As citizens' outrage over the torture memos heats up, and Congress is barraged with calls to appoint a special prosecutor, we may be about to commit an egregious error.
Today Republicans accused Democrats in Congress of having "blood on your hands too" in relation to the escalating calls to investigate. I would like to say that this is exactly right.
I will go further: not only do Congressional Democrats have "blood on their hands" -- but so do we, the American people. And CIA agents may be about to be sacrificed to assuage their, and our, guilt.
Today's suddenly urgent calls by our Congressional Democratic leaders, and even by many of the American people, to prosecute CIA operatives, military men and women and contractors who were certainly involved with, colluded in or turned a blind eye to torture are not only the height of hypocrisy, they are a form of unconscionable scapegoating. The scapegoating is political on the part of Congressional leaders, and psychological on the part of many Americans who are now "shocked, shocked" at what was done in their name.
Hello, America? Hello? Were you asleep for the past seven years? The fact that the Bush administration used torture for the past seven years has been the furthest thing from a secret. When the political winds were with the last administration, which framed qualms about torture as being soft on "the war on terror," just about every Congressional Democrat fell right into line to accept it, if not cheer it on. Even Hillary Clinton supported torture, right up through her Presidential run. Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the torture in closed-door meetings. When activist groups and citizens called for a special prosecutor, all we heard from Congressional Democrats was that they did not wish to spend the political capital.
President Bush championed torture. Vice President Cheney gave such explicit interviews about his role in directing the policy of torture that in legal terms, were there a prosecution, they amount to a confession. Did the Congress that is now so piously calling for the investigation of rank-and-file agents and military express their horror and outrage then? With a very few exceptions, they did not. These leaders "had no idea"? Please.
Since 2003 it has been fully documented by rights organizations, and accessible to anyone listening, that direct US policy for prisoners in our custody included electrodes to genitals, suffocation, hanging prisoners from bars by the wrists, beatings, concealed murders, sexual assault threats, sexual humiliation and forced nudity, which is considered a sex crime in warfare international and domestic law. Many voices from Jane Mayer's to Michael Ratner's to Jameel Jaffer's to Amnesty and Human Rights Watch made similar documented charges. Did our leaders call for investigations? They barely even called for a moment's consideration of it. Tolerating torture ("tough tactics" or "enhanced interrogations") polled well; supporting it made them look tough in close elections. It was, overwhelmingly, okay with them.
And may we ourselves please look in the mirror, for the sake of our own moral health? How many Americans spoke up when it was chic to thrill to the sadistic soundbite of "take the gloves off"? How many watched 24 without a murmur when the mass consensus was that it was okay -- no, patriotic -- to waterboard a bit? How many of us -- as in civilized societies everywhere when a wind of barbarism is set free -- actually thrilled to the sadistic (and sometimes sexually sadistic) soundbites that came out of the Bush communications office of the "special sauce," the "belly slap," and the phrase "we have our methods"?
So now the political and cultural winds have shifted. Congress in their moral courage NOW are starting to call for investigations. Whom should they investigate? Well, in an ideal world, themselves: by knowing about and colluding with a declared and documented series of crimes, they are legally -- Pelosi especially -- accessories to those crimes. So there is an element of cover-your-blank in Congress finding its high dungeon at last and pointing the accusing finger at subordinates in the CIA who obeyed orders that Congressional leaders themselves helped to sustain as a mockery of domestic and international law, and as daily, appalling practice.
Should we prosecute the agents who committed the torture? We should not. As a longtime advocate for prosecutions, that may sound surprising coming from me. But let us look at the Nuremberg Trials: the rank and file soldiers and operatives who committed torture and genocide were not tried -- the lawyers and political leaders who crafted and defended the policy of torture and genocide were tried (and many convicted). While I am not apologizing for the dozens or perhaps hundreds of CIA agents, military and contractors who, any investigation will show, were complicit, actively or passively, in the top-down policy of torture, I do know that these were people lower down the chain of command who have served their nation for many years -- and who were following directives declared not only legal by the President of the United States of America and the OLC, but were told they were "saving lives." To throw them into the fire for political cover is shameful.
Also, it would leave Obama with the problem from hell. So many people in the agency were involved in these practices that to prosecute them -- well, he would disembowel his own intelligence services.
So we should call for former chief judge of the army General James Cullen's solution. He has been at the forefront of calling for accountability -- but the right kind of accountability: Cullen urges us to indemnify those lower down the chain of command to get their testimonies. So they implicate the ringleaders, and then the only people who should be prosecuted are, as at Nuremberg, those who directed otherwise honorable men and women to commit crimes: the lawyers, and those who are on record having given the orders: Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush himself. The psychiatrist who reverse-engineered the SERE tactics should be prosecuted as well.
As for the dozens or hundreds of men and women who committed criminal assaults because their nation told them to -- at risk, if they refused to, of ending their careers? Protect them from prosecution. Many of them suffer trauma, nightmares -- and shame. That is more than burden enough.
Lay the guilt where it belongs: on Congress -- most particularly, legally, on the leadership that directed this policy -- and, emotionally and morally, on our complicit American selves.
The American people should not be blamed for government crime, and never has been.
Naomi is also ignorant of criminal law. It applies to personal behaviour. The brush is narrow, not broad,
Torture can bring the death penalty: http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/04/penalty-for-torture-can-be-death.html
I would try them and possibly convict them, then pardon them.
They should not be punished, but they should be held accountable, and the higher-ups should be bathed in the outcome of their terrible judgement.
Ms. Wolf, if you think you were complicit, turn yourself in. But don't speak for the rest of us.
