Here’s something new in the history of Booman Tribune. My father sent along a link and suggested that I should discuss it on the blog. My Dad is not what most people would consider a left-winger. At least, not consistently, and not for at least half of my life. I can’t really describe his politics concisely and I don’t want to invade his privacy. I’ll just say that he was furious with Nixon for being a criminal and with Ford for pardoning him, but he adopted more of a ‘pox on both their houses’ attitude during my teenage years and most of my twenties. I’d describe his attitude as more libertarian during this period, but not in any doctrinaire way. As best as I can tell, the Terri Schiavo episode served as kind of a last straw. I can recall him saying things that were at least somewhat sympathetic to George W. Bush during his first term. I have never heard a kind word about Republicans from him since 2005. In that sense, he and I have been politically simpatico for the entire lifetime of this blog. Still, he’s not the type to send me links or emails about politics. So, what motivated him to do it now?
He read Larry Siems piece in Slate about what he learned after reading 140,000 (formerly) classified documents about America’s abuse of prisoners since 2001.
Here is what I learned.
Our highest government officials, up to and including President Bush, broke international and U.S. laws banning torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Worse, they made their subordinates in the military and civilian intelligence services break those laws for them.
When the men and women they asked to break those laws protested, knowing they could be prosecuted for torture, they pretended to rewrite the law. They commissioned legal opinions they said would shield those who carried out the abuses from being hauled into court, as the torture ban requires. “The law has been changed,” detainees around the world were told. “No rules apply.”
Then they tortured. They tortured men at military bases and detention centers in Afghanistan and Iraq, in Guantánamo, and in U.S. Navy bases on American soil; they tortured men in secret CIA prisons set up across the globe specifically to terrorize and torture prisoners; they sent many more to countries with notoriously abusive regimes and asked them to do the torturing. At least twice, after the torturers themselves concluded there was no point to further abuse, Washington ordered that the prisoners be tortured some more.
They tortured innocent people. They tortured people who may have been guilty of terrorism-related crimes, but they ruined any chance of prosecuting them because of the torture. They tortured people when the torture had nothing to do with imminent threats: They tortured based on bad information they had extracted from others through torture; they tortured to hide their mistakes and to get confessions; they tortured sometimes just to break people, pure and simple.
And they conspired to cover up their crimes.
I’ve written countless articles about this issue. None of this comes as news to me. I wish that the Obama administration had called this criminal activity what it was and had basically defined the modern GOP a party of war criminals. I wish we had had our own version of the Nuremberg Trials to hold people accountable, up to and including Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush.
I understand why this was not done. I understand that Obama had a positive agenda that he wanted to pursue. I understand that he couldn’t have it all. He had to make choices. By letting the torturers off the hook, he was able to address the economic crisis, enact a health care bill, and pass through the most substantial legislative agenda in generations. He was able to avoid ripping this country completely apart. But there was a cost, too. A big cost. We did not erase this stain from our history. He did not pursue justice. And the GOP just mutated into an even more aggressively stupid and dangerous organization.
I think, also, that failing to shine a bright light on the abuses of our foreign policy during the Bush years prevented an awakening of the American people that might have prevented Obama from continuing some of those practices. Not torture, mind you, but more unending war in Afghanistan, more invasive surveillance, more assertions of executive power and the right to secrecy. He also lost the moral authority, based on domestic outrage, that would have allowed him to steamroll Congress into closing Gitmo.
Obama paid a price for letting the torturers go. But so did we. And so did our country’s reputation, both now and in the history books.
The fat lady hasn’t sung on this issue. It can take years to bring war criminals to the courts. I would rather this go to the Hague than here in the US.
One problem is that the Democrats in Congress have not had clean hands. They also didn’t want trials in the US and didn’t want Gitmo closes. Two more have left Gitmo this past week for El Salvador.
If Obama had started to call Republicans criminals, it wouldn’t have done anything.
I don’t think that Bush and all are going to skate on this in the long run.
You wrote :
I’m sure you meant:
Or maybe:
Right?
No?
Oh.
Nevermind…
Yore freind,
Emily Litella
P.S. What’s that you say? You don’t think that such promises get made in the heat of political battle?
