GOOD MORNING FLINT!
Full article http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/
4/22/09 By Terry Bankert http://flintfamilylaw.com/
Summary posted first to Flint Talk http://www.flinttalk.com
THE WORLD TO PUT THE UNITED STATES ON TRIAL FOR TORTURE!
Obama: Bush aides may be prosecuted over torture[8]
In shift, Obama opens door to inquiry on interrogations.Prosecution of lawyers not ruled out[4]
WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS
Widening an explosive debate on torture, President Barack Obama on Tuesday opened the possibility of prosecution for Bush-era lawyers who authorized brutal interrogation of terror suspects and suggested Congress might order a full investigation.[1]
THE VEIL OF SECRECY HAS BEEN LIFTED
"The CIA has managed to avoid liability for torture by promoting the fiction that its torture and rendition programs were secret,"[3]
"By declassifying and officially confirming some of the worst details of the Bush torture regime, President Obama has removed any basis for denying victims their day in court," [3]
OBAMA HAS LET IN THE LIGHT OF DAY, LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY.
Last week, Obama declassified four Bush administration Justice Department memos authorizing the CIA to keep al Qaeda suspects awake for as long as 11 days and use a variety of other techniques during interrogations, including head slaps, stress positions, slamming into walls and the simulated-drowning procedure called waterboarding. Department lawyers said none of the procedures would constitute torture.[3]
CAN POLITICS AND JUSTICE STAND SIDE BY SIDE?
Obama also said that if Congress was intent on investigating that interrogation program, an independent commission might be more suitable than a congressional panel, which he said was more likely to split along partisan lines.[2]
HAS OBAMA GRANTED AMNESTY?
Manfred Nowak, another senior U.N. official who investigates torture accusations, said the Obama administration is violating terms of the U.N. Convention Against Torture by effectively granting amnesty to CIA interrogators. He said the United States, as a signatory to the treaty, is legally obligated to investigate suspected cases of torture. He also said Washington must provide compensation to torture victims, including al-Qaeda leaders who were waterboarded. [6]
"One cannot buy the argument anymore that this does not amount to torture," he said. "These memos are nothing but an attempt to circumvent the absolute prohibition on torture."[6]
THE WORLD IS WATCHING
European officials and lawyers seek to criminalize former US officials over torture charges amid the reluctance of President Barack Obama. [7]
European prosecutors are likely to investigate CIA and Bush administration officials on suspicion of violating an international ban on torture if they are not held legally accountable at home, according to U.N. officials and human rights lawyers. [6]
Many European officials and civil liberties groups said they were disappointed by President Obama's opposition to trials of CIA interrogators who subjected terrorism suspects to waterboarding and other harsh tactics. They said the release last week of secret U.S. Justice Department memos authorizing the techniques will make it easier for foreign prosecutors to open probes if U.S. officials do not. [6]
CHENY CANNOT ESCAPE "Universal Jurisdiction".
Some European countries, under a legal principle known as universal jurisdiction, have adopted laws giving themselves the authority to investigate torture, genocide and other human rights crimes anywhere in the world, even if their citizens are not involved. Although it is rare for prosecutors to win such cases, those targeted can face arrest if they travel abroad. [6]
ENHANCED? SO WAS THE WHEEL!
