I never really expected that anyone would be prosecuted. It would be unfair to punish individual torturers when torture was backed, tacitly or otherwise, by the President, and so was pretty much official government policy. And any attempt to bring Bush and his cronies to book would be too damaging and divisive to a nation which is only too ready (as witness the election and this forum) to divide itself.
Draw a line under the misdeeds and, above all, make sure not to repeat them. That's the best we can expect, I'm afraid.
How's the view from that high horse you're on?
Seems a bit limited judging by this post.
Posted by snark at April 17, 2009 05:58 AMMen , Women and Children were tortured and raped and murdered in medieval fashion by people employed by the United States. These torturers and their superiors, right up to George Bush, swore an oath to uphold the Constitution which is clear on the matter. If these individuals did not know they were breaking the law then they have been derelict in their duty and Ignorance of the Law is not an excuse. It is their responsibility to know as well as to disobey orders they know to be illegal. There are no greater crimes then war crimes and the idea that prosecution may be "unfair" to torturers and rapists and murderers has no merit. "Drawing a line under the misdeeds" is what you do when your kid steals a pack of gum. I doubt this would be your opinion if it had been you hanging from the ceiling by your wrists. The method of preventing these vile and heinous crimes from reoccurring is to prosecute all involved to the fullest extent under the law. Disgrace is a crime against oneself and in this case it extends to our entire Nation. This disgrace can only grow and fester until justice is done. Anyone who would obstruct justice in prosecuting these crimes makes themselves an accomplice to them. That guilt extends to the Obama White House as well as each one of us as Citizens.
Posted by mparker at April 17, 2009 06:17 AMWe have a legal obligation under the Convention Against Torture to investigate these actions by high gub'mint officials (which have already been admitted). Based on what's publicly known already, someone should be standing trial for torturing helpless people held in our custody.
Instead, we passed post hoc "immunity" and exculpation laws which the Convention specifies shall not be permissible defenses, just like what a Serbia would do.
We have now shown that we refuse to enforce and abide by the treaties we sign, yet of course expect other counties to follow the ones we want them to follow. As a nation specially dedicated at it founding to the rule of law, we are now a colossal failure and morally bankrupt, with most citizens thinking that the sensible thing to do is sweep all this Bushco torture under the rug.
At least the truth (like today's torture memos) has been revealed for the historians and those who wish to know it--that's something. But without investigations or trials most Americans (and all Repubs and FOXers) will have their own (false) versions of the events of the Bushco Era.
If the citizens of a guilty nation don't have their faces rubbed in the truth, they will deny wrongdoing forever.
Posted by euzoius at April 17, 2009 06:49 AMWar crimes. Torture. Systematic violation of fourth amendment.
Serious issues. It's time for a special prosecutor. Obama has moved inside the beltway bubble, if he was ever outside the bubble.
Presidents since JFK have had good reason to consider the CIA and similar spooks off-limits for investigation and prosecution.
Posted by mike at April 17, 2009 07:23 AMBasically nothing ever happens that rocks the status quo. You never see an item on the news that makes you go "holy sh1t!, they did that?" about the government. Ever. Unless it's to blow some little brown people away in a country you can't find on the map...
Posted by Daro at April 17, 2009 07:57 AMI believe one of the OLC memos released (and I hugely applaud Obama doing so) actually mentions the fact that those in charege were well aware that the law was not necessarily on their side even though they were giving it the a-ok to break the law...so apparently there was no dereliction of duty despite these legal eagle lawyers knowing full well what they were doing (advising law breaking)....hmmmm.....and one of them now sits in one of the highest courts in the land. Obama's let bygones be bygones essentially says to me that there certainly is one set of laws for them and another for the rest of us serfs ....the lowly few bad apples and other low hanging fruit were prosecuted (and rightfully so) but not those who knowingly greenlighted the orders.
What's that presidential oath of office ...something about serving to protect and defending the constitution...so help me gawd...or something.
Posted by emal at April 17, 2009 08:10 AMFrom pound puppies to "holding them accountable". You have been lied to by Obama more in three months than Bush's entire eight years.
Posted by manapp99 at April 17, 2009 08:11 AMmancrap is full of mancrap as usual, but I do wonder if Hillary would have taken torture prosecutions off the table before the extent of what happened is even known. No pie fights, please. It's an honest question.
Also, would McLame have done anything on past torture?