Oh.
Nevermind…
(I thought this was a real
isticpolitical blog, not just another internet-based reality show/media meme transmitter. Sorry.)P.P.S. Have any of the real culprits in the various coup d’état assassinations, the Vietnam scam, the Iraq scam, (including the two election thefts), the housing scam or the overall financial scam actually gone to jail over the past half-century or so other than Mr. Scapegoat, Bernie “He’s got the right look and he’s Jewish. Let’s blame him!!!” Madoff and a few other low-level patsies like Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, Jack Ruby and James Earl Ray? George Butch the First and Henry Killinger should have been sharing a cell somewhere in Extraordinary ReditionLand along with various other intelligence culprits for a few decades at the very least!!
But NOOOOOoooooo…
Coincidence?
Oh.
OK.
Nevermind…
P.P.P.S You think that someone as smart as Obama doesn’t know about things like this?
PLEASE!!!
I think it’s absolutely necessary that prosecution happen at the international level. It will never take place under our joke of a justice system no matter who is elected to what.
.
The ICC in The Hague was built for African war criminals, not for leaders of Western powers like Bush, Sarkozy and Blair: Libyan military commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj takes legal action in London because of rendition and torture.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
.
Mr. President: Britain tortured! link from Obama’s Churchill “torture” quote
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
You write assuming it’s too late. Is that what you believe? There are ample examples of war crime prosecutions that took decades. That’s the last chance, I think, for this country to regain some hope for an ongoing future.
The spectacle of great crimes going unspoken and unpunished creates a river of poison that never stops. I think the current naked contempt for human values that the GOP openly parades grows directly from the impunity the Bush administration has so far enjoyed. The reasons for being diffident about prosecution are substantial — the probability that the country would fall apart is real. But if we continue to do nothing, history will look back at this era as a genuine classic tragedy that marks the last gasp of a once-great society.
And it will look back on this era, and since Nixon really, that the rule of law no longer applied if you are an elite. That we no longer are a nation of laws. Basically, by not prosecuting torture(and Wall Street for that matter) Obama has admitted we have become a banana republic.
Obama himself is more likely than not to have committed war crimes.
My favorite author regarding the MIC, their expansion worldwide since WW II and, their abuse of power and what its doing to our nation is Chalmers Johnson. His trilogy Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis are required reading for all interested in this subject.
It doesn’t appear you’re all that serious about “shining a bright light on the abuses of our foreign policy”. With your above statement, you’re making the false “either/or” choice… and I’m not clear what you’re referring to regarding Obama’s “positive agenda”.
Are you referring to Obama’s economic policy or foreign policy- specifically military actions?
If you’re referring to Obama’s economic policy, why could Obama not do both: pursue positive economic policies while pursuing those responsible for torture?
The “Obama wanted to pursue a positive agenda” excuse regarding torture approved by the previous administration is just that- an excuse. It’s the sort of excuse that many progressives made; while expedient/convenient, this excuse has unfortunate implications- one being the entire credibility of our so called “two party system” and the “clear” differences between the two.
Even a brief examination of the Bush and Obama administration regarding torture/military policy indicates very little difference, and there’s important reasons for all of this- which in bloggo world- in the interest of partisan politics, and in the interest of propping up a dysfunctional political system, are seldom discussed.
For example, I’m wondering how “progressives” who enthusiastically supported Obama in 2008 deal with the current expansion of the “death from above” Predator drone program, often with the loss of innocent life.. with the same old excuse (again) of “collateral damage”.
He barely, by the skin of his teeth, found 60 votes in the senate for any of the things he and the House tried to do in 2009 and 2010.
Do you honestly, really believe that health insurance reform or god forbid, DADT repeal would have had even a 0.00001% chance of passage if a Democratic president set about to indict an entire Republican administration of crimes against humanity?
Really?
It would certainly expose this country for the fraud it is re: the rule of law
Exactly. Not to mention the whiplash effect of having a guy who campaigned on uniting people, getting beyond gridlock, not breaking things into blue states and red states, coming in an immediately declaring most of DC to be a war crimes scene. The pearl clutching and panic would have been bad enough if a white president did it. But the first black president?
