Why Obama is wrong not to prosecute the Bush admin. for torture

[edhopper]

Because the next Repug President will do it without fear of repercussions.
"Looking forward" is meaningless if we do not redress the crimes of the past.

[obxhead]

1. He can't.

When you're guilty of the same crimes it's silly to prosecute the last person to commit them.

[coalition_unwilling]

3. I hold no warrant for Obama and plan only grudgingly to vote for him

in 2012, but I really must ask: are you seriously alleging that the Obama administration is continuing torture policies and practices commenced under Bush?

There's plenty to criticize Obama for (his assault on the principle of due process for one thing), but accusing him of torture seems a bit over the top to me.

[judy]

4. How about Bradley Manning?

Don't you think he is being tortured? Maybe they don't do waterboarding anymore, though I couldn't swear to it. They still do extraordinary rendition and holding people for no reason ad infinitum without a trial. That's enough for me.
I will begrudgingly vote for Obama.
He has innocent blood on his hands, just like GWB...drones in Pakistan and Yemen, and all that.
Maybe it is the role of Congress to prosecute former officials who are war criminals, but if he had encouraged his DOJ to do an investigation of the Weapons of Mass Destruction, etc. and indicated that it is wrong to invade a country just for reasons of pure greed, I think it would have done a lot for this country's soul.

Right now, if the International Court in The Hague was to prosecute anyone for crimes against humanity regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo, etc., I'm afraid they would have to include Obama in the lot...

[coalition_unwilling]

16. I did not really follow all the back and forth about Manning before he was

transferred to Ft. Leavenworth. I do remember that there were fierce partisan battles here on DU over the issue of whether Manning's confinement constituted 'torture' at the time. I don't think anyone is alleging that Manning is being tortured while in pre-trial custody at Leavenworth.

I agree with you that Obama's contempt for due process leaves me alienated and less than enthusiastic, but again question whether all the wrongs you detail encompass 'torture' (or 'war crimes') as outlined in Zelikow's memo.

[madokie]

2. Thats a job for congress, not President Obama

If President O was to say or do anything concerning this it would open fhe flood gates of repuke hate. Yes there is a lot more hate in there than they show today. Let the President do as you suggest and the carnage begins

[msongs]

5. "Profiles in Courage" is just a book title lol nt

[eomer]

6. He doesn't need to do or say anything. He just needs to privately rescind his orders to the DOJ.

Clearly he has directed the Department of Justice, through the Attorney General, to not prosecute these crimes no matter how strong a case there is. He merely needs to privately rescind this order and direct them to resume doing their job as the rule of law requires them to.

And, of course, Congress cannot prosecute anyone - it's not one of the powers they are granted. Only the Executive Branch, headed by the President, can do that.

[madokie]

19. Now how smart would it be for the first black President to start a war against whitey

That whole crew will see the inside of a jail cell before this is all said and done. ICC is where this should be dealt with, none partisan, end result the same, possibly worse.

[Alcibiades]

28. The ICC is not acting

They have had plenty of time, but refuse to do anything. They only prosecute war crimes when they are commited by Africans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/mar/15/international-criminal-court-first-ruling-lubanga?newsfeed=true

[madokie]

41. You are not understanding how all this works

Its only been three years since this crew has been out of office. I suspect it will take something along the lines of 10 plus years before they act. The ICC will act you can bet the farm on that. Dick and w and the rest of the crew will be tried in the end. Spain is acting as I type and though them all this will happen. They have to wait to see if we are indeed going to or not going to try these war criminals ourselves and when time shows we won't deal with them then they will. So hold your horses as the old saying goes

[tritsofme]

43. The US is not a party to the Rome Statute, the ICC has no jurisdiction.

It is a delusion to think that these guys will ever stand trial, let alone outside of the US.

[madokie]

45. The criminals don't get to make the rules

as what you're saying implies. Hide and watch the day is coming that the criminal crew will be brought to the dock at the Hague. You can bet on that. They're still going after the Nazis FFS and how long has that been? 70 years in some cases. The wheels of justice are turning albeit all so slowly but turning they are.

[hack89]

47. Go look at the three instances that the ICC has jurisdiction

and it will be very clear that there is no way Bush will ever go in front of the ICC.

[madokie]

49. I'm going to check my eye lids for holes

I'll get more out of that.
peace
good night

[hack89]

50. Denying reality will not bring justice - merely more frustration.

Bush will never go before the ICC - they do not have jurisdiction. Plain and simple.

[madokie]

58. Think what you want, believe what you may

Theres been many less evil than them who found out differently. I hold out that justice will prevail

[hack89]

51. Spain is not not that stupid.

they will never be allowed to put a former US president on trial. How do you think they will force us to turn Bush over to them?

