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.
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.
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.
And always keep in mind when reading on this topic that a corporation is an amoral legal fiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
Also not the best definition, but a good starting point, better than the Wiki entry for fascism.
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.
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.
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”
And this is nice . . . Echelon and Carnivore abuses from the NSA? Who woulda thunk it?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30238492/
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.
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
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.