Posted by TIKI AL at April 17, 2009 08:23 AMYes of course, I see it now. It's so clear
The Evil of War Crimes = changing your mind about a dog
Water board or Waterdog, what's the difference.
Posted by mparker at April 17, 2009 08:25 AMwhat planet are you from man-ape? bizarro world? that which passes for logic in your(brain?) is subject to doubt...or common sense...suggest you wander on over to join "onar" on planet lunacy..
Posted by headxray at April 17, 2009 08:40 AMUm apparently man-ape is taking the Pro lying (and has taken the first step now even admitting his heroes Junyah and Darth were liars too)..way to go man-ape...you embarrassing yourself here on a daily basis obviously is something else you enjoy very much.
Posted by emal at April 17, 2009 09:07 AMAl Gore, Michael Moore, and now Barrack Obama. You people must just enjoy being lied to.
Posted by manapp99 at April 17, 2009 09:35 AMAlmost forgot the original serial liar in chief, you know our FIRST black president. Bill Clinton.
Posted by manapp99 at April 17, 2009 09:37 AMIn other words Mr, President, you yourself will be obstructing justice. And if you go that far, for any reason, you are no better than George W. Bush.
What a load of tripe Deacon...since when did the POTUS get elected to settle scores?..There are plenty of groups that will pursue your objectives...the former administration is under scrutiny worldwide and as tell all books come out, prosecutors of different jurisdictions will further these types of matters.
As it stands, BO's job is to get the economy going not to be seen as settling old scores with the Bush Administration.
Posted by Goyo at April 17, 2009 10:04 AMYawn. The 3rd grade "I know you are, but what am I" crap is boring. Man-ape, tell us about your teabagging experience! Did you give or get? Did you wear a silly costume? How many people laughed at you? Did you and peter meet up and 69 it? When's the next performance? Inquiring minds want to laugh at you some more!
Posted by Twinky P* at April 17, 2009 10:06 AMI think you all leftwingers are wrong in comparing torture of jihadi murderers to Nazis. Killing of innocent jewish men, women, and children in gas chambers is not the same as waterboarding a jihadi.
As for you rightwingers like manape99, why are you so full of hate? Obama won by a large margin because people rejected the rightwing ideology. Now give the guy a chance before you jump on his case. Now if you are disappointed because Obama took a puppy from Kenedy instead of from a pound, I think you need serious psychological treatment. When country is facing such big problems and only thing you can think of is to criticize the guy (who is working so hard to fix the problems) because he did not get a dog from a pound as he said before. By the way this puppy was probably headed for a pound because it original owner did not think it is compatible to his family.
Posted by suresh at April 17, 2009 10:07 AMTo manape99:
Comparison of effect of Clinton (Monica) and Bush (Iraq) lies on the nation:
EFFECT CLINTON BUSH
Dead soldiers 0 over 4100
Injured 0 over 30,000
Cost 0 $1 trillion
Credibility of Good Worst
USA
Economy Surplus Big Deficit
Do you get the picture? Or are you wearing the blindfolders given to you by RNC?
Posted by s at April 17, 2009 10:33 AMWhat kind of a cretin thinks that not getting a dog from a pound (even if one previously said they would try to) is a "lie"? And what kind of an imbecile would think that it makes the slightest bit of difference to any rational person?
And then Mancrapp00 insanely connects "serial lying" with "Black presidents", with an lunatic reference to Clinton. This after the lying Bushco.
You really need to camoflage your racism a wee bit better, Mancrapp00---that's what's expected today.
The loathsome portrait of a Conservative White Male, 2009. Hideous, deformed with vicious, frothing-at-the-mouth hate.
Get the hell out of here, you pathetic loser.
Posted by euzoius at April 17, 2009 10:48 AMI agree with Glenn Greenwald. Obama should be praised for releasing the torture memos and CONDEMNED for not investigating the war criminals.
The Constitution sets out the duties of the President: "...He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...."
Our laws and treaty obligations requires us to investigate war crimes. If Obama refuses then he becomes an "accomplice after the fact."
Posted by Gay Veteran at April 17, 2009 11:23 AMThe Constitution sets out the duties of the President: "...He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...."
And he has. He has put an end to the practices condoned by his predecessor. He has instructed the Justice Department that such activities will no longer be condoned. He has taken steps to bring us back into compliance with our treaty obligations.
The President of the United States is not a law enforcement officer.