It would have ripped this country apart and absolutely nothing would gotten done. And the economy was in free fall.
There was an either/or aspect to this. I wish that was not the case.
I’m not saying it had to be as either/or as it turned out to be. But he couldn’t do one without largely sacrificing the other.
Yep. There would have been no Smedley Butlers to be found in our Christianist-infiltrated military high command.
.
To do an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity, does the US Justice Department need approval by Congress? I don’t believe Congress gave their approval ahead of Bush’s agreement to condone harsh interrogation techniques as treatment of Afghans and Iraqis found on the battlefield of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
there is some condition along the lines that if the justice had started any aspect of investigation, international court could not get involved. some of us think that is why Obama’s justice dept is doing nothing.
If you’re referring to the ICC or the Hague, there’s this large problem:
Why indeed? the timing of the “unsigning” is significant- given we invaded/occupied Iraq in March of 2003.
Again, read Chalmers Johnson’s books- the U.S. unfortunately has a long record of abuses in nations where we have a long term military presence- Okinawa being a “good” example.
Let’s get real; one of the reasons we’re (mostly) pulling out of Iraq is this:
This happening under the Obama administration again indicates the continuation of major U.S. policies from one administration to the next, regardles of who is the POTUS or controls congress.
Did Obama or anyone in his administration, or hawks like McCain indicate their willingness to agree to Maliki’s demand that our people be held accountable for past or future abuses in Iraq?
Of course not.
Has Obama or anyone in his administration suggested the U.S. join the ICC?
Doubtful.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/490/united-states-and-the-icc
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/21/us-iraq-usa-obama-idUSTRE79K4LR20111021
If you’re referring to the ICC or the Hague, there’s this large problem:
Why indeed? the timing of the “unsigning” is significant- given we invaded/occupied Iraq in March of 2003.
Again, read Chalmers Johnson’s books- the U.S. unfortunately has a long record of abuses in nations where we have a long term military presence- Okinawa being a “good” example.
Let’s get real; one of the reasons we’re (mostly) pulling out of Iraq is this:
This happening under the Obama administration again indicates the continuation of major U.S. policies from one administration to the next, regardles of who is the POTUS or controls congress.
Did Obama or anyone in his administration, or hawks like McCain indicate their willingness to agree to Maliki’s demand that our people be held accountable for past or future abuses in Iraq?
Of course not.
Has Obama or anyone in his administration suggested the U.S. join the ICC?
Doubtful.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/490/united-states-and-the-icc
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/21/us-iraq-usa-obama-idUSTRE79K4LR20111021
Right. This is the slippery slope that many of us are concerned about.
The “9/11 changed everything” meme clearly has gone way over the line in terms of separation of powers/checks and balances that our system of government (used to be?) is based on.
A quick check of our Constitution reminds us the POTUS does not have the authority to make or fund war- those powers lie exclusively with congress- and I think now we can see why.
You’re still parsing, excuse making.
You’re getting off topic- Boooman’s post is not about our dysfunctional congress/how difficult it is for Obama to advance his agenda.
That said, if you really want to go there, again, we as “progressives” need to stop dancing around, stop making excuses, stop lowering the bar regarding the major problems we face and the credibility of our current political system in terms of its ability to honestly address and resolve those issues.
The torture issue is just one of many where progressives are willing to lower the bar, in the interest of, as I stated, being expedient- getting (maybe) other progressive things done like health insurance reform. (Kudos for phrasing it that way, since health care “reform” is not what we got, after what? spending two years getting it done?).
The problem with the “something is better than nothing” approach is it is a slippery slope in many ways. One being, I would think is obvious: by allowing excuses like “he/they want to move on with a positive agenda”, we demonstrate our weakness which allows the POTUS/congress to ignore crucial issues and thus the issues get worse over time which is exactly where we are now– i.e. massive expenditure of government budget on the MIC which takes money away from infrastrucure repair, etc.
Perfect example being the current Transportation legislation in congress which provides money for road and bridge construction projects. In the past congress readily passed two year funding legislation- now they can manage only a three month extension. Three months? In a time when we clearly need people to be working?
Note that when defense spending comes up in congress, or continuation of financial aid for Israel, it gets done– there’s no delays, no mere “extensions”.
