After his recent trip to the Middle East to reach out to Muslims appears to have born fruit. A Pakistan leader has adopted the position of the Obama Administration on war crimes. Tehrik-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat-i-Muhammadi chief Sufi Mohammad has announced that Taliban murderers who have been accused of such crimes as burning schools, throwing acid in the faces of school girls, and killings should not be prosecuted because “[w]e intend to bury the past. These things will be left behind and we will go for a new life in peace.” It is the very logic that our President has been trying to advance as an excuse for not allowing an investigation into the torture program. Obama has insisted that “no one is above the law” while immediately guaranteeing that Bush officials are above the law by stating “My orientation’s going to be to move forward . . . getting things right in the future as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past.”
Citizens in the Swat Valley in Pakistan want these criminals prosecuted but Mullah Fazlullah insists that past is past in an Obama-like moment. Taliban have been promised that Sharia law will now govern the province — despite the recent controversy over the video of a young women being publicly flogged.
Obama can now claim to have had an equal international following after Bush’s torture policies were embraced by the Chinese, here.
Recently, one of our regulars sent me a letter from Senator Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) responding to his demand of a criminal investigation. Sen. McCaskill repeated Obama’s insistence that “no one is above the law” and then proceeded to say that she does not support investigating Bush officials for war crimes — guaranteeing that they are above the law. As with the Pakistani leader, she also insisted that we have to look to the future and not past crimes. Here is Sen. McCaskill’s reply:
Dear [deleted]:
Thank you for sharing your views regarding the Bush Administration’s abuse of power. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the chance to respond.
Like many Americans, I was disappointed with many of the Bush Administration’s policies and actions. The Bush Administration repeatedly misled Congress and the American public on issues critical to the safety and prosperity of our nation, such as using false intelligence to lead us into war in Iraq. The Bush Administration also demonstrated its willingness to test the limits of its Constitutional power, such as advancing its misguided policy on torture.
Some would argue that Congress should now investigate the past actions of the Bush Administration in hopes of prosecuting officials for criminal activity. While I firmly believe that government officials are not above the law, I am not sure criminal investigations would be in the country’s best interest. The American voters recently expressed their desire for a change in direction by electing President Obama and voting an increased Democratic majority into Congress. Frankly, we cannot afford to continue the partisan politics of retribution as we seek to address the tough issues confronting America. We now have important work that must be done, and criminal investigations could consume much of Congress’ time, resources and energy.
As your Senator, I will continue fighting to provide stronger oversight of the executive branch. During the 110th Congress, we held dozens of oversight hearings on important issues including the politicization of the Department of Justice and President Bush’s use of signing statements, and we need to continue such important work.
I look forward to working with President Obama and my colleagues in Congress to correct many of the previous Administration’s policies.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me; I will keep your thoughts in mind as Congress continues its important oversight role.
Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future regarding other matters of interest or concern to you.All best,
Senator Claire McCaskill
Of course, these are not “misguided” policies. Torture is a crime. More importantly, when has the prosecution of crimes been a question of political convenience. Even if this is an inconvenient time, the assumption is that crimes are investigated and the politicians have little to say about the matter. The best interests of the country is not to manipulate the justice system to protect individuals who are simply too important to investigate. Moreover, it is not “partisan politics of retribution” to investigate known crimes committed by powerful individuals. It is called criminal justice which is supposed to be blind to who commits a crime.
By the way, her constituent had merely asked her to encourage Obama to enforce the law. Here is his letter to her:
Dear Senator McCaskill:
Please ask Pres. Obama to step aside and please call for a special prosecutor to address the torture and related war crimes of the Bush
administration now.It is our collective constitutional duty to enforce the law and hold any and all to account no matter their political stature and without regard for any elected official’s political fallout from doing their duty.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this critical matter — and your sincere support for the rule of law.
For the full story, click here.
WASHINGTON!
Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. You want domestic trouble? Keep protecting the treasonous war criminals. It won’t be a matter of “if”, it’ll be a matter of “when”.
