Breaking the Law: Bush Officials Feel the Heat

With so much attention centering on the developing financial crisis, it isn't surprising that other important stories have slipped through the cracks. Nevertheless, as the Bush administration winds down, there has been a surprising flurry of activity regarding its use of torture and illegal imprisonment.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two terror-related cases. One involves Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a Bradley University student who was detained as a "material witness" in December 2001 and has been held without charge ever since. The al-Marri case challenges the right of the President of the United States to imprison a legal resident without charge and to detain anyone in the U.S. at the president's own discretion. The other case, concerning a lawsuit filed by Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani who was tortured and then deported without charge, deals with whether former attorney general John Ashcroft and former FBI director Robert Mueller can be considered as defendants in the lawsuit Iqbal has filed relating to his mistreatment.

Five men accused of being involved in the planning of the 9/11 attacks have asked to plead guilty. They are having second doubts after learning that their pleas might interfere with their desire to be executed. However, if this obstacle can be cleared up, this would appear to be a win/win situation...if you happen to be either a terrorist seeking martyrdom or a Bush official who authorized the torture of the accused and would prefer that testimony regarding the torture not surface in a trial.

Meanwhile, in the case of Canadian Omar Khadr, who was 15 years old when he was captured in Afghanistan after a firefight that killed an American soldier, the U.S. government has withdrawn as a witness a special agent who was scheduled to testify whether torture was used to extract Khadr's confession.

A New York federal appeals court heard arguments on December 9 in the case of another Canadian, Maher Arar, who was snatched by U.S. authorities at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York in September 2002 and sent to Syria, where he was tortured before being released 10 months later when it was determined that he was innocent. Arar wants to be able to sue the U.S. government for damages.

And, in a new book, Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, lays out the case for trying 14 administration officials for war crimes, including Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington and generals Geoffrey Miller and Ricardo Sanchez.

Finally, a group of musicians, including the group Massive Attack and Tom Morello, formally of Rage Against the Machine, are protesting the use of their music by the U.S. military to drive prisoners crazy at Guantánamo and other prisons.

There will no doubt be pressure brought to bear against Barack Obama, once he assumes the presidency, to ignore the Bush administration's violations of U.S. law and "move on." But holding Bush officials to account is not about revenge; it's about sending a warning to Obama and other future U.S. presidents that no matter how powerful they are, no American is above the law.

www.allgov.com

Comments

[Michale32086]

}}}}
But holding Bush officials to account is not about revenge
{{{{

Sorry, but from where I sit, it IS all about revenge..

While I concede that there ARE some very few (like yourself, apparently) who feel that such actions would serve as a deterrent for future presidents and have the purest of motives, it's obvious that, for the rank and file, prosecuting Bush et al is all about getting even..

One only has to read the rants of the hysterical Left in these pages to understand that...

Michale.....

[billyboil]

so if we forget about it, do we also forget about the Holocaust, the Pograms, etc etc?
funny how americans have this lovely double standard - condemn the rest of the world for wrong-doings, but amercans aren't subject to those same standards.
the words hypcrisy and greed were invented by america.

[Michale32086]

Stalin killed many many more people than Hitler ever did..

But a war-weary WORLD (note, not just the USA) decided to look the other way so as not get involved in another conflict.

No one is saying to forget about it. But when one considers that Bush had Congressional authorization for everything that was done (why do you think Impeachment was never an option) you enter into the realm of diminishing returns..

Michale.......

[sux2bu]

Michale,

Let me explain the difference between justice and revenge. justice has to be served when people abuse power of the presidency like Nixon did with Watergate and bush did with anyone who argued that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no weapons of mass destruction. Worse than both of those is torturing anyone - especially innocent people.

Revenge is trying to impeach a president who got a humdinger after his wife forgave him for his indiscetion.

If you were against the Clinton impeachment you may have a leg to stand on but if the American people and the press and the REpublican party do not go after the crimes of the Bush jmnunta - then they are hypocrites.

that should clear up your definition of justice and revenge Michale.

[Michale32086]

Let me explain the difference between crimes and presidential actions.

Bush's actions were completely authorized by the Congress.. Ergo, they are not crimes. I ask again, why do you think Impeachment was never an option??

If you were for the Scooter Libby prosecution, but against the Clinton impeachment, that would make you a hypocrite..

I agree that torturing innocent people is a very bad thing and, if shown to be intentional, then those people should be punished..

But I have no absolutely no problem with torturing terrorists. Especially if it will save innocent lives..

Class dismissed...

Michale......

[GoCards1978]

Obviously you, along with Nixon, never learned the lesson of Watergate. How clueless can one be?

[Michale32086]

What "lesson" would that be??

Michale.....

[RoloTomassi]

As one only has to read the morally bankrupt and corrupt words of rightwingnut supporters of BushCo's criminal administration to understand that avoiding blatant guilt and the deserved punishment that accompanies such is the Right's only self-serving motivation.

Your apologist argument is meaningless to the notion of justice, and is the rationalization of those who prefer to whitewash the criminality of the high and mighty, regardless of the nature of the crimes.

Oh, but I forgot; according to wingnuts like you, no crimes were committed.

[Oldchef]

It's about the rule of law, not revenge. If the criminals get away with their crimes just because they were government officials, what does that say about the country? I'm sure you were OK with the constant GOP attacks on Clinton, and only concerned with making sure the rule of law prevailed, right?