One of the issues that our new President has to face is the call to investigate and possibly prosecute members of the Administration of George W Bush for a myriad of crimes, most importantly torture.
President Obama has made it clear he would prefer not to go there. He understands, as most do, that prosecuting members of the previous administration would be a major distraction from what he is trying to accomplish, would damage his efforts to move forward on issues in a Bipartisan fashion, and might, in the end, only yield minor convictions of peripheral characters.
He should do it anyway.
I have no interest in seeing Congress doing the investigating. It would be immediately politicized, Congress would give immunity to people we should be investigating or even prosecuting, and they have more important things to do.
Attorney General Eric Holder should appoint a Special Prosecutor. Perhaps Patrick Fitzgerald after he is done with Blogovich. Or a career prosecutor that was hired by the Bush Justice Department, or another holdover US Attorney.
There is little doubt that employees of the United States Government tortured people held in their custody. The Convening Authority for the Military Tribunals has already dismissed all charges against one of the prisoners held at GITMO specifically that person had been tortured by military interrogators. President Bush admitted to and defended water boarding of prisoners. At the end of WWII we prosecuted Japanese Officers for Water boarding our prisoners. How can we argue that we are above the law, that its OK for us to torture?
The Bush Administration argued exactly that. They were wrong. Torture is immoral and illegal.
It is also clear that the Bush Administration monitored the phone calls, some of them purely domestic phone calls, without a warrant. A clear and unequivocal violation of the Constitution ever Military Officer and every President swears to protect.
One of the ways that we can and should recover our standing in the world is by showing that we don't' hold ourselves to be above our own laws, let alone international laws.
As an aside, were the tables reversed, I have no doubt that a Republican Administration, and/or a Republican controlled congress would pursue those investigations with vigor.
We must pursue the investigations, in as non-partisan and transparent was as possible to remind ourselves and prove to the rest of the world that we are a Nation of Laws.
Despite the cost, despite the distraction, its something we must do.
They Just Won’t Leave the Kids Alone
-
The program resonates with me. I recall my days as a Young Pioneer in Perth
in the 1950s. I was proud of my uniform of white shirt and red scarf, and
our r...
1 hour ago
10 comments:
Ahh, what nice timing.
Can you explain how it gives us the moral high ground to stop the practice of waterboarding (of exactly 3 people apparently) in Gitmo and instead handing suspects over to foreign governments who we suspect will really torture them anyway?
Could it be a morally spineless way to keep our president's hands clean? This seems pretty bush league to me.
I don't support either tactic
They are morally (and probably legally) equivalent.
And BOTH are violations of our own law.
I know that Bush did that, I have seen no evidence that Obama has ordered, condoned or allowed that.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-te.rendition01feb01,0,3635832.story?track=rss
He could have scrapped it but I'll give him the fact that he's a realist (or is being advised by one) in this case. We must have a means of dealing with the types of people for which semi-permanent detention is necessary.
This quote from the article you referenced the issue directly.
"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured, but that designing that system is going to take some time."
And this quote
"In his executive order on lawful interrogations, Obama created a task force to re-examine renditions to make sure that they "do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture," or otherwise circumvent human rights laws and treaties."
So I repeat, "I have seen no evidence that Obama has ordered, condoned or allowed" renditions to other nations so they could torture them for us.
Ahh, now I understand.
You're saying that there is somehow less chance of poor treatment of terror suspects in an Egyptian, Saudi or where ever jail than under the guard of US intelligence officers or service personnel? I don't want to put words in your mouth but I want to clarify.
So I repeat. I think Obama is realist - understanding the necessity of this type of detention - but a spineless one who thinks that closing Gitmo but leaving the option of rendition will look better.
I am just quoting from the article you referenced.
The article states that President Obama will continue to allow the use of renditions. I see no reason to doubt what that article says.
You then assume that means that we will be sending these people somewhere they will be tortured. Unfortunately that directly contradicts the very article you referenced.
You asked "You're saying that there is somehow less chance of poor treatment of terror suspects in an Egyptian, Saudi . . ?" I said nothing about sending anyone to Eqypt or Saudi Arabia.
Neither did the article you referenced.
To quote again from the article
"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured, but that designing that system is going to take some time."
And this quote
"In his executive order on lawful interrogations, Obama created a task force to re-examine renditions to make sure that they "do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture," or otherwise circumvent human rights laws and treaties."
So Rendition does not have to equal torture.
If you have some other evidence that President Obama will use rendition as a back door to torture, I would like to see it. The article you referenced says clearly that rendition will NOT be used that way.
I made no claim that Obama intended to torture (nor, incidentally do I believe that Bush did either) terror suspects. As to Egypt and SA, I picked those because they are allies in that part of the world. If not those, to whom do you suppose suspects will be turned over to?
I once again state my original premise. Why not utilize the troops/employees and facilities under his command for the purpose of detaining prisoners of this type. I think that he closed Gitmo for political reasons but left open the option of rendition because it's necessary. And I think that's spineless.
Spineless in what way?
You acknowledge that we tortured (waterboarded) prisoners in our custody. It is clear from the public record that we rendered prisoners to other countries for them to torture.
President has stated in words and in an executive order that we will not torture either directly or by proxy.
There is no easy answer for what to do with the detainees that we have in Gitmo. President Obama has given himself 1 year to come up with the appropriate solutions.
There is one simple reason for closing Gitmo. Politics. Gitmo has become a symbol, a recruiting poster, for those who would attack us. It costs us nothing to remove the symbol as long as we stop torturing people in Gitmo or anywhere else.
To my mind, there are three groups of prisoners in Gitmo.
Real Al Queda, people who have or would attack the US, but that we can not effectively prosecute either because we lack sufficient evidence or because the evidence is tainted by torture.
Real Al Queda that we have legitimately obtained evidence on that we can prosecute them for their crimes and send them to jail for the rest of their lives, just like we did the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing.
"Innocent" people. There is no doubt, the Bush adminstration admitted as much, we are keeping people in Gitmo, not because we even believe there are a threat, but because no third country will take them and their home country will torture and/or kill them if we repatriate them. These people were in the wrong place at the wrong time and got swept up.
Tehre is only an easy solution to the problem for those we can actually prosecute. The other two groups do not have easy solutions.
You "made no claim that Obama intended to torture . . terror suspects." Then what part of what the President is doing is spineless?
I fail to see how acknowledging the challenges maked President Obama spineless.
We must detain and he knows this... he closed the necessary facilities - sending some terrorists back to their games - for political points.... he did something contrary to what he knows is reality for the sake of perception.... ergo spineless. I think most politicians are this way which is why I'm not of big fan of increased tax rates (to cross pollinate to our other thread).
I think you are making a logical leap that isn't supported by his statements or his actions.
Nowhere and at no time has President Obama intended to simply release all of the detainees. He acknowledges that some of those held at Gitmo are genuine threats and he is not going to release them.
He knows we must detain. I know we must detain. But we can do so within the bounds of American and International law. We can do that without secret prisons and torture and being held indefinitely without just cause.
What has he said or done to indicate to you that he intends to send some terrorists back to their game?
What has he done or declared his intention to do that is contrary to what he knows is reality?
Post a Comment