Obama: No prosecution for CIA tactics

President Bush should be indicted for War Crimes. This is the only way to satisfy all of us about the truth. If Bush is innocent then he should have the right to present his case - and we can all rejoice. To avoid the truth is very unsatisfying for all concerned. .............

http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/01/22/indicting-george-bush-for-war-crimes/

Spain has already moved towards prosecuting six former members of the Bush crime family for war crimes and torture. Bush, Cheney, Rove etc will be up next on the prosecutors docket after they finish up the first trial.

"Spanish prosecutors have decided to go ahead with a criminal investigation of former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Federal Appeals Court Judge and former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, University of California law professor and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, former Defense Department general counsel and current Chevron lawyer William J. Haynes II, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff David Addington, and former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith."
.
http://washingtonindependent.com/38531/bush-six-to-be-indicted-today-in-spain

All of the former Republican war criminals might want to avoid any sort of international traveling they might plan on doing.....for the rest of their lives.

Except for some of his Cabinet nominations, this has not been a bad week for the President.

George Soros and Nanct Pelosi are not going to this. Not like this at all. Barry is going to get a good talking to now.

The BushCo war criminals are fooling themselves if they think they've successfully dodged prosecutions here in the US. Prosecutions of this sort have always been more of a second-term thing and thanks to BushCo, Pres Obama has just got too much else he's trying to accomplish to allow Bush ghosts to drag down the first-term of his administration.

Prosecutions aren't out of the picture, they're just too much of a potential quagmire to get serious attention until sometime after 2012.

Let us compare our interrogation techniques used against Terrorists to those of our emenies used against Americans:

United States:
Simulated Drowning
Turning down the heat in cells
Keeping prisoner naked too long

Terrorists:
Hands bound behind back, forced to kneel on the floor while a terrorist saws your head off while being videotaped for the muslim world to watch

Yeah. I feel real bad for the poor terrorist detainees.

Glad for the transparency; the torture techniques are unAmerican and ineffective.

I just don't understand those of you who whine and cry for the terrorists who may indeed get treated poorly, but certainly better than most unemployed Americans experience during these tough times. Why don't you limp wrists worry more about our Nation, it's safety and getting our people back to work, and let our trained officials work to extract the information they need using the techniques they have found effective. Now put your Birkenstocks back on and get back to work!

"I'm a strong believer that it's important to look forward and not backwards,'' Obama said in that interview... ''
So said the President.
And Rod Blagojevich.
And Bernard Madoff.
And George Ryan.
And Osama bin Laden
And the Somali pirates.
And...
Law without accountability is like elevator music -- giving the illusion of seriousness, class and sophistication with none of the substance.
And since he is so concerned about our brave people in the CIA, how does this forgiving attitude square with the outing of Valerie Plame? Not worthy of prosecution for the person who outed her?
Thank god for Spain; at least there's one nation left that believes in the U.S. Constitution.

This will drive the left-wing neo-Marxists crazy!! How are they going to handle this without criticizing their new Messiah?

To Borat's comment - I am sure the Bush 'Crime Family' is really worried about what Spain will do. This is the country who barely punished the terrorists who blew up the trains in Madrid and killed a bunch of innocents. I wouldn't be afraid of killing someone in that country knowing their weak laws.

Nobody coddles terrorists. Nobody wants to defend them. Nobody. That's a straw man argument.

The point is that if the law has not been followed then A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED. Period. In a republic, nobody, not the president, not govt worker, nobody is above the law. Period.

We don't want to live in a terrorist run country, do we? That's why we are the good guys. We follow a certain set of rules. When we do this, we make many allies, and do well in the world. Look at how the whole world loved us after 9/11. Look at how we work, hard, to chase our friends away.

Finally, the terrorists were not charged with anything. We have no clue why they were there. We have no clue why they were tortured. It turned out that MOST PEOPLE TORTURED WERE NOT TERRORISTS. Also, the torture messed up the convictions of actual terrorists. Don't you want real terrorists charged and punished or should innocent people be tortured while innocents get away.

I don't understand what people who support terrorism want. I really try to understand them, but I don't get it. Please explain yourselves.

Do you want wrong information to be obtained because terrorism doesn't work?

Do you want the US to be a world pariah?

Do you want people to get away with torture and murder just because of their status in our society?

Please be clear, kind, and stay away from name calling.

just don't understand those of you who whine and cry for the terrorists who may indeed get treated poorly, but certainly better than most unemployed Americans experience during these tough times. Why don't you limp wrists worry more about our Nation, it's safety and getting our people back to work, and let our trained officials work to extract the information they need using the techniques they have found effective. Now put your Birkenstocks back on and get back to work!

