Obama to Prosecute W for Torture?

Over at Mother Jones Jonathan Stein predicts that the first split between Obama and Congress will be over the whether or not to investigate the previous administrations actions. He predicts that that Obama will follow the precedent of previous presidents and not push for or allow any formal investigations of his predecessor. Although Obama has previously stated that he would authorize a fact finding inquiry:

"If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," he said. But he quickly added, "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems to solve."

However if recent speculation of Bush granting a blanket pardon to all individuals involved with torturing detainees proves correct the incoming administrations hands would be tied when it came to prosecuting anyone stateside. That would mean that anyone found guilty would have to be tried by the International Criminal Court. Which as weird as it may seem might actually be the best route to go if the upcoming Obama administration is serious about rebuilding America's image abroad.

As for whether or not we should prosecute members of the (soon to be) former administration I think the answer is pretty clear, "Absolutely." I am not alone in this line of thought. Glen Greenwald of Salon (who I disagree with 90% of the time) is in agreement with Daniel Larison of American Conservative magazine on this (which may be a sign of the apocalypse).

Larison:

Glenn Greenwald has an important post rejecting the claim that holding lawbreakers from this administration accountable is a kind of partisan attack. Leave aside for the moment that a significant number of voters who elected the new President probably chose him precisely to have this kind of accountability, which would mean that part of the reform of our government that many Obama voters expect entails nothing less than investigating and prosecuting officials who committed crimes. Instead, let’s simply consider what a system governed by the rule of law would require. It would require that those suspected of abuses of power, corruption or the commission of crimes under the color of authority be investigated and, if the evidence merited it, prosecuted.
...
If high officials have broken the law, the day when they are brought to justice should be considered a very good day indeed. Is it regrettable that these officials created this situation? Of course. What we should never regret or lament is the successul revival of the rule of law that holding such officials accountable would represent.

If you have doubts as whether or or not we should pursue such a course against this administration I have a challenge for you. First either read every source I've linked to on the subject or watch the documentary Torturing Democracy (essentially a time line on this issue using documents obtained under the freedom of info act, leaked memos and transcripts, and interviews with former Bush appointees and military officers) and then ask yourself "If it were Bill Clinton or Obama that were accused would I feel differently?" When any administration to commits a crime and we turn a blind eye we give license to future administrations to perform the same illegal acts.

One could also argue that if Obama fails to follow through on his word on this matter then he is tacitly reserving the privilege for those same excesses for his own administration. How comfortable are you with that thought?

Of Note

Over at Right Wing Nut House Rick Moran has a well written and solid post entitled America's Shame in which he expresses dismay over America's use of torture from a conservative point of view. Here's an excerpt:

But for me and many others on the right, the issue of torture defines America in a way that does not weigh comfortably on our consciences or on our self image as citizens of this country. I am saddened beyond words to be associated with a country that willingly gives up its traditions and adherence to the rule of law for the easy way, the short cut around the law, while giving in to the basest instincts we posses because we are afraid.

Drop by and read it. It'll probably be the best post you read today.

How Far We've Fallen

We've detained and tortured at least one innocent person for five years . The worst part is that we knew he was innocent for over four and a half years.

From CBS News:

Ex-Terror Detainee Says U.S. Tortured Him
Tells 60 Minutes He Was Held Underwater, Shocked And Suspended From the Ceiling

At the age of 19, Murat Kurnaz vanished into America's shadow prison system in the war on terror. He was from Germany, traveling in Pakistan, and was picked up three months after 9/11. But there seemed to be ample evidence that Kurnaz was an innocent man with no connection to terrorism. The FBI thought so, U.S. intelligence thought so, and German intelligence agreed. But once he was picked up, Kurnaz found himself in a prison system that required no evidence and answered to no one.
...
"They stopped the bus and because of my color, I’m much more different than Pakistani guys," says Kurnaz, who is lighter-skinned. "He looked into the bus and he knocked on my window."

