Bring it On

There is an article in today's New York Times about the way Michael Mukasey has been hedging on waterboarding. The difficulty, according to many experts is, as "Jack L. Goldsmith, who served in the Justice Department in 2003 and 2004, wrote in his recent memoir, The Terror Presidency, that the possibility of future prosecution for aggressive actions against terrorism was a constant worry inside the Bush administration." Another expert points out that future prosecutors "...would ask not just who carried it out, but who specifically approved it. Theoretically, it could go all the way up to the president of the United States; that's why he'll never say it's torture."

I have to say that I am both glad and amazed that the Bush administration is with it enough to worry. That is a good sign. And they should worry, because they should be indicted, at least. I hope that they are, and that, indeed, it does "go all the way up to the president". One of the Attorney General's jobs should be making sure not only that the laws are enforced, but also that the laws are actual laws--not opinions by John Yoo or David Addington or some other
administration apologist. There is an exact definition of what a law is in this country, and it is not the same as a partisan legal opinion.

One of the enraging things about the Bush administration is the way that they have consistently written their own rules, as if governing the nation is like playing a game of stealing the flag, where the stronger team, when it finds itself losing, simply changes the score or the rules until they either technically "win" or wear out the other side (and in fact, George W. Bush, according to Gail Sheehy, was well known among his friends for changing the rules of a game until he could engineer a win -- and isn't that how they won in 2000?). To do such things is not "courage" or "resolve", it is tyranny.

Mukasey and other Bush administration officials clearly believe that they are going to put over the idea that they "might have gone too far", but that their "intentions were good" and they "just wanted to protect the country". In such a way, they plan to avoid paying the price for their choices and decisions. The law deals with this sort of defense. Someone whose car hits another person in a crosswalk might have been too frightened to stick around or might not have even
realized he had hit someone, but the law still prosecutes these crimes, because a responsible citizen is expected to conform to the laws no matter what his emotional state. Same with Cheney and Bush. You or I may suspect that they were indifferent to the idea of torture in their names, or possibly relished it, but we will never know that. We do, however, know that they explicitly and knowingly allowed torture. The law has no meaning if they don't have to pay for these crimes.

The number of times the Bush administration has skirted or broken or changed the laws to suit themselves is enormous and outrageous. We cannot hope to correct what they have done to our country without addressing their lawlessness. If this means retroactive prosecution, I say bring it on. The fact that they are worried means they know that they should have known better--in fact, they did know better. All of them.

Comments

[bethinCary]

Good points Jane.
and yet we have many Dems who are willing to give Mukasey the benefit of the doubt on his vague non-response to the waterboarding issue. In some peoples' tiny mind-they are worried about knowingly being complicit all these years in illegality-yet, rather than FIX the problem-they instead want to once more cover thier asses, by getting another "yes" man in the AG spot. Yet what we have learned and learned well, is that if you give this WH an inch (as in the case of the IWR-where diplomacy was promised FIRST)-the WH will take a mile-(into wars, illegal surveillance,torture..).
The answer is not to keep giving them thier way-but to turn the clocks back, and correct the illegalities they have done-whether it means paying out or not. Whether Dems do this now-or later;is just a matter of time before all of the misdeeds add up(in finanacial penalties) . It would be better to nip it in the bud NOW-rather than being accused of being complicit in future upcoming trials.
Is there no one in DC with a moral code of ethics who even knows the right thing to do anymore?
That's easy-the opposite of whatever GW/Cheney want.
But instead, Dems keep buying the misinformation from inside sources like curveball, Chalabi, Ledeen, Hadley...when they should be putting these people on the witness stand, under oath with lie detectors.

[Montanamotor]

According to the War Crimes Act of 1996, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et alli could very well INSTANTLY be Indicted under US Law, if someone would file a lawsuit against them.

See: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/10/war-crimes-act-of-1996-bush-rumsfeld.html

Watch the links in the source. This is hot stuff!

Fact is: The War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment.