Posted by: Steve | April 16, 2009 5:10 PM
.

Yeah, tough guy wannabe Stevie doesn't have a problem with torturing people whether we know that they're actually "terrorists" or not. It's that same kind of chickenhawk talk that little Stevie here is doing that led Bush and Cheney to put teenagers and 90 year old men among others in Gitmo even though they had no idea who the hell they were actually holding and torturing.
But that doesn't matter to armchair warriors like Stevie boy because that's the same kind of shoot first ask questions later logic that his leaders (Bush and Cheney) used to invade Iraq and we all know that those guys were NEVER wrong about anything....not.

The best part about all of this Repubilcan toughguy talk is that the young members of the Repub party, the future leadership, emulated the leadership of the elders in their Repub party on Iraq. They decided to stay home, talk tough and have tea parties instead of signing up for Bush's phony war in Iraq.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFGit_tZDqs

Nobody coddles terrorists. Nobody wants to defend them. Nobody. That's a straw man argument.

The point is that if the law has not been followed then A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED. Period. In a republic, nobody, not the president, not govt worker, nobody is above the law. Period.

We don't want to live in a terrorist run country, do we? That's why we are the good guys. We follow a certain set of rules. When we do this, we make many allies, and do well in the world. Look at how the whole world loved us after 9/11. Look at how we work, hard, to chase our friends away.

Finally, the terrorists were not charged with anything. We have no clue why they were there. We have no clue why they were tortured. It turned out that MOST PEOPLE TORTURED WERE NOT TERRORISTS. Also, the torture messed up the convictions of actual terrorists. Don't you want real terrorists charged and punished or should innocent people be tortured while innocents get away.

I don't understand what people who support torture want. I really try to understand them, but I don't get it. Please explain yourselves.

Do you want wrong information to be obtained because terrorism doesn't work?

Do you want the US to be a world pariah?

Do you want people to get away with torture and murder just because of their status in our society?

Please be clear, kind, and stay away from name calling.

Maybe you should read some of those memos, Steve, before saying stupid things.

Hands bound behind back, forced to kneel on the floor while a terrorist saws your head off while beingvideotaped for the muslim world to watchYeah. I feel real bad for the poor terrorist detainees.
Posted by: Chase | April 16, 2009 4:44 PM

Chase,
So I guess we should just blow off our constituion and act like the "terrorists", huh?

Here's the thing Wingnuts, you don't have any of the so-called "patriotic values" that you all so fervantly claim to have if every time there's a crisis you decide to just break the laws of the land because you've become so scared that you're browning your underwear. They wouldn't be American values if we did that, they'd be hobbies.

So rather than pander to a few left wing nuts, who will probably vote for him regardless of what he does, he opts for the safer option of not pursuing prosecutions of people who actually helped keep America safe.

Makes sense to me. With only 3 months into his office, he'll be needing all the help from the CIA that he can get in this day and age. Why alienate those who are in a position to help him accomplish something good for the safety and security of the country?

This is an exoneration of the "field" personnel, who were relying on guidance from above. I don't love that but I can see it.

Conspicuous, and more hopeful, is that this does not apply to criminals such as Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, and that despicable fraud of an attorney, John Yoo. So this does not mean there will be no prosecutions.

---

Comments from our knuggledragger friends, e.g., Chase and Steve, are not worthy of comment, except to say that I'd prefer to think that we as a nation hold ourselves to a higher standard than the terrorists do. That kind of thinking may not fly in your trailers, girls, but it would not be fruitful to expect rational thought from the likes of you.

Bush and the Republicans, claiming to be defenders of liberty, have done more harm to the constitution than any other president and political party in our history.

Typical meaningless jargon from Obama. The guy talks like a fortune cookie and avoids direct questions. Either you think the actions of Bush et al. were criminal or you don't. If you don't, then can the torture rhetoric. If you do, then don't you have a duty to prosecute? Something about an oath to execute the laws of the US? I don't see much of a middle ground here. If Obama's AG goes on record that waterboarding was absolutely torture, and it is undisputed that the CIA waterboarded, doesn't it follow that the Administration/Justice Department must investigate/prosecute? Is it acceptable to liberals for Obama to tell Holder to stand down? There is no doubt in my mind that Holder would love to prosecute if Obama would let him off his leash. This is a tough one for liberals - which is more important, your bizarre need to defend Obama no matter what he does/says or your hatred of Bush?

If there is a terrorist attack in the United States the Obama administration will bear the yoke of the tragedy.

The US must get information to safe lives, even if it is just one life.

