Bush Administration & Torture

[Michael]

If there is one issue that Obama needs to get 'out in front of' it is the issue of torture. This issue isn't going away. It has been slowly building up pressure for a couple of years now and the 'rage' of the people against the Government on this issue appears to be continuing to rise. On this basis, Obama continues to thumb his nose at the citizenry and the rule of law at great risk to his political future.

Another few months of Obama stonewalling this issue will likely succeed only in making Obama "own" the issue politically speaking. And why Obama wants to go to the wall and throw away all his public integrity to protect the Bush Administration officials who ordered the use of torture is beyond me.

Yoo and Bybee ought to be thrown under the bus - now! They deserve a full investigation and a fair trail - and long term jail sentences if found guilty. Nothing less will make this issue go away. Obama is totally on the wrong side of this issue. No one wants to "forgive and forget" when it comes to the US Government breaking the law and torturing people.

Failure to prosecute law-breakers is an invitation for more law-breaking. I personally will refuse to believe that the US Government does not routinely torture people until I see some high ranked US officials charged with the crime - since there is clear evidence that the crime was committed. Until that time, Obama Administration protestations that "the US Government doesn't do torture" will be highly suspect.

Do you support the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate and potentially lay criminal charges against Bush Administration officials who may have broken the law in ordering the use of torture?

[partofme]

Of course he should. Things are so charged here regarding him that anything he does will piss people off anyway so he should at least take a stand.

[dilettante]

I'm unsure how to vote here.
The poll question asks "Should Bush Admin lawyers be charged?", to which my answer would be "I don't know." But the OP asks " Do you support the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate and potentially lay criminal charges..." to which I think I would answer "Yes...but probably not right now."

I agree that Obama should come down firm on the "we do not torture" message and that a couple heads need to roll if that message is going to be taken seriously. But I think that kind of direct move against a past administration over a controversial issue would quickly take over his agenda and spoil any chance of his having a (relatively) amiable peaceful first term.
Not that my opinion on such things is worth anything, but I'd suggest he have a team quietly and unobtrusively assemble the facts in preparation for launching a real investigation in late 2010 or 2011. That would keep the acrimony to a minimum while he tries to cope with the economic situation and changes in Iraq, and then, allow him to raise the issue in time for the next election, but still see to it that whatever "justice" is to be had does get meted out.

But then I don't know much about the nuances here. If there's anyone who is blatantly guilt and who could be taken down without the Congress dissolving into bitter, acrimonious infighting, then by all means he should throw the book at them,.

[Michael]

I'm unsure how to vote here.
The poll question asks "Should Bush Admin lawyers be charged?", to which my answer would be "I don't know." But the OP asks " Do you support the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate and potentially lay criminal charges..." to which I think I would answer "Yes...but probably not right now."
The forum software has severe limits on the size of the poll question. I just couldn't get a decent question to fit under the size limit.

[Greendruid]

I'm sensing that this may be another area of difference between American and Canadian politics but please correct me if I'm wrong - I'm a novice at the political histories of both of our nations.

My perception thus far as a Canadian voter has been that current administrations are more than willing, perhaps even eager, to find any opportunity to publicly condemn and bring to justice the actions of former administrations. This has happened to such an extent as to spoil the greatest Prime Minister we could have had in Paul Martin very recently. He isn't even the guy that did anything wrong either! His party under the previous administration of the Chrétien government was involved in some shady backroom deals promoting nationalism and Liberal party support in the province of Québec.

As for the current actions of Obama, I agree 100% with Michael's assessment here and I think that his record of doing what's right needs some real attention in this area. That is not to say that GWB was the only past president to do this sort of thing, just the most recent.

[Michael]

I'm sensing that this may be another area of difference between American and Canadian politics but please correct me if I'm wrong - I'm a novice at the political histories of both of our nations.

My perception thus far as a Canadian voter has been that current administrations are more than willing, perhaps even eager, to find any opportunity to publicly condemn and bring to justice the actions of former administrations. This has happened to such an extent as to spoil the greatest Prime Minister we could have had in Paul Martin very recently. He isn't even the guy that did anything wrong either! His party under the previous administration of the Chrétien government was involved in some shady backroom deals promoting nationalism and Liberal party support in the province of Québec.
I agree - there certainly is a long history of Canadian governments going after previous governments for any illegal behavior committed in office - including putting politicians or senior bureaucrats in jail for it (almost always, its the politicians breaking the law - the professional civil service bureaucrats are usually the whistle-blowers!).

Heck, there's government hearings going on right now with former PM Brian Mulroney still trying to clear his name on the Airbus scandal from twenty years ago. Previous rounds of these hearings could have put Mulroney in jail and they still could.

