How Do We Justify Indicting Roger Clemens For Lying But Not Indicting Those Persons Who Authorized and Directed Torture?

Isn't it ironic that Roger Clemons is indicted for lying to Congress about steroid use, while those who authorized and directed the use of torture remain uncharged and unpunished? For the first time a United States Court has permitted a case of torture to proceed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has permitted two Americans employed in Iraq to sue Donald Rumsfeld. They allege they were whistleblowers regarding illegal activity (including weapons trafficking) by their employer, and were detained and tortured by the U.S. Military as a result. They eventually were released without explanation or charges against them. (New York Times 8/4/11)

Virtually all other civil cases have been dismissed on the grounds of "state secrets" or "national security." Which translates into: we do not want anyone to know what we were doing. I think that there are a number of reasons these cases are not being pursued or allowed to proceed. First, we would prefer that there be no public, particularly international, airing of our conduct in this regard.
Secondly, if criminal indictments were pursued who would be named as defendants? We have banks and companies too big to fail. Do we have individuals too big to indict? Any attempt to indict high-level government officials would immediately be met with cries of "politics." For an incoming administration to indict persons from a prior administration would set a dangerous precedent. Of course, a great deal depends upon which party is coming or going.

The Democrats want to make friends, while the Republicans don't care about making enemies -- witness the impeachment of President Clinton on the most trivial of grounds.

Torture is wrong and is illegal. It has a variety of forms: torture as punishment; torture to gain information regarding past crimes and criminals; and torture to prevent future crimes or acts of terror. I suspect that in general the public condemns the first two, but the jury is out on the third. We have all heard the scenario of the suspect in custody who knows where the atomic bomb is hidden in a major city and time is of the essence. For many our conscience would be salved if torture occurred under those circumstances -- but, and this is a big but, if we had the right person and that person had the information. At best, those circumstances might provide a defense to conviction or mitigating circumstances when it came to punishment, but that rare (and possibly non-existent) scenario cannot immunize all those who have authorized, directed or committed torture in the name of our government.

I return to where I began. We indict or charge people for lying to Congress or law enforcement, for elected officials misusing campaign funds or for abusing their office or harassing their employees. We pillorize politicians for their extra-marital affairs, their illegitimate babies, their obscene text photos, their dalliance with prostitutes, and yet one of the most horrendous crimes a person can commit upon another goes uncharged and unpunished. If we do not have the public will to bring criminal actions, at least let us permit the civil actions to proceed and compensate those who have been wrongly tortured. I think the public psyche would prefer that the subject go away. It will embarrass us. It will affect people who some respected and admired. Many may feel the acts were justified and needed in the war on terror. But by remaining silent and restrained, we condone what has transpired and take us a step closer to those in whose name we tortured.

 

Comments

[timber1647]

01:54 PM on 08/25/2011

While I don't condone torture under any circumstances, as it runs the risk of coming back and impacting our own kids who are in combat, there are times in war when bad things happen. Right or wrong we have (and need) "bad men" who willingly guard our fenceline. They often do things that regular Americans would find abhorrent. Many times they keep the rest of us out of harms way. They do the things the rest of us can't bring ourselves to do. And they help keep us free.

[LeftoftheLeft]

04:34 PM on 08/19/2011

Thank you for writing about this. It was a huge issue before, but no one seems to pay much attention now that Obama is president. And absolutely NOTHING has been done to do hold any of the higher ups accountable for their criminal actions OR to make sure it does NOT happen again.

In fact, by going after only those who went BEYOND the bounds of what bush et al said was legal, this administration is actually LEGITIMIZING what bush et al did and pretty much making sure it can and will happen again.

[LeftoftheLeft]

04:23 PM on 08/19/2011

Spiraling down the drain... that's what we're doing...

[The Lone Stranger]

04:01 PM on 08/19/2011

While it is easy to condemn torture in theory, in practice it becomes much more challenging when you have to draw the line as to what is or is not torture, and compound this with our desire to prevent acts of terrorism, and our desire to obtain information that would perhaps prevent an attack.

I am not saying that I condone torture, but that we need to face reality here. Our top officials see as their job the protection of all of us even if this may involve going to extreme lengths at times. The typically are not engaged in torture but the reason it happens derives from their authority. Meanwhile those who actually perpetrate torture are indoctrrinated into a structure organization where they are drilled on obeying orders and to do as they are told is considered an act of loyalty.

I understand that we should not be torturing, but if you want to end this then I think it has to come form a change in the culture of the military, not from the courts.

[zookeepergeorge]

12:37 PM on 08/19/2011

How do we justify prosecution for someone lying to a bunch of lying criminals in the first place?