Obama’s argument that: ” “My orientation’s going to be to move forward . . . getting things right in the future as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past.” is an argument of the powerful, by the powerful, for the powerful.
Only the powerful members of any society would make such a bald claim of the right to ignore each other’s crimes. Should an ordinary citizen make such a claim they would be mocked and promptly ignored. If this were truly the case that all crime should be seen as having no relevance once it has been committed then we don’t need a system of justice for anyone. Yet harsh penalties are meeted out to ordinary people for even minor offenses, such as the possession of marijuana.
This is the law of patrons, not justice–favors done by the ruling class for other members of the ruling class. It shreds all credibility of our ideals, that we are a nation of laws, not of men.
Further, this abuse is noteable only excused when done by the powerful to the vunerable. I posted a story on our detainees in Gitmo still claiming to be abused under the presidency of Obama. I will repost the link because it was lost in a flurry of troll posts. If the powerful are attacked, or even believe they will be attacked by those weaker than them, they will use every means at their disposal to revisit the “attack” and punish the “perpetrators”. In the case of Binyam Mohamed’s lawyer, Mr. Smith, he is being held to account for his “past crime” of daring to bring the abuse of his client to obama’s attention. The other lawyers filing claims of abuse in the linked story are being ignored.
Finally, what qualifies as the past? One year ago, one month ago, one day ago? There are credible allegations of abuse at Gitmo as of yesterday. These are not just past crimes, they are current ones. If a crime was committed two minutes ago, is it in the past and time to move forward? This simply makes no sense under the rule of law. It only makes sense if one believes the ruling class is above the law. That isn’t our Constitution and obama knows that. He is not even honoring the promise to keep these abuses from occuring in the present, (whatever the present means to the ruling class.)
Here’s the link and a bit of the story:
“They had a thick rubber or plastic baton they beat me with. They emptied out about two canisters of tear gas on me,” he told Al Jazeera.
“After I stopped talking, and tears were flowing from my eyes, I could hardly see or breathe.
“They then beat me again to the ground, one of them held my head and beat it against the ground. I started screaming to his senior ’see what he’s doing, see what he’s doing’ [but] his senior started laughing and said ‘he’s doing his job’.
“He broke one of my front teeth. Of course they didn’t film the blood, they filmed my back so it doesn’t show.”
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/04/2009414233431153300.html
Jill, I’ve only become familiar with Mr. al-Qurani’s story within the past two days. He has been at Guantanamo since he was 14. Whatever his attitude toward the U.S. was at the time of his capture, you can bet that he will be a walking recruitment poster for every militant group on the planet once his release has been finalized. His life has been virtually destroyed in response to neocon paranoia.
It’s this simple.
The Rule of Law applies to all or it applies to none.
As in if you don’t hold Bush accountable, why should ANYONE obey U.S. law?
The answer is “They shouldn’t.”
I just defended Obama in another thread against a trollish accusation of conspiracy to commit treason. Aiding Bush in escaping justice would moot all of that as aiding and abetting would constitute both mens rea and actus rea in furtherance of the Neocon conspiracy to invade Iraq.
Just remember my warning – it won’t be revolution when it comes. It’ll be anarchy. And it will come if you break the Rule of Law and the Equal Protection clause. No rules for some means no rules for all . . . or is that too complicated for you to understand? Or are you just another elitist prick who thinks the law doesn’t apply to everyone? The coming anarchy will be YOUR doing, Obama. But there is still time to stop it. Do your damn job. Restore the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Hold treasonous traitors to task. NOW. Or else be remembered by history as a liar and a spineless K Street money whore who placed individual criminals above the law by his inaction.
Mike A.,
All our detainees are recruitment magnets. That is why it is so unbelieable to me that obama refuses to grant basic rights to detainees in Bagram and refuses to A. look into detainee claims of abuses occurring currently and B. is not closing Gitmo and releasing our detainees who we do not plan to charge in criminal court. This is a terrible mistake because it does put our people at risk for a terrorist attack and it is such a cruel thing to hold people without cause. I don’t want my govt. doing such awful things and refusing to follow the rule of law. We should do so much better by our own people and the other people of the world. This govt. makes me heartsick.