"He" was a Pakistani cop who pulled Kurnaz off the bus. The reason Kurnaz was singled out may always be a mystery. But at the time, the U.S. was paying bounties for suspicious foreigners. Kurnaz, who'd been rambling across Pakistan with Islamic pilgrims, seemed to fit the bill. Kurnaz says that he was told that U.S. intelligence paid $3,000 for him. He ended up bound and shackled on an American military plane.
...
"They used to beat me when my head is underwater. They beat me into my stomach and everything," he says.

"They were hitting you in the stomach while you're head was underwater so that you'd have to take a breath?" Pelley asks,

"Right. I had to drink. I had to…how you say it?" Kurnaz replies.

"Inhale. Inhale the water," Pelley says.

"I had to inhale the water. Right," Kurnaz says.

Kurnaz says the Americans used a device to shock him with electricity that made his body go numb. And he says he was hoisted up on chains suspended by his arms from the ceiling of an aircraft hangar for five days.

"Every five or six hours they came and pulled me back down. And the doctor came to watch if I can still survive to not. He looked into my eyes. He checked my heart. And when he said okay, then they pulled me back up," Kurnaz says.

"The point of the doctor's visit was not to treat you. It was to see if you could take another six hours hanging from the ceiling?" Pelley asks.

"Right," Kurnaz says.
...
At Guantanamo Kurnaz says he endured endless months of interrogations, beatings at the hands of soldiers in riot gear, and physical cruelty which included going without sleep for weeks and solitary confinement for up to a month in cells that were sealed without ventilation or were set up to punish him with extreme conditions.
...
But far worse than the false charges was the secret government file that Azmy (his lawyer) uncovered.

Six months after Kurnaz reached Guantanamo, U.S. military intelligence had written, "criminal investigation task force has no definite link [or] evidence of detainee having an association with al Qaeda or making any specific threat toward the U.S."

At the same time, German intelligence agents wrote their government, saying, "USA considers Murat Kurnaz’s innocence to be proven. He is to be released in approximately six to eight weeks."

But Azmy says Kurnaz was kept at Guantanamo Bay for three and a half years after this memo was written in 2002.

Its hard to figure out which is worse the fact that we're torturing people or that were torturing innocent people and then suppressing the evidence that they aren't guilty. There is one positive thing that will happen this season and that's that the use of torture will stop no matter who is elected.

Torture and the '08 Elections

I've talked a fair bit about torture here and it's greatly influenced my decision making as to who I'm going to vote for. Over at TMV David Schraub concludes that the entire election is about torture. And he's right in that we do need to have a national debate about torture in order to decide what America is. However I think that the point his title makes needs to be explored in a different manner. To me the questions about torture are an excellent barometer of any candidate's morales.

Here's the way I see it. If you ask the question WWJD in regards to torture the answer is readily apparent. However many candidates seem to be at odds with the beliefs they claim they have and their position on torture. If they can't follow the dictates of their own faith how can we expect them to follow "lesser dictates" like international law or the Constitution (or even tell the truth consistently for that matter)? There has to be some minimum bar for morality in a president and sadly enough this election we're debating the value of hitting rock bottom in that area.

If I'm right about what a candidates stance on this issue says about them then I have four choices this election season; John McCain, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee and every Dem candidate that isn't Hillary Clinton. Since I don't think that Ron Paul or Huckabee can win (or even want Huckabee to) the GOP nomination who I'll be voting for will most likely be decided by the winnowing process that is called the primaries and the sad thing is that in the end I may end up with a choice of lesser evils. Again.

An Evangelical on Torture

Over at The Evangelical Outpost Joe Carter tackles the question, "Who would Jesus waterboard?" His answer? No one.

Who allowed our country to succumb to such fear and moral cowardice that we parse the the meaning and definition of "torture?"

I blame myself, and implicate my fellow Christians. We have remained silent and treated an issue once considered unthinkable--the acceptability of torture--like a concept worthy of honest debate. But there is no room for debate: torture is immoral and should be clearly and forcefully denounced. We continue to shame ourselves and our Creator by refusing to speak out against such outrages to human dignity.

...

As Christians we must never condone the use of methods that threaten to undermine the inherent dignity of the person created in the image of God. ... There is something clearly repugnant about our unwillingness to distance ourselves from the fear-driven utilitarians willing to embrace the use of torture.

