President Obama Must Prosecute
56Obama: Torture Revisited
President Obama has recently announced that he is open to the idea of investigating and ultimately prosecuting Bush administration officials who gave support to justifications and the policies that permitted the use of torture. This announcement comes after weeks of mainstream protest over Obama’s earlier announcement of seeking answers but not necessarily prosecutions for the individual agents and operators who actually conducted the enhanced interrogation techniques authorized by the Bush administration. The original statement on amnesty for torturers was vague enough to allow Obama to shift the focus to the leadership of the torture justification hierarchy in the face of the public resistance to the idea of simply letting people go.
In looking to the future, as Obama has stated he wants his administration to do, one must often times engage the past. This was demonstrated in post-WWII Germany and the Nuremberg Trials. When one wants to make a clean break with the past, it is necessary to address and prosecute the abuses of the past to ensure prevention for future generations. This is what the law, both domestically and internationally, has come to tell us; and it is rightly what we as a people now expect. This isn’t some knee jerk reaction to the headiness of obtaining power; it is the rightful and necessary reconciliation of what the US stands for, legally and philosophically, and how the Bush administration abused those principles. It is must never be allowed that the government servant’s immunity from civil litigation as a consequence of job-related actions be translated into criminal immunity. It must also never be allowed that governmental service at high level proscribe efforts at prosecution in such an obvious case of abuse of fundamental legal and ethical principles. Finally, it must not be allowed that high office be a shield against investigation and prosecution for criminal abuse of the law, as this abrogates the principle of equal protection under the law and declares privileged protection.
There are many reasons for Obama to prefer not opening this door, regardless of what he may have said on the campaign trail. There are ramifications for the Presidency and governance in general in holding the previous officials accountable for their actions. Some of the ramifications are becoming visible in the GOP’s admittedly weak call for investigation, not only for the responsible chain of command, but also for legislators, including many Democrats, who had knowledge of the interrogation procedures through their membership in various intelligence committees and sub-committees. Another worry is that the precedent set would possibly permit the later introduction of wholly partisan investigations and prosecutions over trivialities. It is possible, that, if not carefully managed, the prosecution of former Bush administration officials over the abuses of human and civil rights under the various War on Terror policies, subsequent administrations may be victimized by out of office partisan witch hunts. Fear of partisan retribution for later administrations has been part of the reason for the new administration’s reluctance to fully engage the issues of War on Terror- justified abuse of foreign and American laws as well as citizens and their rights.
No less an authority than John McCain, tortured himself in Vietnam, has claimed that Bush era enhanced interrogation techniques constitute torture. Though Senator McCain’s torture was more physically and mentally egregious and dangerous than the recent US policy provided for, his opinion on this matter counts. He personally understands that all of these techniques are damaging to the dignity and integrity of people, and that such methods are not acceptable practice for a nation of law. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines torture as: a) anguish of body or mind b) something that causes agony or pain. This is their primary definition. The policies of the Bush administration meet these criteria. The Geneva Convention Against Torture defines torture in Part 1, Article 1: “For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” Here too, the Bush policies meet the criteria. Whether the “enemy combatants” fit the role of Enemy Prisoners of War or not is a non-argument. The US has laws prohibiting torture of anyone; there is absolutely no body of writing or law which can be used to justify the actions conducted under the Bush administration. Attempting to conduct illegal and deplorable acts outside of US territory is still punishable by US law. And as the decisions to permit these acts were made on US territory, in Washington, DC, then there is certainly jurisdictional authority.
The United States has a legal, moral, and ethical obligation to prosecute those responsible for these abuses. There is absolutely no way around this fact, and President Obama must lay aside fears of future retribution to ensure against acts of future violation. As Shepard Smith said, emphatically and repeatedly, “This is America, we don’t torture!” It is against everything we are, and if even a former President must go to prison over it, then let the law prevail.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
According to Human Rights First, 100 detainees died while in US detention, of these, 34 have been confirmed by the Pentagon as having been suspected or actual cases of murder. As the detainees usually have little or no contact without one another absent close supervision, the murders were necessarily caused by those detaining them. If the actions of a captor directly lead to the death of a captive, then the captor has, by definition, engaged in torture en route to the murder. Bush policy makers devised and signed off on the fallacious legal framework permitting the abuses; therefore they are responsible.
I have a fairly good understanding of the law, your ad hominem attack notwithstanding. The time for prosecutorial discretion will be arrived at only after investigation, not before. And so we should only prosecute those guilty of property crimes and ignore the perpetrators of violence within our ranks? My outrage against the terrorists is as deep and great as my outrage against the enemies of our Constitution, which I swore to protect and defend, who recently ruled this land. To have the country’s outrage against the terrorists turned into an oil-grab and rationale to ignore the Constitution is as great an act of terrorism as I, or anyone, have ever seen.
