Conyers, Sanchez, Paul: Obama Torture Decision Wrong (AUDIO)

Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), chair of a judiciary subcommittee that has been investigating Bush Administration misdeeds since Democrats took control of Congress, is disappointed in President Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA officials who tortured detainees, as long as the torture was deemed legal at the time by the White House.

"I still believe that we need to hold people accountable when they break the law and I personally would have liked to have seen some accountability for the actions of people in the last administration," Sanchez said Friday on the Bill Press Show.

"I know it's a difficult line to walk, but I don't think that you become a better democracy or stronger democracy by ignoring these kinds of things," she said.

Listen:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) also told Press he disagreed with Obama's decision, saying that he was sure a number of Obama supporters would be disappointed with the president. (Perhaps he's been reading the HuffPost comments section.)

"That's endorsing disobedience to the law," he said. "I think some of the people who helped Obama get into office might be a little bit disappointed. And they might be disappointed about Afghanistan and marijuana laws and state secret laws and not prosecuting people."

Listen:

Story continues below

advertisement

Paul said such decisions undermine the point of an election. "If it gets fuzzy in any way, a new administration ought to at least investigate and find out -- let us know what really happened. That's the purpose of switching administrations; to clean house and at least let us know what happened. When policies don't change and the potential crimes that were committed aren't even looked into seriously, I think that gives a lot of disenchantment to the people who have wanted some change."

UPDATE: Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) agrees:

"As Americans digest the awful revelations in the Bush-era OLC opinions, our nation faces a critical choice - what will we do to ensure that abuses like those described in these memos are never again ordered by our leaders or justified by our lawyers? To me, the answer is obvious. We must have a full investigation of the circumstances under which these torture methods were created, approved, and implemented, preferably by an independent commission as I previously proposed. And if our leaders are found to have violated the strict laws against torture, either by ordering these techniques without proper legal authority or by knowingly crafting legal fictions to justify the torture, they should be criminally prosecuted. It is simply obvious that, if there is no accountability when wrongdoing is exposed, future violations will not be deterred.

"I believe a Commission is the best forum to resolve the difficult issues raised by the ever-increasing documentary record of Bush Administration interrogation abuses. To take just one example, today two former Bush Administration officials again took to the papers to justify these practices by claiming that the interrogation of Abu Zubaydeh had been a clear success and had led to the disruption of terrorist plots. Yet just two weeks ago, former Bush Administration officials who monitored this interrogation told reporters that 'not a single significant plot was foiled' as a result. The American people deserve a non-partisan answer to such fundamental questions.

"Finally, I do not understand the statements by the President and the Attorney General yesterday on the issue of potential prosecutions to address the senior officials and government attorneys who crafted and approved these programs. Further, yesterday's statements did not address the legality of any conduct that exceeded even the minimal boundaries established by the OLC memos, or any interrogations that occurred before legal guidance was provided."

Get HuffPost Politics on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Comments

[Counterpunch]

Even if they are not punished right away, the world knows what Bush, Cheney and their lackeys were up to and although the Bush group does not care, people of conscience in the world know.

We are a nation of laws prosecute these people!

[JadedAggie]

My experiences with behavioral psychology make me uncomfortable with prosecuting the low level employees. However, both high level and mid level officials whom are responsible for creating and implementing these policies should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. In addition, the low level employees should be heavily reprimanded if not fired depending on their actions.

[Beninn]

You can't pre-determine where you cut off the accountability, not that Obama's considering going after anyone. You launch investigations and go where those investigations lead you. Nobody's placed off-limits at the start. A prosecutor may decide to give immunity in exchange for testimony, but you don't begin that way.

If you're talking about Stanley Milgram, that was 50 years ago in a time when nobody knew of Milgram's experiment (duh) or Kitty Genovese. It was also before much discussion and digestion of WWII had taken place, and "just following orders" as a defense. That doesn't cut it in a democracy where we're each responsible for upholding the law. Our democracy depends on oversight and a constant check on power. The problem here is that the CIA knew better.

The CIA knew that what they were being asked to do was illegal. They went to the executive branch and asked for cover. "If you want us to torture, we want a piece of paper from Office of Legal Counsel that explains how it's legal when this sheeit hits the fan, as it most certainly will."

Torture is illegal in the US. We prosecute people for mistreating animals in this country, not only people. But, incredibly, due to pathologically disturbed people who have been running our government, we're splitting hairs as to what constitutes "torture" when anyone with half a brain knows that it was all licensed sadism, counterproductive to the interests of the US and its citizens.

[brandnewstuff]

James J Zogby, President, Arab American Institute
Holder is absolutely correct. If we are a nation of laws, then all must be held accountable before the law- I concur

[jeliz]

President Obama didn't prosecute them but he put out the memos so that we could. Don't you think that even Bush or Cheney's neighbors and friends will have a hard time dealing with them when they made these calls? Dallas doesn't only contain Republicans. Bush will be an outcast among many of his own. I prefer the mental anguish Bush will go through over this -- and he will. Everytime he leaves and goes somewhere, some will be yelling, "Torturer," even at the hardware store. Cheney, not so much. He sold his soul long ago.

[BarackstarObama]

Good post, my friend. The release of these memos will be an eternal embarrassment to the GOP.