Buddha, harsh but true. What I don’t understand is how administration insiders think they can finesse the whole topic of war crimes. Moreover, they must certainly understand that American actions establish the bar for acceptable conduct for our enemies as well as for our friends. I am continuing to hope that there is some secret timetable for announcing the commencement of a formal investigation and that preparations for it have simply not been completed as yet.
Big day tomorrow, 16 April 2009.
US District Court deadline for Obama DOJ to release 3 Bush OLC Chief Stephen Bradbury torture memos.
Whatever happens, it’ll reveal the character of at least one administration.
Looking forward is fine so long as we look forward far enough. If criminal politicians, as some said above, are allowed to get by with crime they will be back for more.
Obama wants to look forward only far enough to keep himself free of having to bring some powerful folk to justice.
But that is short sighted, and it will ultimately fail.
In history it will be seen as a lack of vision or of self serving fear at the expense of the public.
President Bush and his officials did what they had to do to keep our country safe—and it worked. Deciding against prosecuting Taliban extremists who hurt innocent people is a lot different from deciding not to prosecute an ex-president who kept our country safe after 9/11. I don’t care how terrorists are treated. We just need to make sure we cover it any torture to avoid the glare of the liberal media.
John,
What’s that old saw about Freedom and Safety?
When you give the President the power to imprison and torture whoever he wants you give him the power to imprison and torture YOU.
Mr. galt, how the non-sequitur you call an argument continues to be endlessly repeated is anybody’s guess. I have yet to hear anyone explain the causal relationship between what Bush did and the safety of this country. It is almost as if fear breeds with hatred and produces illogic as the offspring. Do you not see that it would be just as valid for me to argue that if most criminals were breast fed as infants, breast feeding causes crime? Your only intellectually honest observation is that you don’t care how terrorists (or apparently any persons whom you “suspect” to be terrorists) are treated. But once you cross that line, you can justify literally anything. You are certainly someone who would have been comfortable serving in the Bush administration since it appears that you can be trusted to carry out any orders without question.
Mike-
Actually, you are right in that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. That, however, is not the exact argument I was making. I am not saying that torture is THE reason we are safe (Perhaps I should have clarified). I am saying that, following 9/11, Bush and his administration’s practices prevented any further terrorist attacks. “Torture” may have been one these practices. When it comes to saving American lives, I say do what it takes to get the information needed. And yes, I am familiar with Ben Franklin’s thoughts on liberty and security, but I’m also talking about non Americans. When you are part of a society, then you are part of a social contract. Otherwise, if you are not part of a society AND present a threat, then all bets are off.
And that social contract was broken the day Bush Co. ordered torture, a crime by US and international law, in our collective name.
So yes, when it comes to holding the Neocons responsible for their crimes, all gloves are off.
You also seem oblivious to the scientific fact the torture as practiced by Bush Co. does not get accurate or actionable intelligence. Physical torture will get someone to do one thing only: say whatever the questioner wants to hear just to get them to stop. There are far better means to extract information from prisoners but they require drugs and psychological manipulations. They also take a little more time and don’t slake the sadistic urges of the sociopaths employed by the CIA to carry out said physical torture.
John,
Torture doesn’t get usable information, it just gets information. Unless of course you believe all those women WERE witches who entered into sexual congress with evil spirits.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/richard-armitage-on-tortu_n_187391.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html
I was also wondering what the anthrax attacks were. They were terrorist attacks that occured after 9/11. People died in those attacks.
Jill,
It’s only terrorism when it’s done by people who aren’t white.
Mr. galt, my argument was not predicated on the Bush administration’s use of torture or on anything else that crew may have done. Indeed, we don’t know what they may have done and it will take years before it all comes out. The point is that there has never been a causal relationship established between the Bush administration’s “practices” and the safety of this country. What we do know is that those “practices,” to the extent they have been revealed, reflect the worst values of a society and have succeeded in creating an entire generation of people who may pose a threat to America and American interests that did not exist before.
