The New York Times has published a blistering editorial calling upon President Barack Obama to fulfill our obligations under domestic and international law and investigate and prosecute those responsible for the torture program under the administration of President George W. Bush. The American Civil Liberties Union is also calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the program and possibly prosecute those responsible. The Obama Administration has steadfastly refused to prosecute anyone despite its admission that, to quote Obama, “we tortured some folks.” The political costs of such a prosecute were likely viewed as too high and Attorney General Eric Holder has again taken the politically expedient approach in avoiding any serious effort to hold those responsible for these crimes. In the meantime, many of those who would be prosecuted under domestic and international law have been writing books and giving interviews — casually discussing acts that are considered war crimes under international law.
The editorial, entitled “Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses,” takes the position long advocated by experts in the field and various academics, including myself. There is no question that we tortured people under this program. While there are plenty of torture deniers about, both U.S. and international law is clear. Waterboarding is torture and we have prosecuted both our own citizens and foreigners for this long recognized form of torture despite early denials from people like Ashcroft. Moreover, Obama has admitted that it was torture. Holder admitted it was torture. The United Nations has denounced it as a torture. Leading Republicans and Democratic leaders have denounced it as torture. The United States Senate denounced it as torture. However, not a single person has been prosecuted by the Obama Administration. Instead, the Administration has been threatening allies who have threatened to start their own torture investigation under international treaties.
I have previously written about the cynical calculation that led to Obama blocking the prosecution for those responsible for the torture program. He knew such prosecutions would be unpopular, and with so many constitutional principles since that time, he just did not see the value in adhering to principle (even those embodied within binding treaty obligations). Since Obama ran on a civil liberties platform, many expected an independent torture investigation as soon as he took office. After all, waterboarding is one of the oldest forms of torture, pre-dating the Spanish Inquisition (when it was called tortura del agua). It has long been defined as torture by both U.S. and international law, and by Obama himself. Torture, in turn, has long been defined as a war crime, and the United States is under treaty obligation to investigate and prosecute such crimes.
However, such a principle did not make for good politics. Accordingly, as soon as he was elected, Obama set out to dampen talk of prosecution. Various intelligence officials and politicians went public with accounts of the Obama administration making promises to protect Bush officials and CIA employees from prosecution. Though the White House denied the stories, Obama later gave his controversial speech at the CIA headquarters and did precisely that. In the speech, he effectively embraced the defense of befehl ist befehl (“an order is an order”). As I have written before (here and here), the Obama Administration has destroyed some of the core Nuremburg principles, particularly in its revisal of the “superior orders defense” to excuse U.S. officials.
The board notes that such an investigation would clearly include “former Vice President Dick Cheney; Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, David Addington; the former C.I.A. director George Tenet; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the Office of Legal Counsel lawyers who drafted what became known as the torture memos,” the editorial reads. “There are many more names that could be considered, including Jose Rodriguez Jr., the C.I.A. official who ordered the destruction of the videotapes; the psychologists who devised the torture regimen; and the C.I.A. employees who carried out that regimen.”
The New York Times asks whether the Obama Administration has “the political courage” to order an investigation. That question unfortunately has been loudly and repeatedly answered in the negative.
I think the trials need to appear to be fair and balanced. This would require Bush and Cheney to be tried for war crimes, assassinations, renditions, torture and warrantless surveillance; and Obama to be tried for assassinations, torture at Bagram and Gitmo, warrantless surveillance, and the obstruction of justice regarding the Bush/Cheney crimes.
To ensure the punishment be fair and balanced, Bush, Cheney and Obama could all be given life sentences and be confined in the same cell with 3 identical mattresses on the floor and 3 identical buckets for urination/defecation.
Of course, this would still not make every authoritarian Republicrat happy, but there would be equality among the various cult leaders.
Randyjet, fitting, lol.
Inga, My own name for W Bush is Ted Baxter. He fits the character to a T.