Citing illegal immigration as a worse problem than torture is a red herring argument. Illegal immigration has very little real negative impact upon the economy and even crime. Illegal immigrants usually take jobs that are open because the average American doesn’t want the work that they normally do. Illegal immigrants usually commit no further crime than their immigration, while immigrant neighborhoods containing both legal and illegal immigrants (typically more of the latter) have lower crime rates than do neighborhoods demographically dominated by citizens. We have citizens who go unprosecuted for even violent crimes- sometimes they wear uniforms.
As for what America is, and your ad hominem attack on my statement; there are many perfectly valid interpretations, and they depend upon a wide variety of possible viewpoints. America is an ugly expression of the open contest in the marketplace of ideas. It is a country where monied interests dominate the political landscape and the individual is far too often crushed beneath the political and economic might of irresponsible behemoths of the military-industrial complex of which President Eisenhower warned us. America is also the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. America, like all political entities, has always been plagued with hypocrisies, such as that expressed by those who signed off on the proposition that all men are created equal while continuing to hold slaves. Shepard Smith and I, while we disagree on many topics, have on this issue chosen to express our belief in the ideal of America and our desire to truly see that ideal pursued in the execution of our government. I know the truth, and it has many facets, some are attractive while many are not; prosecution of those responsible for torture may polish an ugly facet- the War on Terror.
This is sufficient response, I think, to your irrational, emotional, illogical points, thank you.
You made no statements contradicting my opinion that had any facts or references.
Water boarding is not real torture, the terrorists do real torture, and then they wack the heads off of their prisoners. These are the people that you are backing, and you say that my points are irrational and illogical.
I don't get any impression from your comment that you have any idea about what the law is and how it is applied as opposed to how the founders of the country had a vision on how it should by applied.
Platitudes and political mantras are not bringing any reasoning to the support of your hub.
Maybe you should consider supporting the victims of the terrorists and how they had no rights at all, when the terrorists bombed them or killed them in violent ways.
It starting to sound like you are one of them.
You know where I am.
Impressively specious and fallacious. There are neither platitudes nor political mantras in my hub, although they abound in your comments; I wonder if you understand the meanings of these words, seeing as how eager you are to engage in insult. Your understanding of law, the Founding Fathers, history, politics, and the Constitution of the US seems to be lacking in both breadth and depth.
I wonder how long you spent in defense of this country.
Chickenhawks abound; real men are few.
I sent a copy of this to whitehouse.gov
Iconoclast
Looks like you also know very little about illigal immigration.
Glad to get a challenge from one who can't spell illegal. I trust your expertise on the topic is as great as your ability to spell it. The bulk of serious crimes surrounding illegal immigration are perpetrated against the immigrants, not by them; this is true in practically every country. The last time I looked at the matter, here in the US, those illegals who commit felonies and are successfully prosecuted usually do their time for the crime(s) committed and are then turned over to the INS.
Everybody makes typo errors. You are not excluded unless you are perfect.
Come to Los Angeles and check out all the crimes and prove your theories.
Not theories, statements of fact based on national law enforcement databases as well as court records. No need for me to go to LA, as I lived in Chicago and saw evidence that only backs up the data. And if I recall correctly, most crime in LA is committed by US citizens. Want me to check?
Do you believe every database that is cooked up?
Do you ever watch the news? Come to LA and see the daily crimes committed by latinos. You must be one of their lovers. You do not recall correctly anything.
Obama is going to save you.
Andrew,
You probably live in LA instead of remote KY! Thanks for your comments.
Wow, you guys are scared and scary. And you would believe everything cooked up by the media over professional law enforcement records? Again, wow!
Oh, and in all this talk about immigration, everyone forgot that the post was about terrorism and waterboarding. If you are going to comment, please try to be accurate, factual, and relevant.
Iconoclast, if you think that the Nuremburg trials got all of the Nazis, think again. There were so many exceptions made for political issues that those trials had about as much impact as the old Treason Against the Soviet Union trials in the 1930's.
Our politicians will never prosecute misconduct in their ranks because they know that someday they may be in the crosshairs of a prosecutor trying to make a name for himself. Speaking of such prosecuters, do you hear much from Mike Nifong lately?
All wars have atrocities. Every side in a war participates in them. That's one of the things that makes war so horrible. You might have scored points if you discussed how the conflict was mismanaged and could have been conducted better, but you decided to make cheap partisan remarks.
By the way, how do you like the fact that Papa Obama has decided to start up the tribunals again? It must be OK, though, because it's Papa Obama and not some white guy form Texas. Looks like he's on track to keep Guantanamo open too. And what's this, he's expanding our troop commitments in Afghanistan. That should play great and distract the masses when the rest of the economy goes by the wayside in a year or so.