So true Gyges. And my but didn’t bush and cheney keep our soldiers in Iraq safe from harm. Sure they lied to get them over there in the first place, but we should just overlook that. And they went out of their way to give those who survived proper medical care when they came home. Yep, great guys, really care about keeping our people safe.
First of all, George W. Bush was the President when we were attacked on 9/11 so all of this crap that we have been safe is like saying we didn’t get attacked after Pearl Harbor. As to the torture by the Bush Administration, even the FBI has gone on the record that Torture doesn’t work and it doesn’t save lives. However, even if it did save lives, which has been proven that it doesn’t,it is a crime under US law and international law. Obama and his administration must disclose all of the CIA’s illegal tactics and must investigate who authorized it and prosecute them to the full extent of the law. Anything less is a separate crime.
Of course, torture will yield a lot of inaccurate information. However, when you have a suspect in custody and the evidence is overwhelming that they know where a bomb is going to off, and they aren’t talking anyway, then why not do EVERYTHING possible to get them to talk? In that case, they would be bringing the torture upon themselves. The people who see it go down should keep their mouths shut. I’m not advocating torture as an exclusive, or even usual, means of intelligence gathering. I’m suggesting that in extreme situations, EVERYTHING that even has a chance of saving innocent American lives should be done. By the way, the kind of “torture” allegedly perpetrated by soldiers does not really sound all that horrific—especially, given the way most of the countries the terrorists are from set up their justice system.
I just bet we have some people on this space that honestly believe that a) Our Govt had no knowledge of the WTC planned attack; b) that Pearl Harbor just happened to be unlucky on December 7; c) that the Jewish Holocaust was a myth created by the Jew’s; and d) that Jesus renounced Judaism?
I do in deed believe that there are some people that do believe.
Mr.Gait,
The only thing a tortured detainee will give you is any crap that will make you stop hurting them. You have been watching too much TV. Once again, Torture is illegal. Period. There are no exceptions and there should not be exceptions. If you participate in torture, or if you authorize it, you are guilty of war crimes and in violation of US law. To say that the victims of torture are bringing it upon themselves is disgusting. The FBI has stated on the record that torture does not work and they refused to participate in the torture at Gitmo. It doesn’t matter what other countries do or don’t do. It is not about them, it is about us as a nation. We have always been above torture, until George W. Bush was appointed President. Bush, Cheney and all of their officials that enabled and authorized torture should be in jail already.
rafflaw:
Cogent as always, but I would take the opportunity to educate our friend, John Galt. I find him inquisitive, and he reminds me of bron98 before his enlightenment. I would not attribute to malice what could more easily explained by a lack of exposure to the truth. Call me Occam!
Mespo,
You may be right about Mr. Galt, but to state that victims bring it upon themselves is right out of Sly Fox News. I do not consider JG as a troll and I will respond accordingly. Thanks.
Come on, “John Galt”? “That’s a handle no one would self-apply where I come from”.
Arguing with a guy who underlines every other line in the copy of the Fountainhead he stole from the highschool library is like getting in an arguement about who’s more powerful, The Green Lantern or Martian Man-Hunter, with the guy who runs the comic book store.
A bunch of dweeby closeted fascists. Why bother.
There will be no more debate, the science is settled. No Spanish court investigation. Stop living in the past and look forward. If you investigate Bush and Company it will be Obama and Company next. As JT has pointed out, this administration is following in the same footsteps. Whether you believe JT or not is up to you. JT’s quote on Olberman was that Bush and Company are hanging up the Mission Accomplish Banner because of this fact. JT is also quoted, stating in some instances the Obama administration goes further.
It is the duty of the President to protect the Oval Office and each of it’s officers. While Obama has laid lots of blame on Bush for many things he knows that this issue will start a fire storm with the right and the left will have no choice but to exit stage right. Unless you want to organize and start up a grassroots campaign so your voices can be heard, I suggest keep looking in the rear view mirror to see what you left behind.