The statute applies not only to those who carry out the acts, but also to those who ORDER IT, know about it, or fail to take steps to stop it. The statute applies to everyone, no matter how high and mighty. 18 U.S.C. § 2441 has no statute of limitations, which means that a war crimes complaint can be filed at any time.

The penalty may be life imprisonment or -- if a single prisoner dies due to torture -- death. Given that there are numerous, documented cases of prisoners being tortured to death by U.S. soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan (see for example this report), that means that the death penalty would be appropriate for anyone found guilty of carrying out, ordering, or sanctioning such conduct.

Perhaps, Rumsfeld will rather flee from the USA to France, the next time a suit will be filed against him - accompanied by his fellow buddies Dubya Bush and "Darth" Cheney...?

[scooperss]

Think of it this way. These people are not called *career* politicians for nothing. They have no intention of doing anything that might result in them having to give up anything. That's why there will never be meaningful lobby reform, public funded elections, and why they all vote in lockstep.

It's really time to clean house and so let's put that on OUR list of things to do.

[Neuromancer13]

Bring it on indeed! Good post Jane. I agree entirely; the corruption and lawbreaking in this administration is so deep and pervasive that we cannot just "get over it" and go back to the way things were.

There must be accountability for several reasons. First, by not investigating and prosecuting these offenses, we tacitly condone them. Second, if there are no consequences for the perpetrators, others will be tempted to follow their path. Third, if we desire to regain some of our moral standing in the world, we must make it clear that these people do not represent who we really are, and what better way to say that than life imprisonment?

[OhgReaTone]

The misuse of power in the Bush Administration centers around a ideology held by Vice Cheney. He is a forceful and confident man (A confidence man) who gained the Presidents confidence and then duped him.
Ohg
Link To Fireside on Cheney - Misunderestimating Power

[topseeded]

Thank you Jane Smiley. When someone willfully tortures a human being, they need to be punished. We need to do everything we can to dissuade anyone from doing this in the future. My only fear is that President Bush will pardon everyone in his administration who committed crimes as well as everyone who kidnapped and tortured people while under his administration.

[rcat99]

For a long while it's been perceived as a waste of time and resources to pursue impeachment, what with time running out and all. But the importance of precedent must not be ignored. Once a chief executive arrogates (illegitimate) power and goes unchallenged, a future office-holder is unlikely to forego it.

[joannehuy]

Jane has hit upon something I haven't seen before in the torture discussion--she suggests Bush and CO might "relish" torture done in their names!

[arkansawtravler]

If it gets out of committee, it is a done deal, cause the dem suk ups will roll over like pavlov's dog, that means effectively no one will be prosecuted for anything, and mcchimpy will pardon everyone, including himself when he leaves office.

[5yrsoftorturencounting]

Excellent post Jane. It should be left on top of the page for the next 12 months, and required reading for congress. Like Lindaj, I am becoming increasingly discouraged by congressional inaction on this. The slumbering MSM is in an intentionally induced trance, as they are attached at the wallet so to speak, with the military machine. It appears that only the 'higher profile' citizens who have a voice will get people's attention. Thank goodness you are one of those citizens.

[cassandra]

Why doesn't Mukasey offer to submit to being waterboarded and then tell us if he thinks it's torture? We have a right, oops, we used to have a right to know where we stand on this issue.

[alto]

The movement is started outside the USA. Rummy had to dodge around France for fear he might get snagged as a result of torture complaints filed in Paris (and Sweden, Argentina). I don't think the bu$hCo boys will be doing much international traveling. This just adds to the embarrassing absurdity of our situation.

[Lt]

right on - impeach and convict;

and finally lets eduacate the american

this criminal should never have gotten a single vote

[AbstractImp]

So when can we expect Bush to pardon Cheney ..... ?

[kmdippenger]

It's the only way we'll restore any credibility to this once respected nation of ours. Please continue writing on this crime Jane. Your writing has always been so meaningful to me.