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

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

[TuFu]

HUFFINGTON POST: How about setting up a WALL OF INFAMY with the NAMES of all those who supported torture and continue to support torture, including newspapers, right wing freaks, and Bush lovers of tyrants and tyrannies.

Expose the tyrants and lunatics for what they are: make them pay for supporting torture and everything associated with it. WHY. THAT IT MAY NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

It we go the way we are going: Bush and his enablers(Joe Scarborough) in the media and the right wing freak machine and in governemnt(Hayden) and those using the Nuremburg defense of following orders that could not be used at Nuremburg.

PUT PRO-TORTURERS IN A HALL OF INFAMY: Destroy their credibility and any possible defense for a future Administration to ever commit these heinous war crimes.

[surfcitysteven]

The "doctors" that participated in this farce need to be outed. Every one of these modern Mengeles should not be allowed to practice ever again. They participated in torture and were instumental to it.

[hollybork]

Yes, the doctors should lose their licenses. And the lawyers should be disbarred. Finally, the Judge should who got a judgeship out of his craven legal opinion justifying terrorizing and physically hurting someone as permissible must be impeached and removed from the federal bench.

[lthuedk 1]

That leaves what, the top thirty Neo Cons for prosecution? They created the monster. It is they who should pay the price. However, If Obama uses this exception as precedent for the exoneration of higher ups-it will not be a pleasant four year term. I lean toward squeezing the lower echelons to get at the cabal itself.

Meatier targets lie upstream and might be prosecuted even if the downstream grunts get cleared for just following orders. Still, soldiers at Abu Ghraib were prosecuted for abusing suspects. So when the CIA agents and their prostitute-physicians and psychologists aren't charged, naturally, it stinks.

Prosecuting the top thirty Neo Cons will do just fine to send the world and any American proto despots a strong message while shock-educating the Bush-Cheney voters. There's nothing like a prosecution in open court to reach deep into Murdoch's base, and nothing they can do about it short of provoking armed revolution.

Now, if we could airdrop ten million computers with free broadband...to key red states...

http://www.light-to-dark.com/murdochs_enslaved_red_states.html

[laxfamily]

This was kind of my thoughts as well. I don't want to shoot the little guy, I want the big ones that set the strategy. I also guess I would like to see the Doctors that participated listed as I would hate to see them practice "medicine" at one of our hospitals but I am thinking that if you were doing your job, I'd rather you provide information to the investigation and get the people who were the "deciders" to use Bush's own words!

[seedyrum]

The world is watching

when the pictures of abuses broke in the public< Bush said there were low levels soldiers doing this : rogues soldiers> these soldiers were branded tried and convicted of abuse and other charges>

since Obama refuses to prosecute the CIA who did the torture these love level soldiers should be released and cleared of all charges and their records cleared>>

I dont agree with Obama in the least> this isnt what i voted for>>folks break the law and noone gets punished but low level folks>>who is Obama working for>>if he refuses to do things differently BUSH should have stayed in office>>at least we knew he was a crook but OBAMA presented himself to be different or so we thought>

Obama doesnt want to prosecute on torture or eavedropping or banks doing fradulently financial dealings> so who is in the white house and where is change???

THE WORLD IS WATCHING

[clarryr]

Two suggestions:

1) Get Congress to pass a bill requesting the Justice Department to pursue prosecutions.
2) Get Congress to appoint a special prosecutor of their own.

If they can drum up the necessary 60 votes then ok,
otherwise, don't put the full burden on the President to make this happen.

[KillTheMessenger]

One should probably push such a bill, anyway, and see who is voting against it. Voting record can be used in the next election. "Republicans for Torture" is not a bad slogan.

[LADawson]

They already caught a bunch of them in the vote for the extreme taxation of executive bonus pay - that should come around to bite them in the butt nicely next mid-terms. :)

[hollybork]

Good post. Good ideas. I vote for number two as the more likely of the options. Get a special prosecutor to give these torturers immunity to testify, bring them before the senate judiciary committee to explain what happened, who told them to do what, what they did and why. Then prosecute the people who set this policy in motion, justified it, ordered it to be done and supervised the doing. Those are the people we go after, not the CIA.

[rinpochet]

The burden should be on the president. Remember, "the buck stops here"?

The justice department should be investigating regardless. They are supposed to be independent of the executive branch, although I guess Bush changed all that.

Better still, an independent prosecutor but I never again want to hear the words "we need to move forward" come from the lips of Obama!! And I am one of his strongest supporters.

[StevieRae]

Knowing how we love JUICY long lasting, pervasive scandals that produce 24/7 coverage not unlike the OJ trial, this is just what we don't need now.

