Ask Obama For a Torture Special Prosecutor

The Obama transition team is taking questions again at Change.gov, throwing open the site this week for citizen input. The first run of this experiment was a mixed bag. The platform was open and transparent, but the official answers felt more like old boilerplate than new responses. When the submitted questions parrot toics in the traditional media, of course, the exchange can feel like a dated press conference. But here's a vital question that few reporters have ever presented to Obama:

Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor (ideally Patrick Fitzgerald) to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?

That question ranked sixth in voting last time -- out of over 10,000 submissions -- but the transition team only answered the top five questions. Now that Vice President Cheney confessed his support for waterboarding on national television, flouting the rule of law, the issue is even more urgent. Activist Bob Fertik, who has submitted the question twice, explains how you can vote to press this issue on the transition team:

Sign in at http://change.gov/openforquestions Search for "Fitzgerald" [...and] find our question Look right for the checkbox, mouseover it so it goes from white to dark, then click to cast your vote

While the press has fixated on the criminal allegations against Gov. Blagojevich, for some reason, the (even more serious) allegations of torture by officials in the current administration receive scant attention. I have not heard one question about this during Obama's transition press conferences, and the traveling press corps almost never pressed Obama on the issue during the general election campaign.

One notable exception is The Philadelphia News' Will Bunch. Although he was not in the traveling press corps, Bunch did elicit Obama's April declaration that he would ask the Attorney General to "immediately review" evidence of potential crimes by the prior administration. (That response remains Obama's most thorough statement on the matter; it is still quoted in wire stories about the potential prosecution of Bush officials.) Given the sensitivity and gravity of potential prosecutions against a prior administration, however, an independent special prosecutor is better equipped to make the decision, as many legal experts has observed.

Law professor Jonathan Turley recently advocated a special prosecutor appointment, in order to investigate crimes regardless of whether the perpetrators were high-ranking officials. "Politicians merely have to get out of the way and allow a special prosecutor to take this investigation wherever it would lead," he told Legal Times. Turley added that he has "resisted" any emphasis on "how high up the ranks" prosecutions should go, because it "misses the point":

If there was a crime, we should not be concerned about where an investigation might lead. It will lead where criminal conduct is found. We do not ask that threshold questions for bankrobbers or purse snatchers. We leave the outcome to the criminal justice system.

Legal Times also asked Turley why his view has "not gained more currency in the public debate." The response is dead-on:

The mainstream media has bought into the concept that this is merely a political not a legal question. Indeed, media often leave the clearly misleading impression that there is an equal academic debate over whether waterboarding is torture or whether warrantless surveillance is legal. To this day, media refers to waterboarding as an 'interrogation technique' when courts have consistently defined it as torture.

Some journalists do approach torture and war crimes prosecution as a serious, legal issue -- attorneys Glenn Greenwald and Scott Horton have done extensive reporting; The New York Times recently editorialized for a special prosecutor; Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith have pressed for war crimes accountability in The Nation, and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow has interviewed senators and experts about the Bush administration's alleged crimes. (Fertik also has his own "scorecard".)

With so few journalists directly asking the President-Elect about these issues, however, it is up to the rest of us to put accountability and the rule of law on the agenda. Change.gov is a fine place to start.

--
Ari Melber writes for The Nation, where this piece first appeared.

The Change.gov "Open for Questions" platform invites citizens to submit and vote on questions for the transition team:

Comments

[rockymountainhigh]

Would just one person here please provide acceptable AND effective means of extracting information from these people that were supposedly "tortured"? What's that? You can't? In that case, you go sit on the porch and let the big boys do the hard work. You just sit there, remain safe, and exercise your constitutional right to live in Bizzaro world and bash the people who are trying to protect you, and give comfort to those who are trying to kill you

If you had any clue as to the information this so called "torture" provided us, how much it got us caught back up to what al Queda was planning, and how the network operates.......Considereing we did very little from the first WTC attack and from time they publicly delcared war on us(1996 or so) to understand, infiltrate, and start to dismantle their organization, shouldn't the years of negligence and inaction be what you people are all up in arms about? Oh, wait, you can't blame that on Bush, so why should you bother...the world was a perfect and friendly place until Jan. 20, 2001.....

[serena1313]

Although you linked to Scott Horton, he has another much more in-depth piece on the ins and outs of prosecuting the Bush administration. With historical references carefully woven into the text to substantiate certain points strengthens his argument which is premised on the need for investigations and if warranted, prosecution. The rule of law must prevail.

