GOP and Bush's Torture Policy a War Crime That Next Administration Must Not Ignore
"Contrary to claims that the abuses at Abu Ghraib and other prisons were contrived by subordinates on the ground -- i.e., "hicks with sticks" -- Yoo's 81-page memo rationalizes motive and establishes the bar for virtually every human rights violation that has taken place in the name of fighting the global war on terrorism.
"It is, in the words of Dan Froomkin, author of the Washington Post's irreplaceable "White House Briefing" blog, "a historic document... the ultimate expression of Cheney's belief that anything the president or his designates do -- no matter how illegal, barbaric or un-American -- is justifiable in the name of national self-defense."
John Yoo, depicably subverting rules of law to provide cover for the administration's crimes even justified the president's right to have children tortured: "As a deputy assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, John Yoo authored a number of legal memos arguing for unlimited presidential powers to order torture of captive suspects, and to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat.
"This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.
"Cassel: If the President deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?
"Yoo: No treaty.
"Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
"Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that."
Obama's administration will face the question of what to do about the war crimes committed by the Bush regime.
Dawn Eviatar at The Washinton Independent writes: "Before a packed crowd at the Netroots convention, Cass Sunstein, a law professor at Harvard and the University of Chicago and a legal adviser for Sen. Barack Obama, was asked how the next president should address the Bush administration's potential war crimes. When Sunstein said the new adminstration must be cautious and not partisan in the use of the prosecutorial power, though egregious acrs should not be ignored, he was still met with a chorus of boos and angry rejoinders that the president and his Cabinet cannot remain above the law.
"Since then, legal experts have generally agreed that the next administration is unlikely to prosecute Bush administration officials for authorizing the torture of suspected terrorists ”no matter how many laws the government officials broke. But that hasn't placated many others, like George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley, or the constitutional lawyer and author Glenn Greenwald, who argue that holding policy-makers accountable for their actions is critical to restoring the reputation of the United States” not to mention respect for the rule of law.
"Indeed, how can a new president refuse to prosecute Bush administration officials for authorizing the same acts, like waterboarding, that the United States has previously prosecuted as contrary to U.S. and international law?
"The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Bush administration had issued secret memos in 2003 and 2004 explicitly endorsing the Central Intelligence Agency's use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques ”otherwise known as torture” against suspected terrorists.
"Though Atty. Gen. Michael Mukasey still hasn't said whether he believes waterboarding constitutes torture, the evidence of illegal conduct by senior administration officials is getting harder and harder to avoid.
"In a recent address to the Assn. of Former U.S. Attorneys, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a former U.S. attorney, noted that waterboarding, which the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel declared legal in 2002 (the Justice Dept. now claims the CIA no longer uses it as an interrogation technique), had long been considered torture. In fact, it had earlier been prosecuted by U.S. authorities.
" 'There are a whole variety of far more relevant things they could have found if they had taken a look,' Whitehouse continued, noting that the U.S. itself prosecuted waterboarding of American soldiers after World War II; waterboarding by American soldiers in the Philippines, and "water torture," as it's also been called” most recently by a local sheriff in Texas."
Phillipe Sands, author of Torture Team, writes at The Guardian: "As the US presidential election reaches a climax against the background of the financial crisis, another silent, dark, time bomb of an issue hangs over the two candidates: torture. For now, there seems to be a shared desire not to delve too deeply into the circumstances in which the Bush administration allowed the US military and the CIA to embrace abusive techniques of interrogation - including waterboarding, in the case of the CIA - which violate the Geneva conventions and the 1984 UN torture convention.
"The torture issue's cancerous consequences go deep, and will cause headaches for the next president. New evidence has emerged in Congressional inquiries that throw more light on the extent to which early knowledge and approval of the abuse went to the highest levels. What does a country do when compelling evidence shows its leaders have authorised international crimes?"
Good question.
Are we a nation of laws that says the president is not above any law or will the next administration make the same mistake as prior administrations did with Nixon and Reagan?
By not impeaching Nixon for Watergate or Reagan and company for Iran-Contra, this nation's representatives on Capitol Hill laid the foundation for the crimes committed by Bush and his regime. Unless the Bush regime is held accountable, this criminal history will repeat itself to the terrible detriment of the American people.
Comments