As for the US doesn't torture, tell that to the Iranian Savak, who got lessons from the CIA on how to extract information from people. Or the Korean CIA for that matter. What about the undeclared war they fought using Air America as a front during the Vietnam War? And all of that is just after the Second World War, I could go on and on pulling examples during and before the War. I suggest you read a little bit more history and a little less political propaganda.
Welcome back ledefensetech.
Iconoclast must be a prosecuter!
You know your history. Thanks
Sorry, Bernie, I am an analyst, with an eye to pragmatism. As for your buddy, abuses do happen, even in police work, but top down policy to do so is anti-American. Many years ago, I took an oath to protect, not the flag, but the Constitution of these United States from all enemies; you and yours are those enemies.
I got it, you are an analyst in law enforcement.
You are in the middle of Obama's forrest and don't see the trees.
During my 43 years in the aerospace industry I had to analyse many problems as a quality engineer. My problem always was with the facts, where they came from and how accurate they were. Many times I was pressured by management to pick only the data the corporation wanted. Get the picture?
No, you don't have it, and it has been 18 years since I was blinded by the trees.
You are a reformed conservative christian republican according to your site. Please explain!
Reformed?
Conservative?
Christian?
Republican?
In more than 20 years of study, all of these ideologies were disproven as fallacious.
So that means your beliefs are deceiving and misleading. You are now reformed and are no longer a conservative, christian and republican. You are now a liberal democrat, I guess.
It means that the belief systems behind being Christian, conservative, and Republican were all based on falsehoods. And liberal Democrat may be the diametric opposition, but it isn't the only possibility. At least I am no longer deceived by fairy tales.
Now you are getting closer to what I believe. So why not remove your party affiliation on your site and spill out your beliefs. Be transparent. Don't hide behind your feelings. We will never agree on everything but can agree on some issues.
I haven't listed a party affiliation here, and my current beliefs, unlike my former ones, have little to do with how I feel as opposed to what I think works better for the greatest majority, including most of the minorities.
You list your affiliation on your main page. That is where hubbers go to when they want to know more about a person,s profile. Don't you get that? Votre intelligence n'est pas tres bonne.
Seulement que mon appartenance a parti etait une fois. I don't have foreign accent mark capability or same screen multi-lingual; so, that is missing, but not incorrect. This comment thread is now longer than the original post.......... has been for a while.
Just so no one falsely believes that I wrote this hub as a partisan gesture, I also believe that former President Bill Clinton and former Attorney General Janet Reno should be held accountable for the murders at Waco.
Yes, absolutely, Janet Reno should have been accountable for her actions.
May be it is now time to close this original post.
Just to let you know, I'm affiliated with the Independent party so I can vote. I always vote accross party lines to fit my beliefs and hope for a better America.
Au revoir.
Murders at Waco? Hey Iconoclast are you talking about the murders of the Federal Agents who were serving a valid warrant when they were fired upon? As much as I dislike Janet Reno and Bill Clinton I don't think you can blame them for the murderous actions of a cult leader.
But after reading your delusions about law and how its applied maybe you can blame the innocent!
Sorry, but the agents serving the warrant at Waco had an invalid warrant. The list of weapons allegedly in possession of the Branch Davidians that gave probable cause justification for the warrant was phony. Over half of the weapons listed in the warrant do not exist. The other half were perfectly legal to own. They fabricated the reasoning. One instance: among the weapons listed, an M16E2- there was no such thing at the time.
issues veritas says:
8 months ago
Your last paragraph, indicates you have no real knowledge of the law. Among other things there is prosecutorial discretion whether to bring a case to court.
We have ILLEGAL ALIENS, that are not prosecuted, some even in cases where they have committed crimes, some even violent.
I suspect, that you and Shepard Smith have no idea how messed the Congress and the Presidents made America. So saying this is America, no longer has any positive meaning.
Torture like pornography is an elusive and subjective term, but bombings and killings of civilians including women and children is terrorism.
Where is your condemnation against the terrorists and their heinous acts, here and all around the world?
Isn't the United States of America in enough with the economic collapse, loss of jobs, companies going out of business etc. You want the country to waste precious resources and time taking care of your vindictive emotional and irrational vendetta.
Do give me that the law is the law, because it just doesn't work that way, thanks to your type of reasoning and values.
The elected politicians in the government aren't even under the same laws that they pass for us to observe, this included but is not limited to discrimination and minimum wages.
Your absolutes in the matter of the law, is absurd and further indicates your total ignorance of the law in "America".
Now, don't get all worked up about my comments. If you have facts, then tell me what they are and how they have been applied by the laws in America?