Prosecute? Absolutely!
From the top, down? Of course!
Not the operatives, contractors, and Soldiers?
Are these individuals HUMAN BEINGS? Do they have the ability to THINK for themselves? Do they have a basic sense of RIGHT and WRONG?
Soldiers are obligated to follow LAWFUL ORDERS. Contractors may have feared the loss of income. Operatives (or agents) might have feared a loss of career advancement. ALL have suffered a loss of HUMANITY if they engaged in these acts, but that can not absolve them of ANY RESPONSIBILITY!
Justice is supposed to be capable of determining the DEGREE of GUILT of a defendant (if found guilty), and it is also supposed to be capable of recognizing mitigating circumstance. Ultimately the punishment is meant to reflect the severity of the individuals crime. There are undoubtedly many who were unwilling accomplices to these crimes, but there are some who were willing and aggressive perpetrators as well, at ALL LEVELS of the activity.
I have no desire to see one person who engaged in these activities with fervor, walk away unchallenged. ANYONE who had knowledge, who took part, who authorized, who ordered, ANY OF THESE ACTS, needs to be questioned, and if warranted, judged.
That is the only way that Justice Prevails. There ARE NO "GET OUT OF JAIL FREE" cards!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-solod-warren/trickle-down-torture_b_190837.html
The same thing will happen here if those who torture and conspired to torture are not given a lesson in American law and tradition.
Blame the victim is not one of those traditions.
Sorry to say, but almost half of the country will not accept anything but will follow blindly behind their choice of president.
Whats even more disgusting is the other half is going to do the same thing
USA voters still re-elected Bush! They are just as complicit in these crimes as Lynndie England, commander Karpenski or Justice Department counsel John Yoo.
What bothers me now is that Obama seems on the same path away fromthe constitution.
The executive is clearly too powerful, but the legislative is a herd of sheep.
Nancy Pelosi: sheeesh!
The people who voted for Bush II are called the Supreme 5 and they work in DC and call themselves the republicans on the Supreme Court.
Office of Legal council is not part of congress or the justice department. Office of Legal council exists solely to make sure the president and the executive branch does not get sued by anybody.
So all of this back and forth between the CIA and Office of legal council you see in the torture documents just released this week is not between congress and justice department. It's between Vice President Cheney and Office of Legal council David Addington and the CIA director George Tennet.
from
zfacts.com, and the
International Committee of the Red Cross:
http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf
But enough with this we are all guilty baloney. If you just realized that waterboarding is torture than you should feel very guilty. But Many people reading this site have been very mad for a very long time. So if you feel guilty, I guess that's your deal. Otherwise, it sounds like the newest conservative meme to spread the blame without accepting the consequences.
And when did Hillary support torture during the election. you need to elaborate on that. In her interview with Bill O'Reilly on May 1st, 2008 she stated emphatically she did not support waterboarding or any type of torture and that it did not work. I'm sorry if that line was not drawn emphatically enough for you, but to say she supported torture is a flat out lie. Ugh, I sound like a PUMA.
This is the main problem with your logic. You are saying that these guards were ordered to do the things they did.
But they were not
They were authorized to use these techniques if they wanted to; not ordered. Its a huge difference
BUT
Pelosi and the Democrats said impeachment was off the table ...they knew what was going on,. They were accessories, they are as guilty as bush and Cheney. Not one of them stood up and said they were going to resign on principle.
Yes, prosecute at the top , but its everyone .
This is exactly why any member of congress who voted for the Patriot Act should be shamed into retirement.
The author would like to exempt our own from such unbending justice, because after all, they might have lost their jobs should they have refused to torture, and now are suffering nightmares. I recall reading some years ago, of the nightmares suffered by some Waffen SS members who had the grisly task of shooting their victims in the head over a pit filled with lime. The screams haunted their sleep, and all the shooting made their hands sore. Out of their discomfort came the policy of employing Zyklon B on those deemed fit for death. At subsequent war crimes trials, I do not recall that nightmares were deemed sufficient punishment for their doings.
I am sure there are bad ones and good ones. But, a soldier endures a mild form of brainwashing and to some extent torture. They follow orders. That may not be an excuse but its reality.
Judging another human when you can't put yourself in their shoes isn't right. You have to make the assumption he is damaged and needs some attention. those who give the orders and sit on high are the ones who should be taken to task. The engineers of the atrocities are the real monsters. Those who watched what was unfolding and said nothing are the cowards who have to live with their guilt an be punished.
You criticize jhNY for not being able to "put yourself in their shoes" and then go on to assert a whole host of things while not having "been in their shoes".
You're just as wrong as he/she is, and just as ignorant of a soldiers reality.
One trait that soldiers are taught is "integrity". Soldiers are taught, from day one, that they are obligated to follow "LAWFUL" orders. Soldiers are taught the difference between "LAWFUL" and "UNLAWFUL" orders. These are not specific (this one is lawful, that one is not), nor are the rules always "black and white", but I think it is reasonable and proper to presume that each of us knows the difference between RIGHT and WRONG.
There may be some mitigating circumstances in which a Soldier might make a bad decision, or succumb to pressure, after all, they ARE human, but I do not agree that they should be given a "free pass".
Trials are meant to met out justice in appropriate measure to the severity of the crime. I realize our Criminal Justice System has not been real good at this in the past 30 years, but I think that we have a rare opportunity here to restore some measure of INTEGRITY to the system.
As a SOLDIER I would expect nothing less than to be held accountable for MY ACTIONS, regardless of who told me it was okay.