[pinkibus]

09:18 AM on 08/18/2011

During the Middle Ages there were various kinds or torture - the thumb screw, the iron maiden (not Margret0 presing and on and on. Torture was eliminated eventually because of its being less than useless but often leading to misleading information since a person being tortured will say whatever youwant him to say. It took a lot of centuries before the law realized torture was counter productive and outlawed it not just because it was inhumane but because it simply is incredibly stupid. Those who authorized it (Bush and cheney et al0 were men from the middle ages. If America doen't realize this it will continue the race to the nineteenth century begun by Reagan or even, one might say, by Nixon.

[Carl Caroli]

07:58 AM on 08/18/2011

There is no justifying a government that protects itself and it's oligarchs over protecting it's people. We are exposed as a nation of hypocrites.

[Bueno Hombre]

06:04 AM on 08/18/2011

Once I had basic beliefs formed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Today, I think too many soldiers have died for nothing. Politicians serve themselves and their party not citizens. No one - courts, religious groups, congress, or the public - holds lying politicians accountable. We the Public have accepted that "spinning information" to say what you want it to say is acceptable. We have two court systems: 1) for the rich, powerful, and celebrities and 2) for the middle classs, the poor, the unknown. Observe how convicted celebrities, rich individuals, and politicians can be convicted of a crime and still earn money making speeches, seldom serve hard time, become paid consultants to the news media, write books, or host TV and radio showes. Look how those who are middle class or worse convicted of a crime serve hard time and can't find work. We talk about "white collar crimes as if they really wern't crimes. We put young soldiers in jail and ruin their future for committed crimes during the war and their superiors and elected officials who command them go on to earn better salaries, popularity, and retirement. Individuals in the highest office of our country violate the Genevia Convention and support, justify, and order torture and never face a court room all on the premise of National Security. The National Security Issue is that someone in high office will be embarrassed, the country will be embarrassed, and another country might say, "see what democracy does."

[jack Winn]

03:49 AM on 08/18/2011

That may play well in your county, but when you go places that have paved roads, it sounds like you've got a mental problem.

So keep it up, some of us have forgotten that there are people who forget their meds and vote Republican.

[BillKen]

01:06 AM on 08/18/2011

The thing that disturbs me is that there are so few lawyers, officers of the court, that have stood and been counted on this issue. How is it that we have 'admitted war criminals' roaming our streets and
nothing is said by the majority of the legal profession. How will we cultivate a respect for the law
when it is not enforced by those given that responsibility? What ever happened to that BS about
equality under the law and the importance of enforcing the law, no matter whose butt is getting burned.
Semper Fi

[rap1812]

04:48 PM on 08/18/2011

interesting that roger clemmns is indicted for lieing to congress, now lets see if congress investigates eric holder concerning fast and furious, if he didnot know about it then his subornates should all be fired and he should resign.

[blknightowl]

01:55 AM on 08/19/2011

Faved. True.

[Jim Pasterczyk]

12:20 AM on 08/18/2011

Well they impeached Clinton for lying about getting a hummer from a DC chippie, so this doesn't seem so out of place compared to that.

[raker]

11:35 PM on 08/17/2011

Wonderful post. It's dismaying to think of large numbers of people ever approving of torture, that they are suckers for the dubious ticking time bomb scenario. Is the desire to torture so very strong? Who knew.

And what's the deal with elected officials having license to commit any crime with impunity as long as they get a lawyer to write a memo saying that they understand the (illegal) act to be legal. Of all the Bush era atrocities, that's one of the most frightening. They used it to justify torture, and America shrugged. And were these architects of torture prosecuted? Rebuked? Shunned? No, they wrote their memoirs and were scooped up by our elite colleges and universities. It's all so sad and discouraging.

[Paulie21]

11:33 PM on 08/17/2011

Bravo, sir. Thank you for that. To say nothing of all of the OTHER crimes of Bush and Cheney. Tell me Judge, why doesn't the Hague come scoop them up for crimes against humanity?

[offred]

08:25 PM on 08/17/2011

{{ Standing Ovation! }}

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin]

10:47 PM on 08/17/2011

offred - I thank you.

[zachviking]

08:02 PM on 08/17/2011

There is no justification. We can thanks a poor media that is failing at its job on a daily basis (see real time with bill maher last may. scahill vs chick todd). An investigation in criminal activity committed during the Bush era might also lead to implicating the current administration. There has been talk of impeaching Obama, but the Reoubs are focusing on the wrong issues. They should pursue impeachment on the grounds of violations of civil liberty.