"I think you all leftwingers are wrong in comparing torture of jihadi murderers to Nazis. Killing of innocent jewish men, women, and children in gas chambers is not the same as waterboarding a jihadi."
Suresh, the point you are (deliberately?)missing is that the "jihadi murderers" were not CONVICTED of being such - they were SUSPECTS.
One doesn't have to be left wing or any damn wing to see that this is not the behaviour of a civilised country. "Innocent Jewish men" you write. Well, in any civilised land, isn't an accused man supposed to be innocent until proved guilty?
Prosecuting people who have committed War crimes is not "settling an old score". It's called Justice.
Posted by mparker at April 17, 2009 01:03 PMsnark: "The President of the United States is not a law enforcement officer."
which branch of government enforces the law? gee, ask Attorney General Holder (a member of Obama's cabinet)
Posted by gay veteran at April 17, 2009 01:41 PMThe Washington Post reported on December 9, 2007 that the Hill was briefed on waterboarding in 2002 in a story by Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen. Once, "The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.
" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk. "
The article goes on talking about some 30 private briefings provided to "legislative overseers". People like Rep Jane Harman and Sen. Bob Graham, John D. Rockefeller. All in 2002, yet no clarions were loosed heralding anything illegal.
***
"Glenn Greenwald's post on the subject of non-prosecution is typical of those who don't read the statute or understand the law. Greenwald makes the point that the government, under international treaty, "shall ... submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution...."
That has been done. The case was submitted to the Department of Justice, which made a decision not to prosecute. Submitting a case for prosecution does not mean that there must be criminal charges brought if the prosecuting authority believes no crime was committed." William A. Jacobson
which branch of government enforces the law?
The Executive.
Gay Vet; Who is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States?
Do you believe that the POTUS should be deciding who does and does not get investigated? Or should that be the job of an independent Justice Department?
Posted by snark at April 17, 2009 01:56 PMFrom the linked article above;
A multiagency task force Obama established in his first days in office is evaluating other options for questioning such suspects and is exploring whether individual CIA officers may have committed crimes by overstepping the limits imposed by lawyers.
"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Holder said in a statement.
I just don't get all the hyperventilating. No one is trying to sweep this under the rug.
shit-fer-brains petie anyway you slice it this regards illegal torture as defined by actual U.S. law, not something that's OK because an insane criminal like mad dog cheney or his lapdog bybee said it was OK. you are back to the corrupt, idiotic puke view that "it's OK if the president says it is"...you chimp puke asswipe apologists really need to get off that idea which is just more of the same old tired puke bullshit...like the rest of the "ideas" or "views" you like to push, we need to call it as it is republican bullshit propaganda espoused by an idiot...you
Posted by headxray at April 17, 2009 02:08 PMHa! I saw what you did, peter:
Once, "The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk. "
First off, you rearranged the paragraphs, intimating by juxtaposition that Pelosi had asked the question about whether the torture was "tough enough." You also deleted any reference to Republicans involved, to make it appear as if only Dems were briefed and didn't raise a fuss (the article you failed to link to said they'd signed a secrecy oath and were forbidden to say anything). Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids!
Also, the first Bybee memo was dated August 1, I believe and this briefing happened in September. And it was a "virtual tour." Kinda like Powell's Powerpoint briefing to the UN? Looks to me like some ass-covering. But I think we knew that at the time, didn't we?
Posted by Twinky P* at April 17, 2009 03:37 PMWhat did you expect from a guy who thinks peeps rode dinosaurs?
Posted by TIKI AL at April 17, 2009 08:04 PMWhy would the folks here have any regard for the Republican legislators Twinky? Sure they were there too, everyone knows or should that if overseeing was happening Republicans wouldn't be shut out of these briefings. Oh, and that oath you speak of allows them to witness an illegal act on not say anything? They also take an oath to abide by the Constitution. I would think that trumps any secrecy oath, or are these now "state secrets" that AG Holder is becoming very aware of and supporting.
And your "intimating by juxtaposition" is in your mind. The article referenced, though not linked, was dated and authored if someone wanted to read more. I see you had no problem finding it.
And I agree, "Trix are for kids!" Way to much sugar, I'm glad you like them.
And just for headcase...