Wow. Forget about mere torture denial or torture apology. This is apparently the home for out and out torture fetishists. Just… wow.
Did you two sports happen to see their new music video? You’ll love it:
.
.
I saw that band too. Their music is better than it sounds.
Maureen McCarthy “An exhaustive three year investigation…”
Exhaustive spelled w-h-i-t-e-w-a-s-h.
Went to hear a band named Rectal Rehydration. They were shitty.
Olly doesn’t care. He thinks a woman should forced to carry and give birth even if she doesn’t choose to go through with the pregnancy. Maybe he can become an ‘enforcer’, part of the ‘Pregnancy Squad’. The government that he wants to become tiny would need to expand to make sure women who miscarried didn’t actually have an illegal abortion. Social workers to watch pregnant women like a hawk to make sure the pregnancy advances. Gee just think of all those new agencies, just to ensure a woman doesn’t have an abortion.
BarkinDog, I’m afraid poor Cheney’s damaged heart could not take it but even if it could, I’m sure the CIA would destroy the video record before it could be viewed. But, while I agree with the sentiment, torture is wrong no matter who you are torturing, a distinction that seems to evaded the armchair warriors.
Funny how torture fans hate being called unprincipled.
Funny how Marxists hate being called Marxists.
Olly,
Until viability, fetuses are not babies. That is my belief. I know you disagree, but there is no point arguing about it because it is a matter of faith that life begins at conception. I don’t share it. Thought experiment: suppose you woke up in a hospital bed and you saw laying in a bed next to you President Obama. You notice all these tubes connecting his body to yours. The doctors explain that the NSA database revealed that your heart was a perfect match to Obama’s, and the President needed to temporarily use your heart to assist his failing heart until a cadaver heart can be found for transplantation. If you pull out the tubes, the President will surely die. Sorry for the inconvenience. Who among you would let Obama die and who would not? This scenario is not unlike the situation of a forcible rape which results in a pregnancy.
Inga,
Straw man arguments along with the word “Marxism”, are a fizzling reactionary movements artilerry and false equivalencies their infantry. To endorse torture one must try hard to swallow one’s last vestiges of moral cerainty to allow shallow partisan considerations to take the place of one’s righteousness.
Sad, isn’t it?
zedalis – if it is not torture, then no one is endorsing it. George Washington endorsed the flogging of his troops. He endorsed the shooting of his troops as an example. We do not do that anymore.
Some commenters here say that waterboarding is not torture. It is a vague kind of term with some nice Southern California resonance. So if Cheney says it is not torture then let us hire a Gitmo waterboard expert and give Cheney a couple of hours of waterboarding. Gotta give him the enema one that we hear about. Have Sony film it and show it in a theatre near you.
An exhaustive three year investigation of Jose Rodriguez Jr. and the destruction of the interrogation tapes was made by Justice Department and they announced in Nov. of 2010 they would not be pursuing charges against Mr. Rodriguez.
http://youtu.be/x8nY7Ntd_O8
Professor Turley on the gutting of the Geneva Convention, 2006.
Pogo Hears a Who >> “Weak rebuttals, mere ad hominem.”
Exactly.
http://youtu.be/8fszTGFL2Tc
Professor Turley begins at the 3:00 mark. Maybe you could learn something from this Paul.
Inga – as I have told you before, I disagree with JT on this issue. The reason we have court cases is because people disagree about the subject matter. BTW, I never watch anything you post.
“These doctors have seemingly violated their Hippocratic oaths to do no harm as well as violated international law not to conduct research experiments on prisoners.”
Jeff,
If this blog has proven anything it’s that oath’s are only important to mention if you disagree with the violator. Doctors that assist in torture ‘BAD’; doctors that kill unborn babies ‘GOOD’. Politicians that advocate for limited government ‘BAD’; politicians that advocate for the progressive, administrative state ‘GOOD’. Lawyers that place the constitution above ideology (JT) ‘BAD’; well, enough said.
Weak rebuttals, mere ad hominem.