President-elect Barack Obama appears to be signaling that he is not inclined to investigate crimes committed by the Bush Administration. In an interview with ABC News program “This Week With George Stephanopoulos”, he picked up on the recent Democratic spin that we should all “look to the future and not the past” even if the past happens to contain war crimes committed by his predecessor. I just finished an interview on Talk of the Nation on which I debated the issue with Harvard Professor and former solicitor general Charles Fried. I also discussed the issue on MSNBC Countdown.
Many civil libertarians are concerned that this will be another flip-flop from Obama after he surprised many by voting in favor of telecom immunity. During the campaign, he made it clear that he believed that waterboarding is torture, an inescapable position. Yet, the deductive reasoning is inescapable. If waterboarding is torture and torture is a war crime, then the Bush Administration committed war crimes. Yet, it appears that once again practicalities have proven the enemy of principle. With many insisting that such an investigation would be a distraction. It is the latest spin from democrats. Democrats first insisted that they could do nothing about criminal programs like the torture and surveillance programs because they did not control Congress. Then, when they controlled Congress, they insisted that there was not enough time left in the Administration to investigate and that we would have to wait for the next Administration. Now that they have been given the White House, they are insisting that we need to look forward and not behind.
The latest theme seemed to be what Obama was raising in the interview. When asked about his position, he immediately stated his “belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.” He then defended those who committed the torture: “And part of my job is to make sure that, for example, at the C.I.A., you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got spend their all their time looking over their shoulders.”
No one seriously expects the torturers to be prosecuted, though I have far less sympathy for people who commit torture. In a nation committed to the rule of law, people should be looking over their shoulder when they are contemplating a war crime.
For the interview, click here.
For the full story, click here.
Again, GC won’t apply to non-uniformed combatants.
US criminal code says nothing about waterboarding.
Allan,
Are you serious? Check out the Geneva convention and the US Criminal code. Mespo could probably give you the exact citation. Secondly, if it wasn’t illegal, why did the administration need OLC to give them an faulty opinion that it was legal?
What is the defining moment when people realize that peaceful democracy does not work. As long as we keep talking and voting… these criminals have nothing to worry about. There was a time when armed revolution was the engine of actual change. Now we just run our mouths and hope our rulers don’t screw us too hard. What we have as of right now, today is nothing but a result of that.
http://propagandawerks.blogspot.com
In what way is waterboarding torture? You are torturing the English language to believe that a practice like that is consistent with the traditional meaning of “torture”. Let’s call this “torture (version 2)”.
What part of the Constitution prevents torture (version 2) of criminals during war-time anyway? Even if torture (version 2) is unattractive, why is it illegal?
Please base your replies on US law, not World Court or International Red Cross rules or Geneva Convention (which does not apply to these terrorists).
rafflaw:
Me too.
Mespo,
I did hear the part where Prof.Fried stated that blanket pardons would be a bad idea,but I also disagreed with his approval of Pres. Ford’s pardon of Nixon. I think the Nixon pardon, just like not prosecuting Bush/Cheney et al told the country that if you are high enough on the totem pole, you are above the rule of law. That Nixon pardon burr has been in my saddle for a long time.
mespo
Thanks for the grounded response to lollydirt. I will patiently wait for the president elect to be sworn into office then see how the executive branch acts.
In the mean time I’m considering the most efficient way to get the FFLEO article:‘W. and the damage done’
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/01/08/damage/print.html
to everyone in Washington as FFLEO recommended.
If I had a spare 56K, I could takeout a full page ad in the Washington Post, the way Sean Penn did in 2002.
rafflaw:
I did enjoy one remark of Fried’s however. Fried eschewed any idea of a pardon for war crimes being issued prophylactically by the President. Oh he did not oppose them on principled grounds that they would undermine the rule of law. Our good professor opposed them because they would imply a tacit acceptance that there were crimes committed and thus a prosecution was warranted. Should a prosecution not be in the offing, I would SUPPORT blanket pardons for just this reason. It is axiomatic that innocent men do not need pardons.
This revelation is extremely disappointing. Like many Americans I worked for Obama and I feel somewhat betrayed. It’s as if Obama is sewing up the patient without removing the cancer. Silent prayers and then some more.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Turley, for your heroic efforts on Talk of the Nation today—it’s shocking that those who understand the difference between right and wrong and have a problem with criminal and incompetent behavior have to keep explaining these most basic issues to people at all levels of society.
I just listened to the debate. I was somewhat dismayed that at several times Mr. Fried misrepresented what Professor Turley stated and that he assumed Turley might be biased in his view of who should be prosecuted/investigated (as with Clinton) when he clearly was not.
Regardless, I like this style of debate.
Mespo,
I think my sinus infection is affecting my typing. The second sentence above should start as follows, I think my John Marshall Law School diploma just got a little more valuable…..
I also want to congratulate Prof. Turley for Frying Mr. Fried.
Mespo,
You are right. I think my John Marshall Law School diploma just got a few more valuable after listening to an Ivy League law professor blatantly give up the Constitution to protect his fellow neocons. I know a JMLS alum would never sell out the country like that.
To all:
I just listened to Professor Turley’s “debate” with that crotchety ol’ Professor Fried on “Talk of the Nation.” After hearing Fried’s rather elitist defense against prosecution — that was neatly summarized by JT as “gentlemen do not investigate gentlemen for war crimes” — and comparing Professor’s Turley’s calm, principled,* rational response, I came away very pleased. I cannot say that I approached the issue as a neutral nor an unbiased observer of the participants. What overjoyed me is that after hearing Professor Fried’s extensive Ivy League credentials and his pathetic argument that “not every crime must be prosecuted,” I dusted off my rather pedestrian diplomas and tacked them back up on the wall. If Fried is the best the elite have to offer in defense of barbarism, I have every confidence that our side will win.
“One other memorable Turley quote “since when shouldn’t we have officials of the government afraid of prosecution….”
Note that he didn’t talk about their superiors, the ones who did the ordering. His example was the rank-and-file. I’m taking a wait and see attitude. Maybe I’m overly optimistic.
John Forde,
I hope you are correct that Obama is merely playing his cards close to the vest. If he does end up investigating the Bushites, then the Right will scream that Obama was “lying” about looking forward. If they do, I will love every minute of sticking it to Bush/Cheney et al for ordering torture.
There ain’t no way in hell a federal investigation will result in prosecution much less conviction; not as long as SCOTUS can get its filthy hands on it.
Yet another reason why I love New York.
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/history/elecbook/kaye_cardozo/pg1.htm
I don’t understand the pessimism. Did you all fall for Obama’s head fake? Why in the world would he signal his intention to prosecute torturers BEFORE he takes office?
I also think that if it’s done with politcal savvy it will srengthen Obama politically and utterly decimate the neocon philosophy
Mespo,
Good response to lollydirt. It amazes me that people can accept a blatant violation of the law by their President, but get upset when s thief “gets off” with a technicality.
lolydirt:
I suppose you must come from a foreign land where the ends always justify the means. There are always “good” reasons to ignore the rule of law for sake of expediency. The problem is that when you lose respect for law, you have precisely the type of society that Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s advocates for us with his terror. So tell me with your barbarism, what have you actually won? A triumph of the id?