tapping out and slapping the side of our legs) - I lasted less than one minute!
Even when you fully understand what is happening - waterboarding IS drowning and the mind, your brain, is convinced you are drowning! Waterboarding does not just create the "sensation" of drowning - YOU ARE DROWNING!
Waterboarding is without any doubt torture! It is unquestionably a war crime and everyone involved should be investigated and punished!
We investigated and prosecuted the lower level enlisted personnel and a few NCO's - then, when that wasn't sufficient we, finally, prosecuted a General (relieving her of command and reducing her one rank to Colonel). But, some argue we should not investigate or punish anyone above this level?
Really! Why not?
Many members of the military did the right thing and refused to follow these illegal orders - they should be celebrated for doing the tough and right thing, at the risk of their careers, and being loyal to their sacred oath!
No one is above the rule of law! The farther up the chain-of-command, the more severe the punishment should be - even if the investgation leads all the way to the top at the White House under Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, Rove and whoever else is implicated - prosecute them all!
We "look back" everytime our law enforcement professionals investigate a crime - we MUST "look back" and do the right thing by upholding the rule of law and that NO ONE is above the law!
That is the only way America will be able to return to a position of honor - anything less will prove we have become a nation of hypocrits!
By doing the right thing our leaders can re-gain their footing on the foundation of the rule of law! Our intelligence agencies and our military are resilient enough to withstand this - and most want the investigation to go forward!
Investigate, Indict and Imprison EVERYONE found guilty!
I also want to say that I feel strongly that President Obama was wrong to give the CIA field operatives "a get out of jail free" card! I am open to the idea of giving them some degree of amnesty if they cooperate in the investigation - because it is the policy makers that should be held most accountable!
But, current and future intelligence community professionals need to learn the same lesson that the military learned after My Lai - remember My Lai folks? After that war crime we amended the oath of service to include the phrase "legal orders" and the military was educated on how to properly refuse to carry out any "illegal order" - the intelligence community will adapt O.K. also!
Every time the politicians and the diplomats fail we go to war - and every time, sooner or later, a few misguided (or poorly led) military personnel go too far and commit a war crime that is horrific and a shame to everyone that has ever worn the uniform - and everytime we should investigate and prosecute them to the full extent of the law - and we usually do so!
The rule of law either applies to everyone - or we become a nation of hypocrits headed for anarchy!
I'm hoping that the U.S. Attorney General has the cahones to do the right thing and objectively investigate and indict and imprison EVERYONE found guily - and the higher up the ladder the greater the punishment should be!
You know folks, had we put Nixon and Kissinger in jail - perhaps we never would have seen the criminal activities of recent history?
I say we build a special wing at Ft. Leavenworth for American Political Criminals (with one side made of bullet-proof plexi-glass) and much like in a zoo, have little walking paths with signs that explain why each is imprisoned so that our teachers can do field trips with kids and educate them about the consequences of not being a law abiding citizen!
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, Rove and their buddies should all be in prison for Life WithOut Parole (LWOP)! If we do THAT it will have a chilling effect on every lying, cheating, thieving, ballot box and pocket stuffing corrupt Republican AND Democrat in America - and it's just the right thing to do!
It's nonsense to believe that a chief executive's policy pronouncements do not affect the administration of departmental actions. That's a nice civics book notion but ignores the way governance actually happens. The Justice Department's investigation of Watergate headed by Henry Peterson moved slowly. Under Jimmy Carter, the "war on drugs" was deemphasized in favor of treatment. The Interior Department under James Watt frequently failed to enforce the law. The Nevada Climate Change Advisory Committee was instructed by state energy advisor Hatice Gecol not to assume that global warming exists, in line with Gov. Gibbons' "sound science" view. The tone is always set at the top and Attorney General Holder is surely going to listen to the man who appointed him.
Of course, "Attorney General Holder is surely going to listen to the man who appointed him" - then, hopefully, he'll do the right thing and re-read his oath of office and investigate the facts, follow the leads, and indict EVERYONE that is guility!
Anything less will be a historical travesty of justice and will seriously and adversely affect how America is FACTUALLY viewed in the international community, AND how our intelligence agencies and military decline professionally!
President Obama as Commander-In-Chief and U. S. Attorney Holder (as well as the U. S. Senate and House of Representatives) are about to show all of us just how committed they truly are to the rule of law - and I'm praying and hoping the Democrats won't disappoint us! But, to ensure that the right thing is done - EVERYONE should be crying out for JUSTICE! Only with pressure from the American public will our political leaders actually lead - history has shown us that repeatedly!
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - and the rule of law either applies to everyone or we're all hypocrits!
Now, before any radical, right-wing, neo-con, nut-cases chime in let me make it very clear that I fully support hunting down, capturing or killing every terrorist on the face of the earth! But, we must first surge our politically and diplomatically, while responsibly getting out of Iraq and using the new Counter-Insurgency and Intelligence Model while consolidating our international law enforcement resources!
It's time for America to stop misbehaving like a bunch of dysfunctional, misguided bullies - and getting down to business in a professional manner by doing the right things!
Johnathan:
Thanks for sharing your experience. It's interesting that I keep reading about people's actual experiences with waterboarding, and to a man, they all agree it is torture. I have yet to read even a single account of someone who has undergone it who claims it is not.
Thanks Shannon,
What is even more interesting, (if someone just does a little research on the history of torture) - is that these horrific acts were developed, not by us, but by America's enemies!
While the NATO Nations, at least, make a serious attempt to limit collateral damage, and try to follow the rules of warfare, including the Geneva Conventions - (and keeping in mind that the only reason we put our military through SERE training is to educate, attempt to prepare them and emphasize how very important it is NOT to become a POW) - the Bush Administration decided to ADOPT THESE UNQUESTIONABLY ILLEGAL AND HORRIFIC WAR CRIMES COMMITTED BY OUR ENEMIES!