A number of European authorities and human rights groups have expressed dissatisfaction with Obama's failure to press charges against ex-CIA authorities who sanctioned or administered the so-called 'enhanced interrogation methods' to terror suspects, saying that they will make an effort to delve into the torture case under a "universal jurisdiction" code. [7]Civil rights campaigners say the legal code adopted by some EU countries, authorizes lawyers across the globe to file lawsuits against war criminals, perpetrators of genocides and other human rights offenses, regardless of their country of residence. [7]
ACCOUNTABILITY IS FUNDAMENTAL
Less than a week after declaring it was time for the nation to move on rather than "laying blame for the past," Obama found himself describing what might be done next to investigate what he called the loss of "our moral bearings."[1]
Obama's remarks were the first time that he has explicitly raised the prospect of legal jeopardy for those who formulated the interrogation policy, which critics say amounted to authorizing torture.[2]
WHY ARE WE BOTHERING TO SPIN THIS
The comments knocked the ordinarily smooth White House press operation back on its heels. Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, spent much of his daily briefing yesterday trying to explain precisely what Obama had meant, declaring at one point, "To clear up any confusion on anything that might have been said, I would point you to what the president said."[4]
The president's comments provided a glimpse into the White House's struggle to deal with one of the thorniest issues that Obama has faced since taking office. He has been assailed from all sides for his decision to release previously secret memorandums detailing the harsh tactics employed by the CIA under President George W. Bush -- memos that revealed, for instance, that two captured Al Qaeda operatives were subjected to waterboarding a total of 266 times.[4]
Elisa Massimino, executive director of Human Rights First, an advocacy group here, said Mr. Obama was using the same language her organization had used in trying to persuade the White House that he should create a commission. "Those criteria that he outlined," she said, "those are the exact same things we’ve been saying to them."[5]
COME DOWN HARD
His comments all but ensured that the vexing issue of detainee interrogation during the Bush administration will live on well into the new president's term. Obama, who severely criticized the harsh techniques during the campaign, is feeling pressure from his party's liberal wing to come down hard on the subject.[1]
IT WAS MEANT TO BE SECRET, HOW DARE THEY
At the same time, Republicans including former Vice President Dick Cheney are insisting the methods helped protect the nation and are assailing Obama for revealing Justice Department memos detailing them.[1]
CIA Director Michael Hayden, who criticized the release of the memos, also provided a declaration that is central in the argument over the prisoners' lawsuit. Hayden has said Obama's disclosure of the memos would aid the nation's enemies by displaying the outer limits of the CIA's methods. [3]
Critics on the right, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, said Obama was jeopardizing national security by releasing the memos. Obama officials have noted that the techniques have been discussed in news reports and even publicly by former President George W. Bush[2]
THE GREAT DIVIDE, REPUBLICANS FOR TORTURE DEMOCRATS AGAINST TORTURE
That divide remained evident yesterday.
"I am pleased that the president made clear that he has not ruled out investigations or prosecutions of those who authorized torture," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D., Wis.), "or provided the legal justification for it. Horrible abuses were committed in the name of the American people, and we cannot look the other way or just move on." [2]
Some Republicans questioned Obama's move.[2]
"There is a lot of gray, there's going to be an awful lot of conflict out there," said Sen. John Thune (R., S.D.). "They would be well-served not to depart abruptly from the policies that have kept us safe the last seven years."[2]
ATTORNEY GENERALS CALL
Answering a reporter's question Tuesday, Obama said it would be up to his attorney general to determine whether "those who formulated those legal decisions" behind the interrogation methods should be prosecuted. [1]
"With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that," he told reporters at the White House.[2]
TERROR IS TERROR
The methods, described in Bush-era memos Obama released last Thursday, included such grim and demeaning tactics as slamming detainees against walls and subjecting them to simulated drowning.[1]
Nowak, an Austrian law professor based in Vienna, acknowledged that there is no mechanism in the anti-torture treaty to punish governments that ignore its provisions. From a political standpoint, he said, it is more important for the White House or Congress to authorize an independent commission to conduct a public examination of how terrorism suspects were treated after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. [6]
TRIAL FOR THE PEOPLE AT THE TOP, START WITH BUSH
He said anew that CIA operatives who did the interrogating should not be charged with crimes because they thought they were following the law.[1]
THE REAL ISSUE IS AMERICAN CREDIBILITY
"I think there are a host of very complicated issues involved here," the president said. "As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out national security operations."[1]
Martin Scheinin, the U.N. special investigator for human rights and counterterrorism, said the interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration clearly violated international law. He said the lawyers who wrote the Justice Department memos, as well as senior figures such as former vice president Richard B. Cheney, will probably face legal trouble overseas if they avoid prosecution in the United States. [6]
