Isn't "Laying Blame for the Past" What we Used to Think of as "Justice"?

President Obama did something which should be commonplace but which, in this terrible time, is now thought of as optional for high officials, which is to say, he obeyed the law. The law in this case required him, in response to an ACLU lawsuit, to disclose the Torture Memos, prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel under the Bush administration. (It is a sad testimony that doing as the law requires is, in our political climate, an act of bravery.)

The Torture Memos show an attention to the detail of pain reminiscent of The 120 Days of Sodom. They reveal that at the highest level we were a government of sadists, supported by a covey of lawyers (Yoo, Bybee, Addington, Bradbury, Rizzo, Gonzales--look at their faces, look at them) who felt their job was to come up with legal justifications for that sadism.

Yet even while the memos provide incontrovertible evidence of war crimes, President Obama 'split the difference' by stating that the torturers would not be held accountable for their actions. He said,

"This is a time for reflection, not retribution... nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."

Imagine this last statement trotted out (for instance) by the Phil Spector defense. Would you take it seriously? Would you buy it? Or would you laugh hysterically and forward it to Paul Slansky?

Isn't "laying blame for the past" exactly what our justice system was designed to do? Isn't that the basis of every criminal case in every criminal court in the nation?

The idea that criminal acts must, indeed should, go unpunished, if--and only if--they are committed by the ruling class or government officials, is at the heart of what's wrong with our republic. It is as appallingly true with respect to the looting of the economy as it is with respect to the war crimes these memos disclose. (Note to NPR: if Sylvia Poggioli were kidnapped off the streets of Rome, put in a coffin-sized container, deprived of sleep for eleven consecutive nights, had her head slammed against a wall, were made to feel as if she were drowning, would you say that she had been subjected to "harsh interrogation techniques"? Or might you use the word torture?)

Comments

[Ohioan730]

I believe Obama wants us to make him hold the torturers accountable. He said he would always listen to the American people. Smart move.

If public outcry calls for the proverbial heads of the torturers, their prosecution will be justified. If the president calls for it, backlash, resistance and obstruction from the right will ensue. I'd rather not have President Obama have to defend his TRUE position on the subject. Let the Reps backlash on the progressive majority and swing voters. Let them call the majority of the American people traitors because we don't like Boosh. I'll answer back at the voting booth with a resounding vote for nothing but democrats down the ticket. I've had it with the right.

[johannesrolf]

the ones who lied us into war are the same folks who ordered the torture, in an attempt to cover up their lies.

[wally47]

Isn't "laying blame for the past" exactly what our justice system was designed to do? Isn't that the basis of every criminal case in every criminal court in the nation?

That statement only applys to poor and working class individuals, white, black or whatever racial class . It does not apply to the rich and connected. This is simply the reality of today. 'justice" has become simply another product that is imposed on the poor and working class and bought by the riich. How many obscenely rich bankers, "legal thieves", are in court today? NONE that I know of! How many poor and working class people are in jail with no hope of even making bail much less recieving "JUSTICE" are sitting in jails and prisions right now! I'll tell ya it's in the MILLIONS!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!

[ProgressiveVoice]

I hope every defense attorney in America starts using the "laying blame for the past" argument in every trial for every defendant, regardless of the charges against them.

I hope every judge in America starts accepting that argument as valid and dismisses all charges on the defendants before them.

I hope all the attorneys involved with groups like the Innocence Project start filing motions to have defendants released based on the "laying blame for the past".

Maybe, when the prisons are empty, our politicians, those in office now, those who were in office in the past and those who want to be elected, will concede that there is no level of society in the US that is above the law.

[1088]

The President is right! Do you think that the Republicants will sat back and watch the Obama Admin try to criminalize the Bush Admin? No way! They would go after the President and his family along with relatives and try to smear and promote more hate against this family. They would also, on the TV 24/7 lying smearing and hating along with Fox News, and the President agenda will go to the way side. We cannot afford to take our eyes off the ball right now. We need affordable health care and education along with clean energy. We must put our energy in the right place and able to move forward without distractions. If Congress wants to investigate, well let them, but we have a bigger fish to fry.

[Borborigny]

As Chief Law Enforcement Officer, the President has no bigger fish to fry than protecting the Constitution and enforcing the laws. If he can't take the heat inherent in his job, he shouldn't have run for it.

[ESerafina42]

He's NOT the chief law enforcement officer. Eric Holder is, and Obama has no more business telling him who to prosecute (or not) than George W. Bush had. It's the job of Holder and the people at the Justice Dept. to make that decision based on the law and the evidence.