[EyeballKid]

We're not supposed to be a Nation of Innuendos. We're supposed to be a Nation of Laws. So we need to execute the LAWS. Turley was right. The executive branch has a DUTY to prosecute. It's not a choice.

[higgins1990]

That explains the standing ovation he got on opening day at the Ballpark in Arlington.

[Gumby123]

That's pretty short sighted, I thought National integrity is at stake here.

[Beninn]

Until there are prosecutions and convictions, you can't even say that what happened was a crime. And that leaves the door open for it to be done again by some other administration.

So any deterrent factor you get from knowing that when such-and-such was done in the past, heads rolled, is absent. Any benefit that the repercussions from breaking the law is going to get you convicted and sent to prison is removed and future administrations know then that they can whatever they want with impunity.

There goes the balance of power between the 3 branches of government, too. Executive branch can act with impunity, knowing that both the Congress and future administrations aren't going to hold the previous ones accountable, or challenge their behavior by taking it to the judicial branch for a decision.

That means that we are no longer a functioning democracy. The Constitution has ceased operating.

[Ldyandrea]

I am just speculating here, but in thinking what might be going on behind the scenes, I think Obama may be crazy like a fox. By initially coming out and indicating he's not going to make a big thing about it from a legal standpoint, it basically pulls the Republicans' teeth on the subject. Had he come out with his metaphorical guns blazing to go string up Bush and Cheney, there would be instantaneous outrage by the Right. This way, he's taking the initial outrage against himself for NOT coming for their heads, allowing Americans and probably most of Congress to get really pissed off, and then being able to say, "Hey look! Everyone really wants prosecutions.....maybe we should do something about that."

In the end, he looks like he provided a measured and non-hostile approach against those individuals who are surely guilty (I'm talking now about those who actually made the decisions on the policy, not those who carried out what they thought were legal orders), but has been convinced by the national outrage that some kind of independant prosecutor should be investigating it, and everyone gets what they want.

Well, except maybe for Bush & Cheney, but who really cares what they want anymore?

[lsmart]

Whatever happened to just being strong and making a statement instead of "politicking"?

Especially when tortured people are concerned?

He can "politic" all he wants on non-torture issues.

This is way too important.

[Ohsherri]

Chnney and friends wouldn't show up for anything anyway.

Too many fishing trips planned.

And a few appearances booked to poke President Obama in the eye.

No worries.

[JRAM]

I'm hoping this is an initial decision by the admininstration, part of a larger strategy that will ultimately lead to consequences for those responsible for implementing the torture policies of the Bush Administration. By not holding the "foot-soldiers" responsible, is President Obama encouraging congressional investigations that will go after the Bush policy makers?

If these Bush Era transgressions are allowed to fester without consequence, then Mr. Conyers is correct in stating there is nothing to keep them from happening again. Non action by any branch of government is an endorsement of those misdeeds.

[logic63]

I agree with this post. I'm a full out Obama supporter but this gives me pause if it is the whole story.

[brandnewstuff]

That is the point of Leadership- Not backing off even if it is not easy or condusive to everyone good morale. The Memos out of course criminal acts occured and so Ungodly - I am just glad US Prosecutor Johnyy Sutton QUIT!

[M1]

Any American should be held to common sense. The relabeling of torture as not torture by the memos did not change the fact that any person with common sense would understand such treatment applied to another human being to be torture. Yet, these CIA people did it anyway. I submit that they should have left their employment and filed complaints. They do not deserve to keep their jobs because they will do it again when Obama is not our President.

I disagree with Obama's decision on this matter and think it a grave mistake for out future but agree that politically it is easier to go this route. A big disappointment for justice.

[dbrockx]

republican , democrat, whatever, crime is crime and it needs to be dealt with, I agree, Obama can't afford to skip this issue, both him and the attorney general needs to regroup and come up with a special procecutor to handle this issue, immediately

[joeyc]

Ron Paul is so full of himself...

[harriscrl3]

That he is.

Carol

[Billyboy321]

How so? He has been right more than most, but he sure has been humble IMHO.

[lsmart]

HAHAHA! Ron Paul seems awfully meek compared to terrorizers Bush or Cheney.

Now THOSE guys are full of themselves.

[tonydon]

you should not prosecute the people tha were told to do it, you go after the one'w who told them to do it. If you don't prosecute the doers, you will get them to identify who ordered it and you go after them.

[MBinNYC]

But that's how you get the Do'ers to flip on the person who gave the order. If you tell someone from the start that they are protected, they have no incentive to talk.

Haven't you ever seen NYPD Blue or Law and Order? It the threat of prosecution and the offer of a lenient deal if they talk that gets them talking. Now it's only going to be harder to get the folks that are really responsible.

[lsmart]

If someone told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

C'mon. The people who did it and the people who told them to do it were ADULTS.

[dems08]

booshies play the 9/11 card.... again:

"...former CIA director Michael Hayden and former attorney general Michael Mukasey charged that disclosure of the memos "was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy."

"Its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on September 11, 2001."

[TheMuckraker]

Hey Conyers, Hows that bush impeachment going?

[pjburke]

that one went from "really love my 'peachment gonna shake that tree-ee--ee"

to

"rottin 'peachment, rotting in the sun"

[TJCole]

You know even, or especially a President must consider seriously retaliation by the CIA...

See what I mean...

Waterboarding is hardly the worse, they are more than capable of...