There are so many clamoring for the "Ringmaster" role with their own ideas of different acts to dish out to the American public, I don't see how we can begin to figure out how to best pursue these heinous acts of atrocity.

There are so many more issues facing our immediate economic survival.

[pjburke]

That's what we have professionals for... criminal prosecutors who figure out how to pursue such cases for a living.

All the distractors can take a seat, zip their zaps, and watch how it gets done.

[rinpochet]

Nothing is more important than investigating this. Where do you think Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other neocons in power came from? After Ford pardoned Nixon they figured it was safe. Do the crime and you will either be pardoned or never prosecuted. And they were right.

If you want a totalitarian government that can act unilaterally regardless, just ignore this and in time you will have it. Or maybe we pretty much had this under Bush!

[bbbear]

Exactly! But the vast number of sheeple who would rather graze in the pasture of the mindlessness boggles the mind!

[lthuedk 1]

That leaves what, the top thirty Neo Cons for prosecution? They created the monster. If Obama uses this exception as precedent for the exoneration of higher ups-it will not be a pleasant four year term. I lean toward the squeeze the lower echelons to get at the cabal itself.

Meatier targets lie upstream and might be prosecuted even if the downstream grunts get cleared for just following orders. Still, soldiers at Abu Ghraib were prosecuted for abusing suspects. So when the CIA agents and their prostitute-physicians and psychologists aren't charged, naturally, it stinks.

Prosecuting the top thirty Neo Cons will do just fine to send the world and any American proto despots a strong message while shock-educating the Bush-Cheney voters. There's nothing like a prosecution in open court to reach deep into Murdoch's base, and nothing they can do about it short of provoking armed revolution.

Now, if we could airdrop ten million computers with free broadband...to key red states...

http://www.light-to-dark.com/murdochs_enslaved_red_states.html

[Hallucinocynic]

It has been stated, ad nauseum, that an investigation is necessary if, for no other reason, the mechanics of governance are adjusted to insure that no future administration can so egregiously disregard national law.

Jonathan Turley www.jonathanturley.orgg) has pointed out that Obama, by attempting to stifle investigations surrounding the misuse of power by BushCo, is obstructing justice - a crime in, and of, itself. Turley should know.

I appreciate that Obama is trying to maintain some semblance of bipartisanship. But there is a legal OBLIGATION to conduct a thorough investigation of the previous administration. If those investigations warrant indictments, then they must be issued - no matter WHO'S involved on either side of the aisle.

The Obama administration must be compelled to pursue these illegalities. Appoint a Special Prosecutor now.

[hollybork]

I agree with appointing a special prosecutor. I do not agree with the conclusion that Obama is trying to "stifle" investigations. How do you stifle investigations by opening up the CIA and the Justice Dept files and turning the memos over to the press? That is an amazing turn around, a boon to fact finders. Those document alone could convict the people who set this in motion.

As to who should be prosecuted, that is not up to Obama. That is up to the prosecutorial arm of the government, either Eric Holder or a perhape a State prosecutor if any of the illegal actvities took place in their state. CB

[bbbear]

True, and thanks for being a true member of We The People as opposed to the vast number here who are clearly merely we the sheeple.

[littledogs1]

think that Bush, Cheney, and upper level doj officials should be charged, but lower level cia opperatives who were told what they were doing was leagal should not. They watched as those who refused to do as they were told lost their jobs, and not to mention, they were desprerate to prove what the white house wanted them to prove, they were told what they were being asked to do was legal and moral, they were following orders.

[calfacon]

So, if this was the Mafia would you let the hit-men off because the Capos told them it was ok and needed to be doen? Just asking?

[MathIsTruth]

Yes, they were told what they were being asked to do was legal and moral.

But it was their obligation to know better. And you know and I know that they DID know better.

Didn't YOU that torture is immoral and illegal? I mean, come on, doesn't everybody?

The CIA agents that performed torture were either worried about losing their jobs, or else they were simply violent, angry bullies who just liked the idea of making people suffer. Nary a one of them was thinking "I gotta protect my country".

[hollybork]

I agree.

Most people will do what they are told by the highest level of management of their job. Most people will be screened for the jobs they will most willingly do. It is unrealistic to expect security people to have a well developed conscience, in the whole in not in the specific.

Although you or I could not stomach torturing someone, and there are millions of other Americans who could not stomach it, doing something like that, I can easily imagine the scalding inner conflict a highly disciplined and trained person would be put into who was told he would either do it or go head to head with the entire apparatus of the government bearing down on him/her. They hear their bosses bosses boss saying "do that, it is your duty, it is the right thing to do to save Americans., it was approved by the White House." We train people to kill to "save Americans" so we should not be surprised you can train them to torture. These underlings will have to live with their memories and their infamy. They should not be prosecuted unless they went "rogue" like the people at abu ghraib.