It is no wonder Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, Rove and the rest should be blamed for causing the biggest "surge" in terrorists recruiting in history!
People, PEOPLE WAKE UP - no crimes get anymore serious than WAR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY - we should all be DEMANDING JUSTICE NOW!
There's a saying that the fight for progress is not a battle between good and evil, but between differing views of good. One of the interesting things about many of these postings is the assertion that the ONLY way to serve the public interest and achieve justice is through punitive action and prosecution. In South Africa, the establishment of an independent Truth and Reconciliation Commission allowed the truth about the apartheid years to come out without creating greater divisions within an already divided society. Victims of state action were allowed to tell their stories. Perpetrators were allowed to tell their stories and by so doing escaped prosecution. The torture issue has created divisions in the United States, undercutting our own image of ourselves. I frankly would prefer to see prosecution of some of the Bush people, but I'm not self centered enough to think that mine is the only view that matters. I can easily understand a decision by Obama to follow a different policy.
For me, this is NOT about being partisan at all - if Democrats are found to be criminally negligent or culperable they too should be held accountable under the rule of law - this is only about getting to the truth and achieving justice!
I, like most Americans, want the truth, the whole truth and only the truth to determine our path forward - and to do that we must look backward and find the facts!
Certainly, I could easily see where the outcome would be that American torturers are better than Stalinists, Nazis or Communists tortureres - but, then, that would be another argument worthy of debate now wouldn't it?
Keep in mind Bush could easily argue an idiots defense while Cheney, Rumsfield and Rice could argue an insanity based defense - and Rove could easily prove his defense as a sick sociopath!
Frankly, I don't think anyone, with rare exceptions, in the top 5% of our royal society will ever be held fully accountable or appropriately punished under the rule of law - even if found guilty!
Remember what Nixon said, "If the President does it, then it's NOT illegal!" With that accepted precedent, what's in the way of extending that illogical thought to all of Bush's buddies? Oh, and let's not forget Miss Jones Defense - "The Devil Made Me Do It!"
PUHLEEEZE PEOPLE - Let's GET REAL for CHANGE!
Johnathan,
Thank you so much for your postings. I hope that the posters arguing about waterboarding not being torture, will shut up on the subject after reading your posts. I do not understand their mentality, especially when there have been so many documented reports by people who have been there and know first hand what is and has been going on under bush, cheney, rove, rice, rumsfeld, et.al.
I have been so ashamed of this pack of dogs, especially when traveling and listening to people from all over the world. This country has been disgraced, raped, and pillaged by this group and they all should have been swinging next to Hussein for their war crimes and crimes against humanity. Especially for the deaths and the maimed young American soldiers in Iraq. God bless them for their courage.
How I hope and pray that they are all brought to justice and put on display for the whole world to see.
Thank you.
Dear Transplanted,
THANKS! Perhaps "Uncle Jay" (who helps small minds understand big news) can answer your question best - just follow this link:
http://unclejayexplains.com/2009/04/26/u...
After we finish the investigation on torture - then, maybe, just maybe, we can ask some other really good questions like "What should we do when a small group of liars, lie to their favorite big group of liars, who, then lie to all of the American people and actually get away with lying the United States into an unethical, immoral, unnecessary, illegal and Unjust War in Iraq - that costs thousands of innocent American lives, causing tens of thousands of innocent casualties and nearly destroys an entire culture?
But, those sorts of questions are really, Really, REALLY BIG QUESTIONS that few adults want to address right away (or at all) - first we have to figure out if waterboarding is torture or just gives people a running nose and upsets their tummies?
You see, I'm betting that there are a whole lot of people claiming ignorance that are really afraid that the common American peasentry might find out their dirty deeds too!
Respectfully, I must disagree with your analogy of Bush, et al to a "pack of dogs" - I actually think that's really being unfair to the dogs!
I'm thinking more along the line of rabid rats!
So, first, it seems we have to give the Congressional Committees their fair share of time to screw this up even more - then, I'm hoping they'll suceed, at least, in uncovering enough to raise the passion of the people who will demand that we turn it all over to an international tribunal of the "allies of the willing" and let them weigh in with professional legal perspectives!
You know, like we did after WWI, WWII, and Korea?
Hey, maybe, just maybe, they'll not only give LWOP to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, Rove and their Rabid Rats - but, may they'll also recommend that everyone that voted for the Unjust War in Iraq should be removed from public service and sent back packing home in shame?
Then America could hold her head high again!
Absolutely agree! Pres. Obama, the former constitutional law professor, appears to have no understanding of the U.S. Constitution in this and other cases, such as FISA.
The decision to prosecute torture, as you said, is not in Pres. Obama's hands. I knew he'd be a freakin' wimp except when he and his minions ruthlessly suppressed Hillary Clinton delegates during his campaign, and that's why I voted for Hillary.
She would have done this right.
The notion that the Constitution in some way bars the president from making decisions concerning prosecution is absurd on its face. The president is specifically charged in Article II with the duty to "take care that the laws are faithfully exectued"; part of that duty uquestionably entails the power and duty to exercise prosecutorial discretion. The Constitution makes no mention whatsoever of an Attorney General, whose office is a creature of statute, not the Constitution.
For those who think otherwise, please answer the following question: Was it unconstitutional for the President to declare that the CIA people who acted in good faith would not be prosecuted? Where did he get that power? How could he invoke that power on behalf of the CIA people, but be unable to do so on behalf of those who wrote the memos?