Hope your family is not a victim due to the government's failure to seek information to ward off terrorist acts.

am sure the Bush 'Crime Family' is really worried about what Spain will do. This is the country who barely punished the terrorists who blew up the trains in Madrid and killed a bunch of innocents. I wouldn't be afraid of killing someone in that country knowing their weak laws.

Posted by: dan | April 16, 2009 5:28 PM
.

That's what Augusto Pinochet thought, Danny.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet
.

So rather than pander to a few left wing nuts, who will probably vote for him regardless of what he does, he opts for the safer option of not pursuing prosecutions of people who actually helped keep America safe.

Posted by: Chris | April 16, 2009 5:54 PM

Yeah Christina, I remember that day, on 9/11 in 2001, when Bush and Cheney were busy doing nothing but keeping us all "safe" from the "bad guys" and.....uh.....wait a minute....hmmm....uh.....nevermind.

I totally understand this, there's no need to prosecute the people in the field who were just taking orders. If the big fish in the crimial BushCo operation (the one's who gave the orders) think they're off the hook because of this then they are sadly mistaken.

Wrong, Herbie. The CIA agents not being prosecuted can't be prosecuted because the Bush Dept. of Justice gave them cover and authority to perform the interrogation techniques used. The guys who gave them that authority can still be prosecuted.

This is a mistake. Just following orders is the excuse used by you know who.

We are tarnished until this stain is removed.

These memos describe grotesque war crimes -- legalized by classic banality-of-evil criminals (BushCo) and ordered by pure criminals (BushCo) -- that must be prosecuted if the rule of law is to have any meaning. But the decision of whether to prosecute is not Obama's to make; ultimately, it is Holder's and/or a Special Prosectuor's. More importantly, Obama can only do so much by himself. The Obama administration should, on its own, initiate criminal proceedings, but the citizenry also has responsibilities here. These acts were carried out by our Government under George Bush and Dick Cheney, and if we are really as repulsed by them as we claim, then the burden is on us to demand that something be done.

We can't prosecute the Bush war criminals...yet.

Do you people know what country we live in? I mean really. Seriously.

We live in Planet Wingnuttia, where the corporate media takes it's marching orders from the right-wing lunatic fringers like Faux and Rush.

There is zero chance these prosecutions can go forward right now.

None.

As of this moment, the Republican loving corporate media would literally never consider actually calling this torture. In fact, they likely wouldn't report on it at all, and if they did, it would be a "he said, she said" segment at best.

More likely, they would give unrebutted airtime to Republican sociopaths like Michelle Bachman, Michael Steele and John Cornyn who would make jokes about how it isn't really torture; or perhaps they will have the hundreds of former intelligence officials who are scared sh*tless right now show up to spew lies for them.

Meanwhile, Republican congressnuts and their corporate media mouthpieces would do nothing but call Obama a terrorist sympathizer etc The David Broders of the DC villager media would clutch their pearls and drone on and on about the "criminalization of politics," or perhaps even the "criminalization of protecting Americans".

A bunch of blue dogs would show up to introduce legislation to give immunity to these poor souls who were just acting on orders.

And meanwhile, nothing gets done in this country, and Obama becomes viewed as trying to exact a partisan vendetta by the rest of the country, who is exceedingly ill-informed due to our Republican loving corporate media.

It seems to me this is the best possible course of action at this time.

Obama did the right thing for now, just release the information and try to let some outrage and public support for prosecutions actually build until it is so big that it can no longer be ignored.

Ah, yes. The
advice of counsel" defense.

A fave of Williams & Connolly.

Works great unless you are the counsel and have also been indicted.

The implications of the "advice of counsel" defense are, er, not pleasant to contemplate.

If transposed, e.g., to the Wannsee Conference. Is that an extrapolation too far?
I think not.

Anyway, there should still be a Truth Commission.

As I believe I have mentioned before.

A serious, serious blunder by Obama.

There are times when one can't intellectualize war.

Presidents do not prosecute other presidents. It simply will not happen. However! If congress were to take it upon themselves to investigate and build a sound enough case I do not think Obama would have any choice but to acknolegde it.

Unfortunately, Pelosi, Reid, etc. will do nothing. They should have impeached Bush and Cheney in 2007. A missed opportunity that will go down in history for sure.

CNN reported today that Spain's AG is recommending that charges be dropped against the Bush Admin officials. Put another way, the case is dead in the water.

Wrong, Herbie. The CIA agents not being prosecuted can't be prosecuted because the Bush Dept. of Justice gave them cover and authority to perform the interrogation techniques used. The guys who gave them that authority can still be prosecuted.

