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.
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.
Jill,
It’s only terrorism when it’s done by people who aren’t white.
I was also wondering what the anthrax attacks were. They were terrorist attacks that occured after 9/11. People died in those attacks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/richard-armitage-on-tortu_n_187391.html
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.)
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”.