"Torture is an international crime irrespective of the place where it is committed. Other countries have an obligation to investigate," Scheinin said in a telephone interview from Cairo. "This may be something that will be haunting CIA officials, or Justice Department officials, or the vice president, for the rest of their lives." [6]
TRUTH AND APOLOGY TRIALS
Still, he suggested that Congress might set up a bipartisan review, outside its typical hearings, if it wants a "further accounting" of what happened during the period when the interrogation methods were authorized. His press secretary later said the independent Sept. 11 commission, which investigated and then reported on the terror attacks of 2001, might be a model.[1]
The harsher methods were authorized to gain information after the 2001 attacks.[1]
TAKE DOWN THE TRUE BELIEVERS, JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS...BUNK
The three men facing the most scrutiny are former Justice Department officials Jay Bybee, John Yoo and Steven Bradbury. Bybee is currently a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Yoo is a professor at the University of California-Berkeley.[1]
The Bush Justice Department wrote three of the memos in 2005 in response to a request from John A. Rizzo, senior deputy general counsel at the CIA, who wanted to ensure the agency's interrogation procedures complied with laws and international treaties. [2]
The memos were prepared by Steven Bradbury, who led the department's Office of Legal Counsel. [2]
A fourth memo was drafted with the help of Jay Bybee, who served in the OLC before Bush named him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and John Yoo, who became a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and now writes a column for The Inquirer.[2]
Several CIA and Bush administration officials have been targeted for prosecution in Europe, though the cases have generally not progressed very far. [6]
EVEN THE HOME OF THE INQUISITION IS IN PROTEST
In Spain, a human rights group is pushing prosecutors to investigative six senior Bush administration officials for allegedly sanctioning the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Last week, Spanish prosecutors recommended dropping the case after Attorney General Cándido Conde-Pumpido called it a politicized attempt to turn Spanish courts "into a plaything." A Spanish judge will make the final decision. [6]
REPUBLICAN LAWYERING AT ITS WORST
It might be argued that the officials were simply doing their jobs, providing legal advice for the Bush administration. However, John Strait, a law professor at Seattle University said, "I think there are a slew of potential charges."[1]
Those could include conspiracy to commit felonies, including torture, he suggested.[1]
Bybee also could face impeachment in Congress if lawmakers were so inclined.[1]
MEMOS THAT ARE A REMINDER OF THE LEGAL FOUNDATION OF THE INQUISITION
A federal investigation into the memos is being conducted by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, which usually limits itself to examining the ethical behavior of employees but whose work in rare cases leads to criminal investigations.[1]
SEVERAL INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONS ARE NEEDED
The chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary committees said Tuesday they want to move ahead with previously proposed, independent commissions to examine George W. Bush's national security policies.[1]
MEMORIES OF SOUTH AFRICAN, TRUTH COMMISSION? RUN BY POLITICOS! GOOD LUCK!
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who has referred to his proposed panel as a "Truth Commission," said, "I agree with President Obama: An examination into these Bush-Cheney era national security policies must be nonpartisan. ... Unfortunately, Republicans have shown no interest in a nonpartisan review."[1]
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has proposed separate hearings by his committee in addition to an independent commission.[1]
DO WE GET THE GENERAL OR THE CAPTAIN IN THE FIELD.
Over the past weekend, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said in a television interview the administration did not support prosecutions for "those who devised policy." White House aides say he was referring to CIA superiors who ordered the interrogations, not the Justice Department officials who wrote the legal memos allowing them.[1]
HERE WE GO AGAIN. WHEN IN DOUBT, BLAME THE LAWYER.
Yet it was unclear exactly whom Obama meant in opening the door to potential prosecutions of those who "formulated the legal decisions." Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked if the president meant the lawyers who declared the interrogation methods legal, or the policymakers who ordered, them or both.[1]
ISSUES FOR A TRIBUNAL NOT A PRESS CONFERENCE
"I don't know the answer to that," Gibbs said during a briefing in which he was peppered with questions about the president's words. Later, he added: "The parsing of some of this is better done through a filter of the rule of law and done at the Justice Department and not done here at the White House."[1]
LOYAL TROOPERS
When pressed about any confusion stemming from his comments and Emanuel's, Gibbs said: "Take what the president said, as I'm informed he got more votes than either of the two of us."[1]
DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS
National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, Obama's top intelligence advisers, told personnel in an April 16 letter that the interrogations had resulted in "high-value information" as well as a "deeper understanding" of al-Qaida.[1]
WELL...MABEY....NOT.
However, with the public release of his letter, Blair issued a statement Tuesday night saying that while the information gained was valuable in some instances, there was no way to know if that information could have been obtained in other ways.[1]
ALL ELEMENTS OF THE AMERICAN TORTURE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE
Currently some of the tortueee’s are litigating and against a private company that helped to kidnap them.