Posted by: Flo | April 16, 2009 8:00 PM

Um, no. Many Nazis were convicted even though they were "just following orders". Then again, they liked to put Russian prisoners outside in 30 below weather and pour water on them to simulate "extreme flying conditions". One of the favorite methods of Saddam's guys was to use a drill and start at a persons feet and work upwards to the testicles. Waterboarding, bugs in a box. Oh boy. That's gotta be up there too - not!!! Like the Dems promise to stop the war in 2006, Bushco will NEVER be prosecuted. Obamaco has already stated as much. Opps.

So, is it still OK to chain people naked to a wall for days until the veins in their legs pop?

I don't know why agents are given a free pass before it is known what in fact they did.

Including why they destroyed hundreds of recordings of their activities.

Flo, they all had cover. Bush will point to his counsel's legal opinion assuring him that the actions were legal. His counsel will say it was his professional opinion, and it is what it is. There is no statute or treaty that specifically defines waterboarding as torture, so there is enough gray area here to make any prosecution futile, regardless of how strongly you or I might personally feel about waterboarding. Obama knows this. There will be no investigation/prosecution into Bush, Cheney, et al. You can either accept that or you can't.

Flo, answer a question for me. Given that AG Holder unequivocally believes waterboarding to be torture, is Obama violating his duty and oath of office to execute the laws of the US by telling Holder not to investigate/prosecute something he obviously believes was a serious crime?

Given that AG Holder unequivocally believes waterboarding to be torture, is Obama violating his duty and oath of office to execute the laws of the US by telling Holder not to investigate/prosecute something he obviously believes was a serious crime?

Posted by: Herbie H. | April 17, 2009 11:09 AM

I know you are asking Flo...but do you think Ford should have prosecuted Nixon? Just askin!

It is a complete waste of time to try to debate Liberals on this issue. They are far more righteous and morally superior to any alleged field agent of terror and certainly more righteous than any Wingnut. By their standards, any form of extracting information against a person’s will, would be illegal torture. There would never be anything in this country built on pure evil that would ever be worth defending anyway. The only real terrorists that ever existed would be Bush, Cheney, lesser Republicans and corporations. Surely we all can recognize that. Obama needs to tune in with his base and end this make-believe war on terror.

What it boils down to is:

The US prosecuted Japanese for doing the same things in WW II.

Plus, I guess it is OK now to destroy evidence.

As in all the recording that CIA destroyed of the "interrogations".

So, perhaps they did all the things the Japanese did in WW II.

We'll never know, will we?

So much for transparence-----

but wait! There's more!

Pat Leahy.

Is he up to the challenge?

Will there be an assertion of "executive privilege"?

bill r., yes. You agree? What about the question I asked Flo? Assume for the sake of argument that I am correct and Obama is putting a leash on Holder. Do you support that? Why would Obama do that? It seems pretty unlikely that he is covering for Bush. Could it be that he doesn't believe his own torture rhetoric? I really don't know the answer, but I know his and Holder's past rhetoric is not matching their current actions. If they really believe that a serious crime has been committed, don't they have a duty to at least investigate?

* * * * *
Posted by: Django - N Exile somewhere in/around the 30th Parallel | April 17, 2009 12:30 PM
.
You know, that would be a good argument - except for the fact that we have a federal statute and multilateral treaty that both define torture. The definition of torture is not in the eye of the beholder.
.
An act of some measurable cruelty done "with the intent" to inflict severe physical pain or suffering, or severe mental pain or suffering - is torture. This is what the treaty and statutes say. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of a pseudo liberal to define something as torture that doesn't meet this standard. On the other hand, it doesn't lie in the mouth of anyone to gainsay that certain acts constitute torture if they do meet this standard.
.
I personally believe that much, but not all of the conduct, defined in the memos constitutes torture. Waterboarding is torture most of the time, because it makes a person believe they are going to be drowned. Inducing a fear of imminent death, according to the torture statute, is a form of severe mental pain or suffering thusly prohibited.
.
I also question the value of torture as a means of extracting truthful information. I have had cases where people falsely confessed to crimes while under a lot less pressure than that which is induced by some of these interrogation techniques. Mental and/or physical coercion can get people to say stuff that just isn’t true in order to make their immediate suffering stop. So we have to ask ourselves: Are we really acting in the best interests of our national security if we use information gathering techniques that raise the likelihood of producing false intelligence? I doubt it.
.
If we don’t like the definition of torture, or don’t care to be bound to prevent torture - as defined by the laws and treaties we have - then we should repeal them. Until we do, this country is bound to enforce those laws.
.
Having said so, I have to answer Herbie’s question (since no one else seems to want to). The answer is, “yes and no.” Holder has a duty, as a deputy of the President, to see that the law is faithfully carried out. That means he would be remiss if he chose not to prosecute anyone for a particular crime, for example, simply because he didn’t like a particular criminal law. On the other hand, the common law and statutory tradition in this country has always given prosecutors discretion whether to prosecute in a particular case. There may be factors, such as the minimal nature of the offense, the age and mental facilities of the suspect, the scarcity of witnesses, and so on, that might reasonably militate against a prosecution. In some states, a prosecutor’s discretion to prosecute, not to prosecute or abandon a prosecution (by means of a nolle prosequi) is absolute. In other states and the federal court system, the decision to prosecute is still largely within the prosecutor’s discretion, but the abandonment or dismissal of a prosecution falls within the court’s discretion.