As for the current actions of Obama, I agree 100% with Michael's assessment here and I think that his record of doing what's right needs some real attention in this area. That is not to say that GWB was the only past president to do this sort of thing, just the most recent.
The key is that Obama got elected by people perceiving that he was different than the usual 'insider-type' politician. This is Obama's strongest electoral asset.

If Obama doesn't get out in front of this issue, it will show Obama is just another 'insider-type' politician out to protect the 'inside-Washington' set and that would be electoral suicide for Obama in 2012.

Plus there is the fact that Obama is constitutionally sworn to uphold US laws and international treaties, Obama is legally obligated to investigate and press charges if evidence of wrong-doing exists. The Spainish High Court has just referenced this specific fact in essentially putting a 'stay' on the charges against six Bush officials - asserting that it would be improper for Spain to move on this issue because the USA is the proper venue for the issue. But if Obama keeps blocking, then the Spanish will likely be eventually forced to move on the issue and that will just keep this issue alive years down the road. Either Obama puts this issue to bed NOW or it will fester for decades to come as other foreign nations will likely follow the Spanish example here. Bush has LOTS of international enemies - don't underestimate them! Obama might want to forgive and forget, but others don't share this viewpoint.

Obama has the legal power to grant pardons, but to do so before the investigation is bizarre and feeds the perception that he's trying to hide something.

(As for what might need to be hidden is the fact that some Congressional Democrats may have signed off on this stuff - they signed off on pretty much everything else including warrentless wiretapping, retroactive immunity, Patriot Act, Gitmo, Iraq War, etc.)

[dilettante]

According to NPR today, Obama has announced that he is "open" to such investigations and prosecutions if the Attorney General deems them to be worth pursuing, though he also expressed concern that any such actions not appear to be rooted in partisan power grabs.

[Michael]

According to NPR today, Obama has announced that he is "open" to such investigations and prosecutions if the Attorney General deems them to be worth pursuing, though he also expressed concern that any such actions not appear to be rooted in partisan power grabs.
That would be good news if it is real. Obama is developing a reputation for talking a bigger game than he delivers though. He's walked back on several issues of principle already. Lets hope that Obama sees the writing on the wall on this issue.

I think the key issue here is that the rest of the world is NOT going to let go of the issue. If the US Government doesn't investigate possible criminal charges, some other nation likely will and that will drag this issue on for the next 10-15 years. I don't think that's good for anyone.

A special independent prosecutor needs to be appointed to deal with this. I don't trust Obama not to do a cursory investigation for the purpose of burying this since Obama has wanted to bury this issue from day one.

[Dominick]

I've voted "don't care". Both in this case and generally I don't care much for reprisal/vengeance/justice or whatever what one wants to call it after the facts. Preventing it would have been another matter.
Neither do I think that organizations such as the CIA, the NSA, Army Intelligence, let alone private contractors such as Blackwater care a jot whether what they do is legal or not.

Nor do I think that the rest of the world is all that concerned except in posturing and political empty-talk. Economical interests with the USA are far too important.

[Donkey]

I do want people to pay for this. I think it will do two things: one is serve justice. The other is remind people, including the current admin, that just because you're the president or under his branch doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.

Also,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8013759.stm

[Michael]

I've voted "don't care". Both in this case and generally I don't care much for reprisal/vengeance/justice or whatever what one wants to call it after the facts. Preventing it would have been another matter.

Given the nature of American politics to believe that anything that is not explicitly stated (and punished) as illegal is held to be legal, I believe that it is imperative to demonstrate the illegality here with a full investigation (and charges if applicable) or it will be repeated.

Neither do I think that organizations such as the CIA, the NSA, Army Intelligence, let alone private contractors such as Blackwater care a jot whether what they do is legal or not.
They don't and they won't - until one of their number is in jail for it that is. That will get their attention like nothing else will.

Nor do I think that the rest of the world is all that concerned except in posturing and political empty-talk. Economical interests with the USA are far too important.
Actually, the US loss of moral authority is already showing up institutionally on an international level. For example, the IMF and World Bank have both been forced recently to drop the (informal but consistent) requirement of a US leader. You can bet the next leader of the World Bank won't be an American - there is strong opposition to Americans in world positions right now.

Anyways, as I noted in my previous posts, the world legal systems do feel very strongly about this (witness the strong support for Spain's indigtment of Pinochet). The international support for chargine American officials over torture is even greater - and will last just as long. Meaning, either the Americans deal with this ugly business or someone else will.

Spain already has a case on the books ready to go. Given the evidence already publically available, any 'fair trial' in a competent court of law is likely going to be short and sweet. The whole battle of the Bush Administration figures presently is focused on preventing the charges in the first case - they instinctively know that they are going to lose as soon as a court gets near the issue. Thus, the game is to prevent any investigation that might lead to charges.