[Johnagain]

Do you think any of these bigger fish can be fried when no justice is served? Do you think the state of this country will be better in 2 years, 4 years, 10 years, if none of the people responsible for the market meltdown, or for institutionalizing torture as part of our foreign policy, are still free and able to do it again? What about the complete absence of any deterrence for the next generation of Bush's, Cheneys, Rumsfelds, Gonzalez, Liddy, etc? They're out there, just waiting for their turn to screw this nation for a quick buck. Do you think they won't do this if they know that there will essentially be no price to pay?

[clevelandchick]

NO. The President is wrong. His job is to execute the laws of this nation. Torture is against our laws. Obama or anyone else expecting the architects of the torture policy to be held to account in a court of law ARE NOT "criminalizing" the Bush Administration - the Bush Administration criminalized itself.

And if you've bothered watching Fox News at all in the last 24 hours let alone since the day after the inauguration; you would see that they have been bashing Obama every minute of every day. So has the GOP, so has every right winger out there. Not ordering a Justice Department investigation into torture isn't going to change their minds, they'll bash him for any thing and every thing until his last day in office. That's hardly a reason for Obama to ignore the law.

[NoSandwiches]

Pres Obama must not be seen to want to tear apart America by prosecuting.

We need to MAKE him do it. If the public outcry is too much, if the evidence too damning, if we can expose enough, get mad enough, and empower our legislature and President, then it will happen.

[GrahamInCanada]

Hear hear!

You'd think President Obama was elected to and refusing to discharge the offices of prosecutor, judge and executioner the way that this is being received in some quarters. Whatever else Bush and Cheney deserve, like everybody, they deserve due process.

They do not deserve to face, because nobody deserves to face, a political regime bent on persecution, rather than a legal regime bent on prosecution.

Obama must not get in the way of the wheels of American justice. If something goes wrong with the wheels of American justice at the federal level, he has a responsibility shared with the legislative and judicial branches to see to the repairs. Otherwise, like any President, regarding any criminal, he must not get involved.

After the wheels of justice have turned, he can pardon, at his discretion.

But American justice is not broken if one American President refuses to directly charge a former over crimes. There is an entire system beyond the President's powers and responsibilities that is supposed to do this job.

Let the congressional hearings begin!

[FearlessFreep]

When Obama rules out prosecuting the torturers, he's already getting in the way of American justice!

[Borborigny]

And then he'll only be a two-faced flip-flopper whose word is worthless, which admittedly would be an improvement over condoner of torture.

[Schneb]

Yes--he's taken steps in the right direction after first seeming to head the other way--I hope because he wants to do the right thing, but seemingly because there's an outcry for him to do so and that the GOP can't face down.

They can't face it down now because they're playing a weak hand--no face cards (cabinet level / credible spokes-people, no cloak of authority [Bush lost that about a year or so ago, but nobody else could put it on 'til he left office]) SOO--Obama can play strong hands, as long as he has public support. That means we keep singing a chorus of 'Prosecute/release the documents' and when he does so, we give him credit and when the GOP tries to confuse/de­flect/coun­ter attack, we deny their credibility.

...least that's what I'm thinking. Just, you know, sayin'.

[FearlessFreep]

In other words, it's the people who'll have to lead the President.

[20yrVet]

"If there is somebody captured I expect those people to be treated humanely. If not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals." - President George W. Bush, March 23, 2003, as captured US soldiers are interviewed on Iraqi TV.

If President Obama does not change his position with respect to the investigation and, if probable cause is found, the resultant prosecution of American war criminals, he will share the guilt of the principals.

[wadenelson1]

Most of the detainees probably survived the torture.

What about the greater war crime, that of launching an unprovoked war of aggression.

We killed more than a million Iraqis based on "slam dunk" evidence of WMD's that wouldn't have made it half way down the court.

We destroyed their country, their society, any opportunity they might have had even under a brutal dictator --- one we supplied with weapons and nerve gas, it turns out.

The Iraq war is the REAL war crime, and I, for one, will never be proud of my country until the people who launched it on faux pretences are in prison for their crime.

[Borborigny]

Shhhhhhh... no one wants to think about all the little hands poking out of the rubble.

[SorenB]

Too bad the Obama administration hasn't had any guts to do this with the banking industry.

To them it is just cash under the bridge...

[Steamboater]

I don't care what you call it e.g., blame, vengeance etc. We might as well have never held the Nueremberg Trials and should just can our justice system and let criminals out of the prisons. We don't act like good christians so it's a sham to behave as if we do and lovingly forgove and not put those responsible for torture on trial. Hypocrites, but using the excuse to not lay blame etc is also a sham. Obama won't have the justice department bring to trial those in the CIA responsible torture as well aas Bush and Cheny and the rest of his White House thugs etc because it's a political decision and all in the face of bipartisanship. Doing so would take courage and real commitment to the rule of law which in the lasytt 8 years was flushed down the toilet. Obama aids and abets that and continues to plunge it further down. He's more than a disappointment; Obama's a wuss and a disgrace. He thinks he can have it both ways by forgetting about bringing criminals to trial yet salve his conscience by releasing documents evidencing torture. Playing both sides of the fence isn't going to work and he's going to suffer the political consequences of this.