Bdaman,
You have it backwards. We already organized and the grassroots campaign defeated your McCain straight talk express along with his Veep choice, the baroness of Alaska and there has been significant change already. The torture issue will be dealt with and will be investigated. It may take some more loud screams from the left to convince the Obama Administration, but it will happen. By the way, the only duty the President owes is to the people of the United States, not to the Oval Office or “each of it’s officers”.
seamus:
you may not like Ayn Rand or her ideas but she was definitley not a facist (if by facist you mean state control of private industry). And she was an ardent believer in individual liberty and the rule of law, at least that is the way I read her.
Buddha:
here is a website called POAC (Project for the Old American Century) its the Anti-PNAC –
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
Bron,
That’s the inverse of fascism. Fascism is where corporations control the state. A common and infuriating mistake in the misapplication of the term.
And thanks for the link. I’ll check it out.
And this is nice . . . Echelon and Carnivore abuses from the NSA? Who woulda thunk it?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30238492/
Buddha:
I have always thought that Fascism is government control of industry, in much the same way as socialism does. But that Fascists tend to be more nationalistic.
this is from Wiki:
“the bureaucratization of the economic activities of the nation”
Buddha:
I have always been against the Patriot Act and for this reason. I knew it was a bad idea from the get go, the state can never be allowed to have power like this and for whatever reason it will always be used to diminish individual rights.
How can an orginization of seemingly intelligent people spy on fellow citizens? Man, Franklin was really right about security.
I am really starting to see why you all want to hang Bush. It isnt all about torture it’s about a plethera of other abuses and a paucity of regard for our constitution.
thanks for the continuing ed.
Bron,
Look into the history of fascism. It is the most misapplied poli sci term tossed about today. That “third way” that fascism seeks to promote in the economic arena isn’t capitalism, communism or socialism – it’s corporatism. Corporatism is indeed the preferred term of Mussolini instead of the word fascism. And Il Duce should know. Most people make the partially false assumption that fascism is just an aggressive, totalitarian and authoritarian state. That’s only part of it. The other part is the economics that puts corporations in control of policy. Just like what happened when the Secret Energy task Force decided U.S. policy should be to invade Iraq rather than punish those who attacked us in Saudi Arabia. The Wiki is wrong because the argument presented there is a mistake of causal connection. Corporations only have power as artifices of law, law that comes from the government. A corporation cannot usurp the will of the people with true democracy in place. The fallacy is where the power rests. Fascism isn’t government consolidation, it’s governmental abdication of duties owed in a democracy that they should be rightfully be held to task for to corporate decision makers. As we’ve discussed before, corporations are amoral blinds behind which sociopaths hide and their decision making is amoral too. The bottom line is all that matters, screw people and their lives. Who cares if they die as long as Halliburton turns a profit? The decision of the Secret Energy Task Force to start an illegal war against an opponent that didn’t attack us? That was made purely as a P&L – C/B analysis. That’s fascism at it’s finest. And that IS where the decision to invade Iraq came from. When you abdicate the responsibilities of government, which under our Constitution requires you have a duty to the people first, to a corporation that has no one responsible to the people making decisions that nonetheless affect people’s lives? That’s fascism. Tyranny by spreadsheet. Look at both Germany and Italy in WWII. In specific, look at the relationship of the Krupps family to the Reich. Words have power and the true full-bodied meaning of fascism is very often misused in the media. I also hope this helps explain why I said Shakespeare would have said today, “First, we kill all the lobbyists” and why I keep returning to the Right to Petition as being the critical nexus for fighting corruption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
Also not the best definition, but a good starting point, better than the Wiki entry for fascism.
And always keep in mind when reading on this topic that a corporation is an amoral legal fiction.
Buddha:
I see what you are saying, and I agree with you on the lobbyists-they do need to go. I used to work for something called the National Stone Association, albeit only for 6 months, it was an eye opening/popping experience. I found out that ,contrary to civics class, laws are not made by congress, most are made by associations and they only have their memberships interest in mind. I used to think that with all of those competing interests writing laws you would have some sort of balance, this law would cancel out the effect of some other law, etc.. But I think what actually is happening is We the People get cancled out. Which is, I think, your contention.