The bottom line is that any law that is not vigorously enforced is a law that doesn't exist.

I can't imagine that you favor a general prescedent for the legalization of torture to be established here. :ummm:

[Michael]

I do want people to pay for this. I think it will do two things: one is serve justice. The other is remind people, including the current admin, that just because you're the president or under his branch doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
Indeed.

If the law is not enforced with repercussions for lawbreakers, the law ceases to exist.

[Donkey]

So I'm not even going to pretend to be non-partisan on this, since I'm sure if it were the other way round, I'd want the former veep to be clamoring about anything that I disliked about the current admin, but does anybody else think that it's time for Cheney to STFU?

[Americano]

So I'm not even going to pretend to be non-partisan on this, since I'm sure if it were the other way round, I'd want the former veep to be clamoring about anything that I disliked about the current admin, but does anybody else think that it's time for Cheney to STFU?

He seems to have a longer shelf-life than what I expected. Do enough voters still respect his opinions/policy to gather audience share or does media value him as a freak show attraction?

[Donkey]

He seems to have a longer shelf-life than what I expected. Do enough voters still respect his opinions/policy to gather audience share or does media value him as a freak show attraction?
I don't rightly know. I suppose reporting on the ex-VP talking shit sells, so they publish it.

[Dominick]

Given the nature of American politics to believe that anything that is not explicitly stated (and punished) as illegal is held to be legal, I believe that it is imperative to demonstrate the illegality here with a full investigation (and charges if applicable) or it will be repeated.

They don't and they won't - until one of their number is in jail for it that is. That will get their attention like nothing else will.
When does that ever happen ? A few token footsoldiers on occasion but never the instigators. Putting it in the lawbooks is just a feelgood factor for those that are horrified by it.


Anyways, as I noted in my previous posts, the world legal systems do feel very strongly about this (witness the strong support for Spain's indigtment of Pinochet). The international support for chargine American officials over torture is even greater - and will last just as long. Meaning, either the Americans deal with this ugly business or someone else will.

Spain already has a case on the books ready to go. Given the evidence already publically available, any 'fair trial' in a competent court of law is likely going to be short and sweet. The whole battle of the Bush Administration figures presently is focused on preventing the charges in the first case - they instinctively know that they are going to lose as soon as a court gets near the issue. Thus, the game is to prevent any investigation that might lead to charges.
Even if this trial in Spain ever gets under foot and even if it would have the outcome you expect, then what ? The USA is oging to extradite top officials to Spain ? Never gonna happen.


The bottom line is that any law that is not vigorously enforced is a law that doesn't exist.
Precisely, that's why it's a waste of time and effort to put a law in the books that will never be used anyway.


I can't imagine that you favor a general prescedent for the legalization of torture to be established here. :ummm:
I don't. I just don't care about feelgood laws.

[Michael]

I just don't care about feelgood laws.
Precisely why I want to see the law enforced here with a full investigation and possible criminal charges for the senior instigators.

Anything less will turn the law into exactly that - a "feelgood law" that exists on paper and nothing more.

[Michael]

Well well, interesting developments in the ongoing torture scandal...

Reagan's DOJ Prosecuted Texas Sheriff For Waterboarding Prisoners

George W. Bush's Justice Department said subjecting a person to the near drowning of waterboarding was not a crime and didn't even cause pain, but Ronald Reagan's Justice Department thought otherwise, prosecuting a Texas sheriff and three deputies for using the practice to get confessions.

Federal prosecutors secured a 10-year sentence against the sheriff and four years in prison for the deputies. But that 1983 case - which would seem to be directly on point for a legal analysis on waterboarding two decades later - was never mentioned in the four Bush administration opinions released last week.

The failure to cite the earlier waterboarding case and a half-dozen other precedents that dealt with torture is reportedly one of the critical findings of a Justice Department watchdog report that legal sources say faults former Bush administration lawyers - Jay Bybee, John Yoo and Steven Bradbury - for violating "professional standards."

Source (http://www.antemedius.com/content/reagans-doj-prosecuted-texas-sheriff-waterboarding-prisoners-0)

This is a perfect example of the insanity going on in Washington trying to assert that torture is legal.

Fact is, torture is illegal in the USA for darn good reasons. Reagan understood this - why can't the modern Republican party that worships him do the same?

[Greendruid]

I'd cite this as a confirmation of the system working for once - a blow to Big Brother conspiracies if you will. Were it not the case, that little piece of history would be so far buried as to effectively not exist. Thank goodness someone in the process had the "institutional memory" to pull this one out. Mr. Bush and his respective goons, rebuttle?