"18 U.S.C. sec. 2340 provides the definitions of what constitutes torture:
As used in this chapter--
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from--
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
18 U.S.C. sec. 2340A provides for criminal sanctions for conduct which constitutes torture as defined in sec. 2340:
(a) Offense.--Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.--There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if--
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.--A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
The key wording in the statute is "specifically intended" and "severe." A generalized intend to cause harm, but not necessarily severe pain or suffering, is not a crime. Similarly, a specific intent to cause some, but not severe, pain or suffering is not a violation. There are no guidelines as to what constitutes severe pain or suffering, other than that in the case of mental pain or suffering, the effects must be of a long duration." William A. Jacobson
Apparently AG Holder is of like mind after whatever review he's had an occasion to perform. And our Constitutional Law Professor, President Obama seems to be accepting this view too. The statute may be poorly written by Congressmen. "Congress clearly intended to give wide latitude to those conducting interrogations before one crossed the line into illegal torture."
...
"There needs to be "specific intent" to cause "severe physical or mental pain or suffering." But if DOJ has opined that the specific conduct did not fall under this category, then there was no "specific intent."
Is this circular? Yes, but that is the way the statute works. Those who argue that we must "respect" the law have to use that respect even when they don't like the result." WAJ
Posted by peter at April 17, 2009 09:22 PMHey Deacon,
I have liked having you here posting, but your statements go too far. I was a Clinton supporter, yet I think Obama has given us the ability to pursue some justice here, he released the memo's. Therefore he is not as guilty as Bush, WTF?
I am not a blind Obama supporter, but the guy has only been in office for 2 plus months, and what he has done is enough for us to stand up and do something about it.
Do you expect that the citizens of the US were not in some way complicit by allowing the Republicans to steal two elections for "W"????
It is now up to US (yes us citizens) citizens to now force him to do what is right and seek justice. This democracy thing is not just about them, it is also about us.
Think before you type, please.
Posted by kcbill13 at April 17, 2009 09:29 PMObama seems to have backed off on the Gitmo thing. I mean really ... who cares if the terrorists are released here in America and given paychecks with our tax dollars? Also, Obama really screwed the pooch by releasing the CIA papers on interrogation. Before the release of the CIA papers, we still had a chance to convince the idiots of the world that Bush OK'd torture. Now .... Everyone knows we never tortured anyone any time. Obama really messed up our torture scam. Sometimes it seems he just can't think without getting a headache and loosing control of his bowels. Lately, every time Obama speaks, it is obvious to all, he has diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.
Posted by GitmoRoonie at April 17, 2009 10:34 PMI bothered to scan your bullshit reply shit-fer-brains petie and I started seeing an asshole like you trying to defend puke criminal, torture bullshit, propaganda with what might have been actual statute..
I'll never bother reading them...
Facts are: In 1994, Congress passed a new federal law which specifically provides for penalties including fines and up to 20 years' imprisonment for acts of torture committed by American or other officials outside the United States. In cases where torture results in death of the victim, the sentence is life imprisonment or execution.
18 U.S.C. � 2340A, available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/ i/chapters/113c/sections/section_2340a.html (accessed March 3, 2003). Section 2340 (available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=2340 (accessed March 3, 2003)) provides the following definitions:
"Torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
"Severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from -
the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
the threat of imminent death; or
the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mindaltering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality..
look asshole none of the crap you post has facts...only an asshole trying to pull crap out his ass to justify more repuke criminality...
Here's some facts about the U.S.international agreements on torture: Any practice of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by United States officials violates international human rights standards to which the United States is a party. These include the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Torture Convention), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Puke torture apolgists like you are disgusting shit head pete.....
another fallacy from shit brain petie..
the statute's only work your way (no intent) in the repuke delusional world of planet bizarro..you are even more ignorant than I thought possible...you are using bybee's and yoo's reasoning as to why those laws aren't torture...talk about a moron...all those "memo's" are puke bullshit of the highest order...they mean absolutely nothing in reality...
remember asswipe...the crux of your mental delusions...they have no basis in reality...so I guess you think your repuke supreme court is going to validate yoo and bybee....don't count on it ...
keep it up shit head pete..your defense and apologizing for those statutes will lead to a case of "make me do it" by the President..your scum asswipe "leaders" can still be prosecuted..Obama has already proven adept at manipulating your sorry ass excuse for puke leadership....who knows what a special prosecuter like Patrick Fitzgerald can do...
it always amounts to a case of puke delusion like
your chimporer's "victory' in Iraq or the "democracy" he setup there..everything mad dog cheney and his pet chimp touched has turned to shit....
smarter trolls please...
headxray,
Well, at least the Great President Bush and excellant VP Cheney are honest and good men who did an excellent job of running the country until the 2006 elections where Pelosi, Frank and Dodd ruined the economy despite all Bush and Cheney did to try to stop them from destroying the economy using Fannie and Freddie. Plus, the little side benefit of protecting American soil, you and yours for eight years was nice.