Bron,
While you’re at it, look into Eisenhower’s famous speech about the military-industrial complex and Major General Smedley Butler who penned a book you might find particularly enlightening – War Is A Racket. Both of these men were talking about the corporatist aspects of fascism and their inherent danger even when they didn’t use the term.
“But I think what actually is happening is We the People get cancled out. Which is, I think, your contention.”
That is exactly my contention. The corporatism aspect of fascism is by it’s very nature antithetical to democracy.
Look at past presidents who broke laws and the outcome. Lets try and focus on the word law. In your day dreams picture Bush and Company behind bars, then think who will allow him/them to spend one minute behind them. I’m sorry, pardon me for my lack of history knowledge, there’s always a first, right? It is the duty of the President to protect each of the past officers of that office. One of the first things Bush did upon entering office, first term, was to shut down FOIA on the officers of that office. Some suggest this was to protect Clinton from further embarrassment. Some suggest that Bush did this for the grand scheme of things when in fact it was to protect the office. Of course that’s all changed now with Obama reversing it. So now thru FOIA, we can request info on the past presidents records, just don’t request any on the current one.
Who would of ever believed this would be reported here. Just a reminder!
A Pakistan leader HAS ADOPTED THE SAME POSITION AS THE OBAMA Administration on war crimes. Tehrik-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat-i-Muhammadi chief Sufi Mohammad has announced that Taliban murderers who have been accused of such crimes as burning schools, throwing acid in the faces of school girls, and killings should not be prosecuted because “[w]e intend to bury the past.
Obama Admin: CIA Officials Won’t Be Prosecuted For Waterboarding
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/obama-admin-no-charges-ag_n_187837.html
I know that Prof. Turley will start a new topic but for now:
Quote:
“No Torture Probe Of Bush Admin Officials: Spanish AG
MADRID — Spain’s attorney general has rejected opening an investigation into whether six Bush administration officials sanctioned torture against terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, saying Thursday a U.S. courtroom would be the proper forum.
“If there is a reason to file a complaint against these people, it should be done before local courts with jurisdiction, in other words in the United States,” he said in a breakfast meeting with journalists.” End Quote.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/spanish-attorney-general-_n_187712.html
Send your message to President Obama: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
April 17, 2009
Here is my message to President Obama:
Legal Position on War Crimes Adopted for Taliban in Pakistan
“Taliban murderers who have been accused of such crimes as burning schools, throwing acid in the faces of school girls, and killings should not be prosecuted because ‘[w]e intend to bury the past. These things will be left behind and we will go for a new life in peace.’”
-Tehrik-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat-i-Muhammadi (Chief Sufi Mohammad – Pakistan )
Source: http://jonathanturley.org/2009/04/15/leading-the-world-by-example-obama-legal-policy-on-war-crimes-adopted-for-taliban-in-pakistan/
Mr. President,
The CIA should not only be investigated and members prosecuted for war crimes; but, the entire department should be overhauled if not done away with totally.
Speaking as one of “We The People” I can say that your positions on financial recovery and the “Military Industrial Congressional Complex” and the funding thereof are wrong – it will not take long for history to prove this out.
Speaking of history – I thought you were a student?
I will say again that your financial and military advisors are leading you in to a political mine field – stop this insanity!
Sir, I voted for you and will support your efforts to rebuild this country; but, I will not and can not support your financial and military positions and policies that I know in my heart and mind to be just plain wrong.
P.S.
P.S.
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
- Mark Twain
Senator McCaskill says:
“Frankly, we cannot afford to continue the partisan politics of retribution as we seek to address the tough issues confronting America.”
Enforcing U.S. and international law is not “political” and it’s not “partisan.”
The Senator is a former prosecutor, which did not surprise me as many Senators are.
“Claire clerked for the Missouri Court of Appeals in Kansas City and then got a job as an assistant prosecutor in Kansas City, where she was a felony trial prosecutor handling sex crimes, homicides, and specializing in arson cases.”
Even if she were not a prosecutor, she should know better. Looking at the cases she handled, here is what she is saying:
Sex crimes, homicides, and arson are OK if you work for the government.
What a disgrace.