In addition, if you want to discuss our dysfunctional congress, I’m not sure how you can ignore the weakness of the democratic party, demonstrated by losses of congressional seats (Ted Kennedy’s former senate seat in MA), and the possibility democrats will lose control of the senate after this year’s election.
If you think it was tough getting 60 votes the past three years, just wait…
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2012/03/29/congress-extends-current.html
Even a brief examination of the Bush and Obama administration regarding torture/military policy indicates very little difference
Torturing people, not torturing people: very little difference.
This rings hollow to me, given that the US has restrictions on allowing prisoners sent to the ANSF because of the proliferation of…torture in that country. A problem which isn’t exactly getting fixed.
This rings hollow too, but in the opposite direction. I think the same administration that fulfilled its word in Iraq can be expected to do likewise in Afghanistan. I think you can be skeptical about the wisdom of tripling down in Afghanistan, given the thousand-plus IED casualties, or the schools that we’ve built that are staffed with illiterate teachers who don’t actually show up to work, or the entire Afghan GDP worth of money robbed from that country and flown out into Emirati banks, but I don’t doubt for a second that 99% of NATO troops will be out of Afghanistan by 2014.
He couldn’t even steamroll his own party. He couldn’t even steamroll a majority within his own party in the Senate. Not being able to charge and try dozens of prisoners no doubt honestly and practically complicates the matter, but the facts on the ground show that people are just fine with burying as much of the last decade as we can down in Cuba for as long as possible.
“Obama paid a price for letting the torturers go. But so did we. And so did our country’s reputation, both now and in the history books. “
Seriously, I want some of your weed.
let’s make things clear: “reputation” is a quaint a concept as “gold standard” or “the buck stops here”.
No one cares about reputation, especially as a nation. By the time history is written, Bush, Cheney. Rice, and Yoo will be dead. No one will care or even know what they did, except for a few academics. No one’s gonna go up to John Yoo’s son or grandchild and say “nyah nyah, your dad is a torturer”. No one in the Bush family will pay any price for what GWB did.
Oh, gee our “national reputation.” Does anyone give a shit that we dropped nukes on Japan? Has our Iraq war debacle deterred other countries from joining more recent misbegotten wars? No, it hasn’t.
No one gives a shit about that stuff. For that matter, no one gives a shit about UC Davis, or you’d see Katehi resigning. Which she’s not. Because no one gives a shit.
And what’s even more hilarious is you seem to be just figuring this out, whereas I’ve known this since 1985. When I was 15 and learned that no one gave a shit that US funded Contras in Nicaragua were raping and murdering nuns.
grow up, my friend. GROW UP. NO ONE CARES.
What Boo is admitting is that the rule of law doesn’t matter any more. That’s what he is saying. Not to mention the “uniting” thing was just a bunch of campaigning. Atrios, among some others, knew from the outset that the GOP wouldn’t play ball no matter what. After all, Mitch McConnell(I think) said it before Obama was even inaugurated.
No, what he’s saying is that Obama couldn’t/ can’t do everything that needs to be done immediately, had to prioritze. I completely agree with Booman and I support Obama for prioritizing the way he has. In 2009 how many ppl about to lose their homes, having lost their jobs, or denied health coverage because of preexisting conditions were crying out for Obama to address war crimes immediately?
So you can’t walk and chew gum at the same time? And have you not realized anything? One, people are still being thrown out of their homes fraudulently. Second, it’s called the rule of law. But as we’ve seen, the law doesn’t apply to the elites of this country.
well, in this instance, no, cannot walk and chew gum at the same time because of the pushback from those who would be investigated. you really think that their pushback would be irrelevant to the process of governing during economic crisis?
The last I read, Health Insurance Reform passed without a single Republican vote. So we didn’t investigate their war crimes to avoid what push back, exactly?
wow! naive. I think you need to get out more.
To put it another way, my reading of the condition of our democracy after 8 yrs of Bush is we’re like the guy who fell into the crevasse in Touching the Void – y’all are acting like we just slipped on the ice. I don’t see Obama and Holder having illusions about where we are, just trying to get our democracy out of the crevasse.