The administration's chief rationale for dismissing the suit "no longer exists, because the (interrogation) methods are now public, and because they have been prohibited," Ben Wizner, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing five current and former U.S. prisoners, said in a filing with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.[3]
The five men accuse Jeppesen Dataplan, a San Jose subsidiary of the Boeing Co., of colluding with the CIA in their kidnapping and torture in a practice known as extraordinary rendition.[3]
The Bush administration acknowledged the rendition program, in which suspected criminals and terrorists were taken to foreign countries or CIA prisons for interrogation. The administration said, however, that the foreign governments guaranteed no one would be tortured.[3]
A former Jeppesen employee, in a court declaration, quoted a company director as telling staffers in 2006 that Jeppesen handled torture flights[3]
BUSH AND TORTURE HURT OUR NATIONAL IMAGE
"The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us, and they are not essential to our national security," Blair said.[1]
COUNT ME IN WITH THOSE PESKY LIBERALS
A number of Republicans, including former Vice President Cheney and former top intelligence
officials, say Obama has undermined national security with his release of the memos on the matter. On the other side, some Democratic lawmakers, human rights groups and liberal advocates want to see punishment for those involved in sanctioning brutal interrogations — the kind they say amount to torture and have damaged U.S. standing around the world.[1]
OXYMORON, SCHOLAR AND AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
"Certainly, this is an attempt not just to stake a ground between the left and the right, but also to navigate through something that he would prefer not be there as an ongoing issue," said Norman Ornstein, a scholar of U.S. politics at the American Enterprise Institute.[1]
THE GREAT BARRACK WALENDA
"He's walking the tightrope," Ornstein added. "You don't want to give a blanket, `Everything's OK, we're only moving forward.' And you don't want a president making a decision that it is a legal decision."[1]
TO BE A NATION OF LAWS, WE MUST KNOW WHEN IT IS BROKEN AND DO SOMETHING. OTHERWISE WE ARE JUST A GANG.
Obama said he was not proposing that another investigation be launched, but if it happens it should be done in a way that does not "provide one side or another political advantage but rather is being done in order to learn some lessons so that we move forward in an effective way."[1]
IF AMERICA DOES NOT HOLD THOSE ACCOUNTABLE FOR TORTURE THE WORLD WILL
In Germany human rights groups have tried to bring charges against former U.S. defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib facility. Germany's federal prosecutor has twice rejected the case, but supporters have appealed in court.[6]
"Everybody prefers that prosecutions take place in the U.S.," he said. "But if nothing happens there, then that's the end of the legal argument to dismiss these cases in Europe." [6]
John B. Bellinger III, who was legal adviser to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said European governments will face a worsening legal and political dilemma if human rights groups redouble their efforts to pursue criminal investigations of U.S. officials. [6]
OUR ALLIES CAN ONLY PROTECT US IF WE ACT ON TORTURE
"They will be under pressure from civil liberties groups and some European parliamentarians not to oppose these cases. But if they allow them to go forward, they know it could strain their relationship with the Obama administration, which says it wants to look forward, not back." [6]
Additionally, European governments are unlikely to favor the prosecution of U.S. officials under universal-jurisdiction statutes for practical reasons, he said. For instance, U.S. officials facing charges or indictment could no longer travel to Europe without facing the risk of arrest, a situation that could spiral out of control diplomatically. [6]
Meanwhile, UN special investigator for human rights and counterterrorism, Martin Scheinin has said that former senior US officials -- including vice-president Dick Cheney -- could face a trial overseas if they fail to respond to allegations into their order of torture in the United States. [7]"Torture is an international crime irrespective of the place where it is committed. Other countries have an obligation to investigate," Washington Post quoted Scheinin as saying. [7]"This may be something that will haunt CIA officials, or Justice Department officials, or the vice president, for the rest of their lives," he added. [7]
Posted Here by Terry Bankert 4/22/09
You are invited to continue this discussion on my Face Book Page.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Bankert/645845362-
SOURCES
[1]
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ig-Lt4l7OBj1pzq-eKRjKqthYdLgD97N7KHG0
[2]
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20090422_Obama_open_to_torture_inquiry.html
[3]
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/21/MN74176I3J.DTL&type=politics
[4]
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/04/22/in_shift_obama_opens_door_to_inquiry_on_interrogations/
[5]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22intel.html?bl&ex=1240545600&en=ab4559dbcc4ddb83&ei=5087%0A
[6]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042103742.html?hpid=topnews
[7]
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=92180§ionid=351020605
[8]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/21/obama-prosecution-torture-memos-bush-administration
Sphere: Related Content
Posts