Obama and Biden on the other hand are nothing more than a corrupt, lying, Chicago criminal, extortionist and an exaggerating simpleton nitwit whose only tallents are conning morons and idiots into voting for them.
pete is a hero?
back on your meds we notified the asylum you're lose and a danger to yoursef...pete is a hero? you can't be freakin real...
is this the shit-fer-brains pete official fan club?
you get together with him and tea bag one another?
Hey, thanks for re-posting stuff from my comment, then calling my comments crap. You're deluding yourself, but, that's Okay, we're in America. You have that freedom. I included the penalty passed by Congress in 1994. As far as working "my way", seems the guy you voted for is leaning "my way". Seems his AG, after a review of the facts. Is leaning "my way". Justice is supposed to be blind to anything but the scales. President Obama and AG Holder have reviewed the facts and found their campaign dogma wanting. Bravo to them for realizing this and just releasing these papers.
I heard Spain has backed off their intent to pursue any Bush Admin officials in this regard. So much for your "International" direction. Doesn't hold any water. They will be able to travel freely anywhere in the world. But why leave such a nice place like America with fine folks like you living here.
Posted by peter at April 18, 2009 04:18 AMyou continue to be your own worst enemy, crap head pete...
you continue to miss the point I constantly make..
you are completely, utterly, and totally delusional..
exactly like a drug addict who can't kick his habit as it kills him..your habit is denying the reality that a large majority of this planet sees clearly ..
you are rationalizing and excusing CRIMINALS...not just plain old muggers or swindlers; sadistic, power whore, genocidial, psychopathic criminals...
you know anything about criminals? Evidently not..they constantly lie, steal, cheat, and ruin everything they can and in increasingly creative ways...
you are way beyond stupidity, but that is very obviously one part of your problem..you read and quote legal definitions of torture and not only ignore what a 10 year old can see, you turn around and justify and excuse it with logic a 10 year old wouldn't use due to it's, again, stupidity....and do it in a way a 5 year old would: nana nana na torture's ok cause I say so....
as long as you continue to post crap that displays this much resemblance to nazi propaganda, I will be here to point out you're spewing that propaganda...
have a miserable life as it is what you apparently wish on the rest of the world...and I almost forgot..you are a complete asshole...
Poor peter, has to sock puppet to get someone to like him. Must be hard being on the losing side, huh? 'Course, that's what happens when your political philosophy counts on the ignorance of huge swaths of people and a majority wises up in time to vote the liars out. Of course, some, like you, never wise up. Like Obama said, you're "willfully ignorant" and nothing will change your embrace of whatever your masters "believe" this week 'cause you're a congenital follower. Luckily for us, both politically and just for fun, your masters have gone off the rails, and are cementing their minority for the next generation, if the world is lucky. So, go ahead and dishonestly spin what you can, it's all powerless flailing, Trixie, and fun to watch. Inventing sockpuppets to pretend you have more support than you really have shows your desperation. Mmmm, and it's tasty, tasty desperation at that!
Posted by Twinky P* at April 18, 2009 06:22 AMpeter must have watched O'Reilly and Rove espouse the virtues of torture on "the factless" yesterday.
With torture on hold, we will be hit again at any moment. Poor scared and bewildered little trolls wetting their jammies across 'Merca.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 18, 2009 10:12 AMsnark: "Do you believe that the POTUS should be deciding who does and does not get investigated? Or should that be the job of an independent Justice Department?"
Attorney General Holder has announced that he will NOT investigate these war crimes committed by the CIA. Obama should order him to do so, otherwise his administration is protecting the war criminals of the Bush administration.
Posted by gay veteran at April 18, 2009 02:49 PMHe's not "protecting" anybody. There's no crime here, move on. The Spanish have, the world will, just move along. Nothing to see.
Hey Tiki, haven't caught an O'Reilly since Obama's been president. And maybe less than five times total in my life. With the exception of his appearances as host of Inside Edition, I haven't seen much of him at all.
Ah, Twinky and his straw. I'm enjoying watching this guy disappoint you time after time. Thanks Deacon for the post!
Posted by peter at April 18, 2009 09:29 PM