One of the little reported details from the latest batch of Wikileaks material are cables showing that the Obama Administration worked hard behind the scenes not only to prevent any investigation of torture in the United States but shutdown efforts abroad to enforce the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture. This includes threatening the Spanish that, if they did not derail a judicial investigation, it would have serious consequences in bilateral relations. I discussed these cables on Countdown.
For two years, President Obama has worked to block the investigation of torture under the Bush Administration — even as both Dick Cheney and George Bush publicly admit to ordering waterboarding of suspects.
David Corn in Mother Jones has an interesting posting today on the issue.
A “confidential” April 17, 2009, cable sent from the US embassy in Madrid to the State Department discloses how the Administration discarded any respect for the independence of the judiciary in Spain and pressured the government to derail the prosecution of Bush officials. Human rights groups around the world had called for such enforcement in light of Obama promise that no torturers would be prosecuted and Holder’s blocking of any investigation into war crimes.
The Association for the Dignity of Spanish Prisoners had filed a demand for prosecution with Spain’s National Court to indict former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; David Addington, former chief of staff and legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney; William Haynes, the Pentagon’s former general counsel; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy; Jay Bybee, former head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel; and John Yoo, a former official in the Office of Legal Counsel. It had a compelled factual basis that these men ordered or facilitated war crimes — a record that has only become stronger since this confrontation.
American officials pressured government officials, including prosecutors and judges, not to enforce international law and that this was “a very serious matter for the USG.” It was Obama’s own effort at creating a “Coalition of the Unwilling” — nations unwilling to enforce treaties on torture and war crimes when the alleged culprits are American officials.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) joined the embassy’s charge d’affaires in the secret campaign to block the prosection of Judge Baltasar Garzón.
Corn notes that, during an April 14, 2009 White House briefing, he asked press secretary Robert Gibbs if the Obama administration would cooperate with any request from Spain on the investigation and prosecution. Gibbs insisted that this was nothing but “hypotheticals” and did not disclose that in fact the Obama Administration was working diligently to block the Spanish case.
Just as many conservatives abandoned their principles in following George Bush blindly, many liberals have chosen to ignore Obama’s concerted efforts to protect individuals accused of war crimes. Under our treaty obligations, the United States has the primary responsibility to prosecute torture by U.S. citizens. That responsibility rests with the Executive Branch – the prosecuting authority of the United States. What is particularly disgraceful is that Obama would refuse to fulfill this responsibility under our treaties and international law and then demand the same hypocrisy from our allies.
FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 31, 2011.
I am a just ordinary people that have 3 thoughts
1. How could a country secret could be easily stolen? Answer is too easy.
2. I think this is to gain support of people to blame prev. President’s policy
3. Why do we have to be kind to the terrorist who killed thousands of people?
Blouise, you beat me to it LOL, If we didn’t take prisoners, who would we have to torture?
Dick,
murder versus torture … what a conundrum
Although I strongly disagree with Obama’s decision not to prosecute Bush and the other torturers, I can understand his political motivation (and of course expect that politics would override any concerns about justice and deterring future presidents from torturing). What I cannot understand is why Obama fights so hard against others’ taking action against torturers, whether those others are foreign governments or torture victims who file civil suits against torturers.
This could have all been avoided had we just not taken any prisoners. We could have shot them all on site as spies since they were not, for the most part, wearing uniforms.
And it would have been legal under the Geneva Convention.
I am curious about that, does any one know if that is correct?
Someone told me that a few years ago, I have never gotten a straight answer when inquiring as to it’s veracity.
What’s happening with this story not being on the news? I’ve looked everywhere and it simply isn’t on any major news network. Neither is the story on the Spanish camera man (Jose Couso) who was killed in an American tank attack on the journalist hotel in Iraq in 2003. There’s simply no Google news hits for name and there are many hits on the story when it originally happened.
I saw NY Times had let the administration go over what it was going to leak and the administration singled out some it did not want to see published. NY Times agreed to extend that information to other news networks. Is this among the stories that are not to be run or what?
The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law.
~Aristotle
Buddha,
Yes sir
Failure to prosecute criminal actions allows criminality to prosper and grow. That’s no fantasy.