[antaeus]

Glenn Greenwald is giving outstanding coverage of this episode.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

[Hank007]

So if a weed grows in my yard, and I smoke it, I go to jail. If I electrocute someone's privates, I walk free. Well, unless I can convince a judge the weed grew in the past, and we need to look ahead now...

[Borborigny]

If you're one of the ruling elite, you can tell the judge where to stick the weed.

[Hope Lives]

I believe in you without question Mr. President. I hope you will explain this as I don't believe that you just don't care. There has to be more. I know that you have a good heart and hate evil. Please tell us what this is about.

[antaeus]

Your words sound as if they could have been spoken in 2003 by a Bush worshiper.

How can we "believe" in our leaders "without question"?

[zizyphus]

Any of the sadists involved in the torture had the option to quit their jobs. Unlike their helpless victims.

Apparently these people felt no shame or apprehension when asked to do things they knew were illegal. They were happy to perform acts of perversion and sadism and get paid to do it- a real dream job for monsters.

I supported Obama in his election but can't support this administration not demanding justice. I am sick of the elite getting away with the most heinous crimes while the poor languish in prison for being too poor to buy high priced attorneys.

[dynwitch]

Not only did they have the option to quit their jobs, but military personnel receive special training telling them that if they receive an order which they consider immoral, they don't have to follow it. That rule stems from the Vietnam era, when similar incidents happened and also outraged the American public. I don't know if CIA people get the same training, but I would imagine so.

[Keith52]

I love you Mr President. But you are wrong on this issue. We need to prosecute. Not with malice and prejudice, but in a fair court of law. These people MIGHT NOT be found guilty, who knows? But we need to do the work of upholding laws or we will never be at peace with ourselves.

[jan4insight]

Co sign!

[ChristopherRobin]

You hit this dead on.

1) We must have justice for those who are tortured. We do not say "we are too busy looking ahead" to fail to punish "ordinary" violent criminals -- murderers, rapists, muggers, etc. But those who were victims of agonizing torture at the hand of our government are just supposed to suck it up and get on with their "lives" while their torturers walk free.

2) We must have an unmistakable statement that this will never happen again and if it does those involved will pay and pay heavily, with their freedom and their reputations. This can only happen if we punish this current band of criminals.

3) America doesn't get a "do-over" to be a nation of laws. We can't just say the last eight years were an aberration or a mistake. Bush and administration officials who were sworn to uphold the constitution broke, bent, and twisted it beyond recognition.

4) Now all we have to rely on is Obama's "word" that it won't happen again, I trust Obama more than Bush, but Bush said repeatedly we "don't torture". If we don't punish those who committed these despicable crimes then we no longer are a nation of laws but a nation of promises which can be broken whenever the current President feels like it. If there are no real repercussion for Bush era torturers and justifiers then we are really no better off than when Bush was in office. Crime without consequences is anarchy.

[beachrose]

What about JUSTICE for those who were murdered? On 9/11? What are we going to tell our soldiers coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan ? What sort of morale do you think they're going to have when they realize - that they're thought of as criminals when they thought they were doing the "right thing." Now they will know how the Vietnam Veterans felt when they came home in the 60's & 70's to a country that had no use for them -

[Borborigny]

Yeah what about justice for those murdered on 9/11? Oh yeah, the guy responsible for it is still laughing it up and making videos. Seems all the president's men can't manage to lay a finger on him, though they have no problem killing civilians and calling it collateral damage.

Sadly, even though many will have learned their lesson and be happy to speak about it to the next generation, the next generation will ignore their warnings and yet again don the garb of war and go off in a patriotic haze to generate cash for the military industrial complex. It really does never end.

[Romeover]

beachrose, the 19 hijackers thought they were doing the right thing. They are now dead, so they are spared the agony of knowing that they committed mass murder.

Our soldiers in Vietnam, and our soldiers in Iraq, are suffering mental anguish because they have finally realized that their government, which they trusted and believed in, lied to them. They have finally realized that they participated in war crimes that were instigated by high government officials for the benefit of their corporate masters.

[twofish]

The Dems let us down, too. Remember "impeachment is off the table?" Otherwise I could think the Bush regime was an aberration. But no, everyone with the power to do something about it let it go.