We should go forward in courts and Congress with investigations into post-9/11 interrogations and the decisions leading to them. These actions were perpetuated by our leaders, with our resources, in our name, for our safety. That gives us the right -- indeed the obligation -- to declassify what was directed, what was done, and what was learned.
While some suggest a "truth and reconciliation commission," I think blanket amnesty or immunity is inapt here.
When considering truth and reconciliation, few images are as evocative to me as those of Desmond Tutu listening with South African mothers of murdered children while the killers confessed their crimes, and then Tutu and the mothers collapsing in a collective grief beyond words or tears. No such thing as "closure" for the families, but learning the horrible fate of their loved ones, accepting apologies and attempting forgiveness was deemed worthy of immunizing the guilty.
Does the South African truth and reconciliation experience translate to the Bush era torture cases? I doubt it. At best, we would get incomplete truth and less reconciliation. First off, we get incomplete truth because we will not be getting the whole story. Not every fact will be declassified -- because we cannot jeopardize current intelligence sources and methods. Second, the end result of truth and reconciliation is supposed to be forgiveness, but we already know from former Vice President Cheney that there is no apology proffered nor forgiveness sought. With neither side backing down, we won't achieve reconciliation.
What remains is prosecution -- and in the course of any prosecution, limited immunity in exchange for factual testimony before the courts and/or the Congress. On that front, we should be prepared for a hung jury in the court of public opinion. As I learned as a young prosecutor, when the play is cast in hell, don't expect angels for actors. We would not see the South African innocents confronting and forgiving the guilty or the innocent 9/11 families searching for truth and reforms to prevent others from being murdered. In this instance, the people tortured were suspected terrorists, not necessarily innocent bystanders. Fairly or unfairly, the demand that the suspects be treated according to the Constitution or the Geneva conventions will be defended by a rationalization that their status as alleged enemy combatants justified torture by their captors. Moreover, any discussions of precedent would include conduct of administrations that preceded George W. Bush -- as well as the reasons why the 9/11 terrorist attacks justified a departure from prior conduct.
I see nothing in the public discourse to suggest that any verdict would suddenly change hearts and minds. But the investigation would restore the rule of law and guide future conduct by our military and intelligence personnel. That is ample motivation to go forward.
If Abu Ghraib is any indication, there was a party going on. It's what funnels down when sociopaths rule the roost. For all of us to see, this is what occurs when there is no gut check, when reason and morality is supplanted by rationalized barbarianism. When even a few accept torture as a noble act, and as politics is used to deflect the horror. As I understand it, nobody was being forced to torture the prisoners, so where does that leave us? With cowardice at the top, all the way to the bottom.
And I get more upset with the democrats than the republicans
Republicans say they support torture and act that way
Democrats say they oppose it but don't. and infact what really is offensive is how so many pro-torture democrats will exploit this issue for their own talking points
Nancy Pelosi wouldn't even consider impeachment but she's going to prosecute for torture? Give me a break. There are no investigations needed to find out who ordered it. It was Bush and Cheney The democrats aren't going to do anything to them. We all know it
If you oppose prosecution for torture (IE you support torture) please do not pretend otherwise
But even if Pelosi was told that these 'techniques' were actually being used, would she have behaved differently, i.e. somehow breached the classified nature of the briefings and blown the whistle on this illegal, immoral behavior?
Wouldn't that have been the patriotic/noble/moral/brave thing to do, regardless of the consequences to her personally?
It seems that no one associated with these programs had the courage to risk being called unpatriotic by the blow hards on the right (remember this was just after 9/11) and do the moral thing and resign.
For instance, why didn't Colin Powell resign?
But that's why we need investigations. All this needs to come out. And we have to find a way for our government and our elected officials to stop hiding behind the fig leaf of 'national security'.
You may be giving the bush administration too much credit by conceding that torture was used in order to 'keep us safe'. In fact, these torture policies appear to have had just the opposite effect in the middle east, ratcheting up recruitment for Al-quieda in Iraq. After all, even if the American public was kept in the dark, the Iraqis and Afghanis have known for a very long time what has been going on in our secret prisons and at GTMO and Abu Ghraib.
Knowing Dick as we do, it seems more likely that torture was used to elicit false confessions that might be used to justify the neocons' run up to war with Iraq.
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
Seems pretty straight forward. Because Ms Pelosi's mom, and dozens of other democrats could have stood against these draconian interrogation methods when they were briefed, but did not for fear of being called unpatriotic, they are as guilty as Cheney.