I've wondered "Where is the evangelical outrage?" before and its good to see evidence that there is some. However unlike others I don't believe that there is any type of implicit consent amongst evangelicals towards the use of torture. I am of the opinion that they, probably like many Americans, simply have a hard time believing that those charged with leading and defending this great nation are capable of sinking that low and thus passively choose to write it off as improbable. After all its easier to continue believing in the goodness of America than it is to change one's view and then wrangle the ensuing ramifications. The problem is that in doing so too many are giving passive consent to torture by their silence.

McCain Takes Giuliani to Task on Torture

From the NY Times

Rudolph W. Giuliani’s statement on Wednesday that he was uncertain whether waterboarding, a simulated drowning technique, was torture drew a sharp rebuke yesterday from Senator John McCain, who said that his failure to call it torture reflected his inexperience.

“All I can say is that it was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today,” Mr. McCain, who spent more than five years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, said in a telephone interview.

Of presidential candidates like Mr. Giuliani, who say that they are unsure whether waterboarding is torture, Mr. McCain said: “They should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture.”

Mr. Giuliani said on Wednesday night at a forum in Davenport, Iowa, that he favored “aggressive questioning” of terrorism suspects and using “means that are a little tougher” with terrorists but that the United States should not torture people. On the question of whether waterboarding is torture, however, Mr. Giuliani said he was unsure.

“It depends on how it’s done,” he said, adding that he was unsure whether descriptions of the practice by the “liberal media” were accurate. “It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it.”

The article also points out that McCain's view of torture is similar to my own:

"...Mr. McCain, who believes that torture is ineffective because its victims will say anything to make it stop..."

Just five days ago Giuliani said "'My belief in God, my reliance on his guidance, is at the core of who I am, I can assure you of that...'' and now he's advocating situational uses of torture? At what point did this brand of hypocrisy/moral relativism become acceptable in a potential president? If we can't trust a person to follow the dictates of his "deeply held" faith how can we expect him to uphold the laws of man? To me where a person stands on this issue acts as a moral barometer (particularly if they also happen espouse mainstream religious views). Its a question about whether morales and values are more important than expediency.

Earlier this week there was some discussion of "Is America inherently good"? Pushing the textbook definition of the word inherent aside my answer is no. We are however incredibly well meaning. However if we continue to elect leaders that are willing to sacrifice values for expediency it won't be too long before we won't even be able to claim that.

On Torture

There has been a lot of discussion about the value of torture as of late. Speaking as someone that has some personal experience on the subject and who has studied it I can honestly say the following:

Torture elicits false confessions and information from the innocent, it produces false information from the guilty/knowledgeable who have been properly trained or should either their loyalty or pain threshold be high. It does however provide actionable intelligence from those that lack loyalty and/or a high endurance for pain/discomfort. If I had the numbers to crunch I'd bet that the percentage of soldiers or terrorists that fall into that last group is really low. What we need to figure out is if the percentage of real information were getting from torture is worth the sacrifice of America's moral authority. I don't believe it is. We're supposed to be the good guys and it's high time we started acting like it.

Durbin was right?

At least on the Nazi's having used the same torture techniques the administration has approved for detainees.

Courtesy of The Daily Dish:

"Freezing prisoners to near-death, repeated beatings, long forced-standing, waterboarding, cold showers in air-conditioned rooms, stress positions [Arrest mit Verschaerfung], withholding of medicine and leaving wounded or sick prisoners alone in cells for days on end - all these have occurred at US detention camps under the command of president George W. Bush. Over a hundred documented deaths have occurred in these interrogation sessions. The Pentagon itself has conceded homocide by torture in multiple cases."

Oddly enough they also used the same sort of logic about why they tortured them too:

"The victims, by the way, were not in uniform. And the Nazis tried to argue, just as John Yoo did, that this made torturing them legit. The victims were paramilitary Norwegians, operating as an insurgency, against an occupying force. And the torturers had also interrogated some prisoners humanely."

Such acts were found to be war crimes and the perpetrators were sentenced to death. Man, doesn't that just make you proud of your government?

I bet Durbin is still waiting for an apology from that WaPo reporter.



H/T to Damn Hippies