[dimplesmile7]

President Obama this is not a wise move. Listen to the people and let proceed with hearings immediately. This issue is too serious to ignore.

[osage]

REPUBLICANS ARE AMERICA'S ENEMY WITHIN

Republicans ARE practicing seditious DEMAGOGUERY and insurrectionary OBSTRUCTIONISM intended to destabilize our economy for purposes of political exploitation.

Republicans AREN'T making a sincere effort to STOP the bleeding THEIR incompetent leadership and failed policies created. Instead, they're using conflicting economic theories as a smokescreen to conceal their subversive agenda, which is to cause President Obama and America to fail so they can blame Democrats for the consequences of THEIR calamitous mismanagement.

Republicans ARE preposterously professing that THEIR disgraceful political WHORING had nothing to do with the banking, real estate, stock market and employment catastrophes that resulted.

Republicans ARE trying to hamstring Democrats to prevent them from exposing the damage caused during a Republican presidency.

Republicans ARE offering controversial arguments they know no one can agree on to disrupt and prevent progressive change. They'd rather divide America and create political gridlock than endure the political consequences of effective Democratic governance. That's how they gained power and that's how they're trying to retain it.

Republicans AREN'T the LOYAL OPPOSITION; they ARE the ENEMY WITHIN whose personal priorities have eroded their moral and ethical standards to the point that duplicity and betrayal are their preferred modus operandi.

It's one thing to advocate their conservative beliefs; it's another thing entirely to willfully sabotage America's government because a successful Democratic presidency would not be vulnerable to the greed, fears and hatreds that have produced and sustained the radical Republican corporatism and extremism that have poisoned and crippled America.

[hollybork]

Osage, once again you have struck a chord for me. I agree with you. They are the dark side, particularly the neo cons, who eschew military service themselves but are all too ready to send our children out to die as the collateral damage for them getting spoils in war, resources, military bases or enriching their military armament profiteering friends.

I don't know what we can do about it. We need to be aware that evil is real and cyclical. It does not ever really go away. We can strengthen our commitment to the rule of law and the constitution. We can stand against torture, unilateral military invasions, violations of rights of privacy, first amendment and unequal protection of the laws. We can work on behalf of the two civil rights issues for this time - full national healthcare and full contractual rights for all citizens. We can stand on principle and hold together being comforted by the fact that they represent about 20 - 25% of the country.

[bbbear]

The first thing we have to do is pressure Obama to stop protecting them, at the same time pressure our bought and paid for congress to kill the FISA bill and devise one that fits within the constitution...

[wijg]

We are a nation of laws. They broke the law. Investigate, prosecute.

[calfacon]

Yes, yes, YES

[javagirl322]

a nation of laws......or so we thought.

[ggaitherii]

My disappointment with this decision is overwhelming. President Obama, do the right thing or be a one term president who left a promising future on the table.

[Coinyer101]

sorry everyone, but, I support Ron Paul on these particular comments. He is right. I would be interested in Dennis Kucinich's views on these matters ,as well.

[bbbear]

Although I strongly suspect Ron Paul is as near to being an honest man as Diagenes could have hoped for, I hate Paul's nutty political convictions. That said, I too agree on this one point. Obama is not only shirking his duties, he's breaking the law by not appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration. I too would enjoy hearing Dennis on these matters. Buit unfortunately only a few of us take Kucinich seriously

[JDM73]

I'm curious: why do some folks seem to think that Obama is going to "get around" to prosecuting these CIA officials at a dim, distant, undefined point in the future? He's telling you in very plain language that he's not going to touch this case, to forget it, to start thinking about something else. Shutting your eyes, clapping your hands over your ears, and droning "Everything's okay, everything's okay" isn't going to help. Neither is attacking those who criticize the president based on his track record so far.

[Coinyer101]

they can attack me all they want. I'm with Ron Paul on this one.

[majorian]

He's saying nothing of the sort; knock it off. Read what Ambinder wrote:

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/no_immunity_for_bad_faith_interrogators.php

"Senior administration officials have made it clear to me: neither President Obama's statement nor Attorney General Holder's words were meant to foreclose the possibility of prosecuting CIA officers who did NOT act in good faith, or who did not act according to the guidelines spelled out by the OLC.

So it's not correct to say that the administration granted blanket immunity to anyone."

[JDM73]

Sorry, but this doesn't fill me with confidence. The Obama administration believes that these officials *did* act in good faith--that they were told, and believed, that their actions were legal. So who does the administration want us to believe it's going to go after now?
This thing's over and everybody knows it; that's why so many of us are so upset.