bill r., yes. You agree?
Posted by: Herbie H. | April 17, 2009 1:47 PM

Believe it or not Herbie...I believe Ford did the right thing. I just don't believe persuing this will serve us well. We are already as divided as we can be....don't see this helping much. Just my opinion.

John W.

Thanks for the legal explanation. I totally agree that the government of the United States should not have laws in place and then directly violate those laws. I would not disagree with the legal definition that you stated (not that my opinion would matter, really), but defining or determining "severe" would seem to be a very large area of gray.

I will be counting on your statement, going forward, that Liberals will not be able to re-define torture to (most presumably) suit their political / personal agendas. I am very inclined to believe that all of this on-going, rigmarole has the real end-game of Liberals vindictively wanting to put Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, or whomever they can get to, on trial for the pleasure of the rest of the America Hate-ing world. I personally think that is 180 degrees wrong.

In the event that I am 180 degrees wrong, would a righteous non-American suddenly say: " Those Americans, they ain't so bad after all. They throw their ex-leaders in jail if someone can just raise up one some esoteric legal issue." I don't see how this would ever really benefit our country, unless it were clearly an irrefutable transgression that could be proven by someone without the requisite political agenda. Thanks Much, John W.

Herbie H. I believe that the Justice Dept and other officials who gave legal cover and authority to the CIA should be investigated and prosecuted. I don't think Obama excused them nor can he. But I would like to see Congress get involved in some investigating. I just don't see how Holder could prosecute anyone who has a DOJ memo saying they are acting legally. They need an independent prosecutor.

Flo by the same token, do the legal memos also insulate Bush? Bush will no doubt claim he relied on this. You or I may have a conspiracy theory that Bush exerted pressure on his counsel to reach a given conclusion, but without specific evidence of that, then it is just that - a conspiracy theory. Who does that leave then to prosecute? The lawyers who drafted the opinions? What's his name, Yoo? He will no doubt claim that it was his legal opinion, it is what it is, and no one had to follow it. Who does that leave to prosecute?

Herbie, I think it was Cheney putting pressure on both the CIA and Justice Dept. I think it's pretty clear that he did. Whether he can hide behind the legal memos, I don't know; I hope not.

*****
Posted by: Django - N Exile somewhere in/around the 30th Parallel | April 17, 2009 3:01 PM
.
I don’t disagree with you. I think the opportunity for a show trial or two exists. I think prosecutions, however, will be few and far between for the simple reason that the current administration doesn’t want to be accused of engaging in political persecution. I think the Obama administration’s sensitivity to that accusation is why they have elected to refrain from prosecuting CIA operatives.
.
And, yes, I think the definition of torture could be a little more definite. Furthermore, the way the statute is worded, torture really isn’t the infliction of actual pain or suffering. Rather, it is an act done “with the intent” to inflict severe mental or physical pain or suffering. With that kind of wording, the actual infliction of pain and suffering doesn’t appear to be an element of the crime. I suppose, though, that no one is going to get prosecuted unless their conduct actually resulted in the infliction of severe pain, or at least could have resulted in the infliction of severe pain. Otherwise, the defense could always argue that the circumstances don’t reflect the required “intent” element.
.
Nevertheless, the statute is definite enough to exclude a lot of conduct from the definition of the crime of torture. If any loony, libertine, birth-control-pill-popping, baby-killing, Kool-Aid drinking, gun-grabbing, code-pink type, pseudo-liberal, whack-job tries to say some activity is torture when it doesn’t fit the statutory definition, one can trot out the law books and say, “See! See! I told you it wasn’t torture!!!” Ehhh. They probably won’t care.

You're beyond my pay grade, Herbie. But I will say that Yoo should be waterboarded himself.