Nuremberg principle #3 The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as head of state or responsible goverment official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Nuremberg principle # 2 The fact that international law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.---- It won't just disappear.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-solod-warren/trickle-down-torture_b_190837.html
Rachael Maddow made the point a few nights ago that the policy to use torture seemed to sprout suddenly in all our prison facilities, both military and CIA-run. This, IMO, is very damning.
Those who would condone these acts should do a little research. There is much information not reported by the mainstream news media. Check out the ACLU site. They have been able to get access to a number of documents through the FOIA, some that are quite graphic in detail. I also believe that the report by the International Red Cross should be required reading by all Americans!
Although, I guess technically that's not torture right?
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I promised myself that I would give myself a day's respite from the torture issue. I have spent the past several researching and reading information that has not been widely reported by the press. But I find myself back at it today.
I believe I am like a lot of Americans. We want to know. It is our right to know. We need to know. What our government does in our names does affect our lives whether it is readily apparent or not. Dismissing it or ignoring it will not make this go away. If it is swept under the rug, it will remain a cancer in our national body that will eat away at us...and, God forbid, allow it to happen again.
When a government says “procedure A is not torture under US and International law” and the following government says “procedure A is torture”, government employees are in deep Catch 22 doodoo if the new government’s definition is applied retroactively.
I am also scared by the idea of America prosecuting people for holding an opinion
Why did the previous administration feel the need to have a legal "cover" for their acts? They knew exactly what they were doing....and it was ILLEGAL! This is not a game of semantics.
If the law is arbitrary opinion, by the same token as declaring it no longer the law, then he argued one should not leave trails like written documents. IOW break the law but don't get caught. They got caught redhanded and so they must face the arbitrary law that is the law of the land and the world.
Those who think that "bad behavior" occured solely in the period 2001-2008 might be in for quite an unpleasant surprise.
(And, no, this is not an attempt to white wash President Pan's actions).
If it turns out that Clinton or Obama did something wrong, I want THEM punished alongside Bush, because I don't EVER want this to happen again!!
It is descriptive.
It explains why something won't happen not the morality of it not happening..
And one contrary note: I am not convinced that punishing A stops B from engaging in bad behavior.
The central issue here is one of philosophy.
Many great minds of the right and left have pondered the limits to which their partisans may go to "do the work of the Lord", "enhance the functioning of the historical dialectic" or protect the Republic, or save the Revolution,.
Most have come to a similar conclusion - that they are allowed to perform certain actions which are abhorrent when performed by their opponents. So in a nutshell it is not the sin but rather the identity of the sinner/actor that is important.
Trotsky summed it up in "Their Morals and Ours"
The G20 must have partially been about prosecution - think about it. Obama comes back with few concessions, because they have told him:
"Hey, don't go after BushCo. We may be next. We helped you then, now you help us. Otherwise, forget NATO troops. And to show we are serious, we give you only a few - less than you need. So you get this off the table, and then we talk about further concessions and troop levels. If you do prosecute, no troops and maybe we could forget about NATO altogether. Then you'll have to fight that war alone. Take it or leave it."
Obama says he is against it. Di you now understand his hesitation?
It may even go back to before the elections in Berlin. "Looking forward" means thinking about how to avoid having to fight in Afghanistan alone.
Thank you.
There is NO substitute for honest and comprehensive PUBLIC Congressional/Commission hearings, as you suggest (NO immunity at all need be granted - see the Church Committee). Just as there is NO substitute for criminal investigations, and prosecution as warranted, by the DOJ. BOTH are vital, and long overdue.
Elizabeth de la Vega wisely cautions about the 'order of battle':
http://www.truthout.org/042009R
If we are to repudiate past abhorrent practices and ensure that the American people learn what was done in their names, the PUBLIC nature of a Congressional/Commission investigation is absolutely VITAL.
Senator Levin ran a secret investigation for 2 years in Armed Services - how much coverage did that get? Senator Feinstein has just started another SECRET investigation (for probably another year) in Intelligence - NARROWLY tailored, without a full look at the CIA's involvement - will any of it be publicly released? And now Harry Reid wants to insist that such SECRET investigations be the outer limit of Senate scrutiny of the actions of our government?
If Speaker Pelosi and Senator Leahy are thwarted by Reid and Obama, then even IF a special prosecutor is appointed by the DOJ, YEARS of SECRET grand jury investigations will ensue, with NO public accountability for the abuses of power, violations of trust, dereliction of duty and all the other NON-CRIME elements of this matter that we must repudiate as a nation, through CONGRESS, if we ever hope to enforce higher standards of government conduct.