Spain has too much to lose and nothing to gain by antagonizing America like that.

[hack89]

46. ICC does not have jurisdiction.

The US is not a party state to the ICC and the ICC has not been granted universal jurisdiction. The only way the ICC would have jurisdiction would be if the UN security council referred a case to the ICC - since America has a veto that will never happen.

[Alcibiades]

54. They can assert jurisdiction

Not that they would, mind you. They have not even really investigated the claims that have been brought to their attention. It does not really matter that the US is not a signatory, so long as some of the alleged war crimes occured in countries that have signed, which is why the ICC investigated US conduct in Afghanistan.

Then there's the CAT, which has nothing to do with the ICC, and is completely toothless in any event. The fact that Ms. Gaer continues to serve is a bad joke: if she had any decency, she would resign in protest over US conduct. We have not made any effort to live up to our existing treaty obligations on this, employing a circular argument that says that no international authority has jurisdiction, and that these would be crimes against US and state law, but then not enforcing the law against Bush, Cheney and the various other war criminals. It would be swell if somebody asserted universal jurisdiction, but that's not happening either.

It ought to be the case that some international body will assert jurisdiction in this matter. A legal basis can be found for so doing, but neither the ICC or anybody else will do it. It's a possibility, but only a theoretical one. I disagree strongly with the sentiment expressed above that it is only a matter of time. International law is for the little people, not the US. It's not even a question of actually exercising a veto, because all the supposed watchdogs have completely abdicated their authority on a preemptive basis.

[Alcibiades]

55. OK, it took me a couple of minutes

http://www.univie.ac.at/bimtor/news/1175

Given that Romania is a party to the ICC, this ought to give it jurisdiction.

Though, again, it will never be exercised.

[TheKentuckian]

22. It is Congress' job to Impeach or not but prosecution is a completely separate issue

and the responsibility of the Executive.

[madokie]

24. I'll have to take your word for it

as I don't really know otherwise, I thought I did but if you say I didn't I guess I didn't.

[HooptieWagon]

7. I agree with OP.

Obama should have prosecuted BushCo war criminals, and I also am very unhappy hes continued much of the same policies.

[Solomon]

8. Aw jeez. This old chestnut again. You realize such

such a trial would utterly consume and paralyze the nation for years. Hell, this country can't even agree on the need for Zimmerman to be arrested when sufficient evidence is staring us in the face.

Pipe dream.

[just1voice]

11. Such a trial would put war criminals and traitors on trial for their crimes

That would establish America as a place where justice still matters.

BTW, saying that justice is a pipe dream sounds like something a criminal would say.

[Solomon]

14. Watch yourself. Dont cheat. I did not say justice is a

pipedream. That's your problem. Don't try and ascribe it to me.

[Rex]

18. You said justice in this particular instant is a pipedream.

Don't know how the criminal aspect came into this, but you DID say THAT was a pipedream. If we don't make our rulers accountable for crime...well we end up with what the POTUS had to deal with on his first days in office.

Point is, it NEEDS to be done for the sake of responsibility to the dead soldiers and the thousands of dead Iraqis.

[Solomon]

36. Oh for fuck sake, the word "justice" is not even in my post.

This is getting sillier and sillier.

[eomer]

37. The purpose of holding a trial is justice. If criminals are not prosecuted then there is no justice

Advocating that criminals should not be put on trial is advocating against justice.

It's fairly simple , for fuck's sake.

[just1voice]

39. Of for fuck sake, you're being obtusive and disingenuous.

"Watch yourself" -- It that a threat? Sure sounds like it.

[morningfog]

42. What purpose is a trial if not justice? That IS what you called a pipe dream.

[edhopper]

15. This is new now because

of the memo recently made public from within the Bush admin that stated what they wanted to do WAS torture.
My OP remains, this is now allowable behavior for any administration.
It is just like not prosecuting any of the criminals on Wall Street, they will only do it again.

[madokie]

20. Thats exactly what I'm trying to say in post 19

[JoePhilly]

21. Unemployment ticked down slightly.

Anytime there is even the most modest positive economic news, every outrage that was old, becomes new.

[paulk]

25. it's not "old"

article here -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/torture-memo-bush_n_1408612.html?ref=politics

WASHINGTON -- A six-year-old memo from within the George W. Bush administration that came to light this week acknowledges that White House-approved interrogation techniques amounted to "war crimes." The memo's release has called attention to what has changed since President Barack Obama took office, but it also raises questions about what hasn't.

The Bush White House tried to destroy every copy of the memo, written by then-State Department counselor Philip Zelikow. Zelikow examined tactics like waterboarding -- which simulates drowning -- and concluded that there was no way they were legal, domestically or internationally.