Blouise,
I too think the risk of “tearing the country apart” is vastly overstated in the case of prosecution. However, a lack of prosecution will eventually cause trouble.
Ha, ha, ha. And the worm turns. This should be no surprise at all as this President has lied from the beginning on just about everything. This is no exception. Say one thing on his high horse and give the “high hat” at the same time. Just a political hack with the highest level of B.S. skills with the lowest level of competence in running anything. We have all been duped.
Can Hillary C. change parties and run against this guy? I have NEVER backed her but that would be a terrific turn of events. Bizarre, yet … workable. I know it’s crazy but something has to be done next time. Super name recognition, more international experience and competence (with or without the Bosnian bullets flying overhead) and the bonus of the return of Slick Willie. Happy Days (would be) here again ….
Blouise:
Touche!!
Dick,
Amen, let’s just not enforce laws when it requires work to do so.
Blouise,
Amen to the fantasy being busted here!
rafflaw
1, December 2, 2010 at 1:56 pm
milsapian,
I must respectfully disagree with your wife and affirm your thoughts on the matter. I lived through the Nixon pardon and it would not have ripped the country in two. It would have shown everyone in the country that noone was above the law, not even a President.
===============================================================
Hear, hear … I said it then and I agree with you now …
A good friend of mine likes to tell audiences that racism is a fantasy of superiority and it’s impossible to dissuade others from their fantasies … I feel the same way about the “ripping the country apart fantasy”. It wouldn’t have done it then, and had Ford stuck to the Rule of Law, Bush and Cheney might have thought twice about their own culpability in ordering torture and Obama would have been wildly breaking precedent by not indicting them.
Not punishing the guilty will tear this country apart just as surely. Sending a President (and his direct enablers) rightfully accused of war crimes to the international tribunal specifically set up to deal with war criminals is not only a precedent, it’s the right thing to do. It shows 1) that we as a nation respect international law, 2) domestic law and 3) that justice for all is still the American way. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice”. Justice requires equity. Justice requires that the guilty be punished without exception. Without justice, the rest of the Constitution becomes meaningless.
If the price will be paid in any event, justice should be had. It’s the only way to put this country back on the path the Founding Fathers envisioned.
Gyges: I think Palin will run as she is already setting up shop in Iowa. I hope I am wrong.
I wish I cold say that this is shocking news, but it totally fits with the political flow of this administration. It reaffirms my suspicion that Obama answers to the same “authority” as Bush did and whoever it is that is calling the shots, President Obama is being a grateful trooper.
His position to protect the war crimes of his colleagues shows his allegiance to the corporate bosses that had him eating out of their hands when we were trying to get a health billed that made sense.
apologies if this has been posted above.
Wouldn’t a prosecution of Bush and members of his administration include congressmen and senators? Both democrats and republicans?
Wouldn’t it be hard to find a jury to actually provide a fair trial? It would be a farce either way. I certainly would not want a sitting president to be sent over to the Hague for trial. Very bad precedent to set.
How many bureaucrats would be involved? The entire government would circle the wagons and clamp down harder than they already have. It almost sounds like a French Revolution/McCarthy scenario. They would clamp down on us.
It might make us feel good but the outfall might tear the country apart. To many people water boarding a few terrorists is the equivalent of taking a candy bar from a drugstore.
I’m all for prosecuting a few people but who and what type of sentences. Obviously Bush and Chaney are at the top of the list but who else? It wasn’t only Goering and Himmler that were tried at Nuremberg.
Swarthmore,
I’ve never understood why people think Palin is going to run. She’s got a much cushier gig now. Not to mention, she wouldn’t win.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/10/tea-party-or-no-palins-popularity-still-lags.html
I’m sorry, but the hypothetical threat of someone who’s unlikely to run, and even if she did wouldn’t win, is hardly going to sway me from my “not voting for people who condone torture” (and let’s not forget the Obama administration has admitted that it was torture) stance.
If Obama starts to restore the rule of law, we can talk lesser of the two evils. Until then…
Gyges: I think Palin will become a very active torturer if she becomes president. Obama is just too passive.