In addition to transforming the Justice Department into a political tool, instituting sweeping surveillance programmes, blocking investigations, etc... the WH sanctioned: Waterboarding. Hypothermia. Psychotic drugs. Sexual humiliation. Extraordinary renditions. They constitute torture. Torture is a crime. International and domestic law consider torture a war crime. It is illegal. The administration broke the law. If there is no accountability for crimes committed, they are sure to be repeated.

The remedy Horton suggests, after explaining the pros and cons of different avenues to pursue, a bi-partisan independent commission similar to the 911 Commission, but with broader powers, to investigate the administration. Gaining broad public support, admittedly a difficult challenge, however, necessary for success.

Historically

"Many democracies have collapsed as the people permitted their leaders to abandon the rule of law in the face of alleged external threats."

For those reasons and more the rule of law must prevail.

see essay here:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/12/0082303

[realpolitic]

I think that pursuing the Bush torture polciies and other criminal activities is one of the most important things Obama can do in office. Sadly, I think he is going to overlook these issues in the interests of accomplishing more on the economy and foreign policy. Sadly, the Bush constitution busting practices will not be addressed and prosecuted. Within fifty years, another conservative ideologue will repeat such practices.

[zjr909]

I'm just thankful that of the 15 comments, no one said they'd hold their breath till Obama agrees to consider a special prosecutor. You would be missed if you did. It's not going to happen because our ruling class is not about to give up torture now that they've finally "officially" gotten it. They might be willing to sacrifice a Bush or a Cheney; but you can't very well prosecute someone for torture without categorically condemning torture - and that, you can be sure they will not allow. This country has fundamentally changed. No surprise there. The only surprise is that our rulers are now gearing up to treat the nice, upstanding citizens among us the way we've allowed them to treat the not so nice, upstanding citizens among us. See, it's like this: they see no difference between us and the "riff-raff." Way up there, where they are, looking down: we all look alike to them. Carcasses to be picked clean. Now you wouldn't want them to start seeing our President-Elect the way they see the rest of us, would you?

[realpolitic]

The United States government does not make a distinction between upstanding citizens and "rii-raff." The government makes a distinction between any citizens and those who may be plotting a terrorist attack. The government should leave us alone unless we are suspected of a crime.

[westbrooks01]

Done.

[Querent]

Why'd you pick Patrick Fitzgerald, the guy who couldn't find anything to charge Cheney with, and took 6 months doing it? I don't think he has distinguished himself enough to get another gig. Somebody else would probably be better.

[oafishcad]

How about Ken Starr? He isn't above setting up the guy that he's investigating.

[pjlowry]

I got a little more creative. Here was my question:

"Will the new Whitehouse consider a new independent investigation into the attacks of September 11th, 2001, this time with greater funding and with the power to subpoena anyone (including Bush and Cheney) to testify under oath in public?"

[sonoffestus]

No investigations.....no indictments.........no prosecution ...........no punishment.........no America.

[oafishcad]

No brainer.

[hopeless277]

So pitiful has this country become that we have to beg, BEG, our 'leaders' to obey the law? Pack it up, folks, this ain't America no more.

[BellSmth]

I CALL FOR A RECOUNT! JMCO (Just my cynical opinion)

Another cynical note on the architecture of change.gov - clumsy!

[garlicpowder]

Im giving up trying. The Establishment is still the Establishment. We had a great day on election day only to get Hillary running the foreign policy that we didnt want her to run and Rick Warren as the new national pastor. Terrific. As far as actually looking into our own war crimes, I'll believe it when I see it.

[Thabit]

I think Obama isnt telegraphing what he's going to do in hopes of getting past 20 Jan without giving Bush a heads up that he needs to premptively issue a pardon to those criminals , If Bush thinks nothing is going to happen then once he's out of office there is nothing he can do to sheild himself and all of the other criminals

[schatsie]

I think we need to signon to the International Court of Justice first... Then overturn the signing statements and the gag rule....After that, we take him to court for the illegal abrogation of the Geneva Conventions which we signed onto and which have been effective for almost 50 years before Bush pissed on it...Not perfectly effective, but darn good...

[giron]

I was thinking the same thing. I hope we are correct

[michiganfan]

Done.

[cactusgal]

Done.

[ouroborous]

Oh gosh, can't we all just put this behind us?

Aren't there more important things to pay attention to, like the price of gas, or Paris Hilton's latest scandal?

Love to see this happen. It won't.

[schatsie]

Sorry, but I disagree...This administration has corrupted or shreaded everything in the executive branch that they could... The problem with Republicans is that they ARE NOT HELD to the same standards as the people that they RULE... This is WRONG and needs to be stopped.. See Iran Contra, See the Savings and Loan Mess, See ENRON and the rape of California and their own employees....

What was good enough for the people that BUSH EXECUTED is good enough for all of this WASP MAFIA....