“We are unaware of any precedent in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or any subsequent conflict for authorized, systematic interrogation practices similar to those in question here," Zelikow wrote. The memo has been obtained by George Washington University's National Security Archive and Wired's Spencer Ackerman.

On his second full day in office, President Barack Obama formally disavowed torture, banning the types of techniques Zelikow had objected to so strongly in his memo.

But while Democrats are using the memo as evidence of a new post-torture era under Obama, human rights activists, civil libertarians and opponents of excessive secrecy say they see many ways in which the country's moral compass is still askew -- and in some ways even more so than before.


---------------


bringing up the Obama administrations reluctance to prosecute the Bush administration for war crimes is relevant.

ps - unemployment went down because people stopped looking for work. I know that runs against the official line, but some of us actually have to live in this economy.

[JoePhilly]

38. We already basically knew what was in the letter.

The Bush administration new it was torture, new it was illegal, and they went to great lengths to try and create some cover.

And apparently, as you help to demonstrate, every time unemployment goes down, its bad news. And when it goes up, that is also bad news.

120,000 job gains, bad news.

Obama still hasn't prosecuted Bush, still bad news.

All bad, all the time.

[paulk]

40. actually, only 120k jobs created IS bad news

it's less than what is needed to keep up with the number of people entering the work force.

it's a step back from the positive numbers of the last few months

it is a cause for some concern when it comes to this election cycle

unless we want to put our hands over our eyes and see the world as either for or against Obama

I'm sorry that I can't jump on the personality cult bus with you...

I'm sure that I'd fit under it, though

[annabanana]

23. We shouldn't do it because it would be hard. . . . .

?

[Zalatix]

29. Translation: to hell with real justice, it would cause too much chaos!

[EFerrari]

31. Given the pace of destructiveness of this nation, years of paralysis

might not be a bad outcome.

[Zalatix]

52. Yup, a country that cannot be bothered with justice isn't worth existing.

[bart95]

9. once you tug on that thread, you destroy the sweater

i agree with you that it would be justified

but the era of peacefull transition would come undone for this country

[just1voice]

12. There is no peacefull transition without justice

Tug on that.

[bart95]

13. feel free to suggest it to obama then

he's the president, not me

google youtube weezer undone for a good presentation of my point

[kenny blankenship]

34. What transition?

[Bluenorthwest]

10. The President worships a God who is ok with torture, just really angry at gay people.

So turn the page, protect the Sacrament....I do not respect him as his ethical priorities are disgusting.

[Rex]

17. I agree it is a big mistake that will comeback to

haunt us.

[TheKentuckian]

26. and to a much further extent than any blowback.

All short term pain must be avoided no matter what the cost.

[Rex]

27. Looks like it, almost as if they know the American

attention span is only 5 minutes. Yet, I doubt this will just 'go away' since it is a moment in history we all will remember like it was yesterday. Everyone knows the last POTUS commited crimes, it is just that simple and needs to be worked out.

[EFerrari]

30. All crimes are in the past.

By that logic, no criminal will be held accountable for any crime.

[AtomicKitten]

32. I agree and always have.

[Motown_Johnny]

33. Pelosi should have called for impeachment at the time

now our party is wrapped up in the cover up and we would suffer just as much as they would. Maybe more since our side does not support all the shit Bush pulled while the conservatives would want to give him a fucking medal.

I blame Speaker Pelosi for not doing her job when the job needed to be done. Now we are screwed.

[Alcibiades]

35. Obama traded prosecution to secure confirmation of Eric Holder

Which seemed really strange, and still does. I doubt he ever intended to prosecute anyway.

It could be that they won't do this because of the blowback it wouyld cause if it came out that top congressional Democrats knew everything that was going on all along, which the Buch administration may have done to cover their own asses. It could also be that the president does not want to have to go through the nasty spectacle that would ensue if they ever got around to investigating the military and intellegence folks who actually did the torture.

Whatever the reason, this country is barely recognizeable anymore. We need something like a truth & reconcilation commission: this must not be swept under the rug.

[mmonk]

44. You will read many reasons why but no justifiable reason we should not.

[hack89]

48. Obama will not set a precedence that may put him in legal jeopardy

many here think that the drone attacks against civilians are war crimes. Can you imagine a republican president would not hold a war crime trial for Obama if he thought he could get away with?

[Egalitarian Thug]

53. They are and they should. Is this a nation of laws or isn't it?

And if it's not, why should any of us obey any of them?

Which of course is where we are, we just don't talk about it.

[NashvilleLefty]

56. FAIL!

[fascisthunter]

57. history will not treat the defenders of this well

never allow partisanship to cloud your judgement. What is better for the country? The truth or a lie?