With all respect, I believe there’s a cost that’s missing from your list: the Republicans regained control of the House in 2010. I know this is debatable, the same way that adding troops or removing them was a debatable answer to our lack of progress in Vietnam. I think that holding the Republicans accountable for their war crimes would have helped Democrats (in addition to being the right thing to do), but accept that I may be in a tiny minority on this issue here.
Agreed, and keeping GOPers worried about whether they are going to be hauled up on torture, war-crimes, and military supply graft charges (hi Rep West!) seems to me to be a good way to deal with repug obstructionism.
You hit the nail right on the head! This inconvenient fact likes to bury itself down the memory hole. I’m not blaming any particular person, mind you.
Obama didn’t pay and he won’t ever pay; though, he was paid handsomely. However, we as a nation, have paid, are now paying and will be paying into the foreseeable future. The 2010 Republican election rout happened because Democrats, after demolishing the moribund Republican party in 2008, started to revivify them with appeasement and well wishes and hopes for the Democratic Holy Grail of “bipartisanship.” It was because the Democrats have been and will continue to be lacking in any sort of conviction beyond the frame of the next election. If the “Rule of Law” will get in the way of Democrats getting that corporate lobbyist money, so be it. If letting torturers go free so that we can pursue a “positive” agenda, let’s do it. You see my point. This has never been and never will be about “positivity.” It’s about MONEY and POWER. I keep being told that Obama too “good” to be that way but the circumstantial evidence is too great to ignore.
I remember Obama saying shortly after his 2008 coronation something I can’t quite quote but the gist was this: “everyone has good ideas that we should validate and treat with sensitivity.”
For me, that moment along with his ruthless triangulation against anything considered liberal (Cooties!) was when the mask fell off and he was exposed for the functionary that he is. That, my friends, was the beginning of the end. “Hope”ful yet betrayed liberals stayed home in droves.
Yes, we broke laws banning torture. Obama says, “So what?”
It’s not just the fact that the Bush administration engaged in torture that should concern people. Apparently this has been a CIA standard operating procedure for years; the CIA had no qualms going along but they wanted legal immunity for their actions if discovered. Which is why the US did not ratify the treaty with the International Criminal Court, one of the key objections being it interfered with US sovereignty to do anything it wanted to anyone. And that attitude now has spilled over into law enforcement and even gets a wink from the Supreme Court. In the context of minor offenses, a cavity search can be used as a form of torture. More and more, the standard US prison practice of prolonged solitary confinement, which the Obama administration used against Bradley Manning until it was protested, is considered a form of torture because of its permanent psychological effects.
And the majority of the prisoners tortured turned out not to be terrorists at all but people who had been captured on the battlefield (legally “prisoners of war” and not “enemy combatants”) or people who were turned in for bounties by opportunists or personal enemies; so much for the “if you’re innocent, you have nothing to worry about” excuse.
Finally, torture contaminated the evidence against the folks who most likely are terrorists to the point that the US cannot hold a federal trial to provide due process. Preventing this information about tainting from coming out is what the hysteria over trying terrorists in New York City was all about. The fact is that under normal rules of evidence, the US would have to let go some of those with the most evidence of actually participating in planning terror attacks. Instead, the US in order to keep these folks behind bars, is going through the show trials of military commissions, in which the guilty verdict is presumed in advanced and the evidence manipulated to fit the verdict. And the President is claiming the power of indefinite detention without trial.
Obama has not reversed the course on civil liberties abuses. That is his Achilles heel in this election more than the economy is.
The Haunting we will face regarding “civil liberties” you can’t exaggerate the damage. The undoing of a nation, the dismantling of a govt, add your own here
Just a big “I Told You So” from George Carlin,Bill Hicks,Zappa & Hunter Thompson.
Which is why I follow one simple rule: If Money is involved, the system will be corrupted eventually. I don’t care what level of 11 dimensional chess wizardry you are a master of. It doesn’t matter, you can’t look forward & not look back. You must always look back to go forward. That is the lesson we learned in our lifetime.
When weighing the costs and benefits of passing on torture prosecutions, you missed a big one: Obama did not establish the precedent of Presidents coming into office and prosecuting their predecessors.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."