home

WaPo Editorial Calls For Torture Investigations

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:31:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Even Fred Hiatt wants investigations of the Bush Administration's torture activities:

[T]he decision to forgo prosecutions should not prevent -- and perhaps should even encourage -- further investigation about the circumstances that gave rise to torture. . . . More light needs to be shed on how decisions were made and why. And more information is needed on who in the Bush administration made the ultimate decision to authorize the use of techniques that have long been considered torture and a violation of domestic and international legal strictures. A commission like the one that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks would likely provide the best vehicle for such an exploration.

At a bare minimum, the Obama Administration should support Senator Patrick Leahy's Truth Commission idea.

Speaking for me only

< Torture Techniques | Friday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    WaPo Editorial Calls For Torture Investigations | 69 comments (69 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Skeptical (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 07:52:47 AM EST
    I'm skeptical that a "Truth Commission" would do much more than immunize the criminals without uncovering much more than is already known.

    Though at Nürnberg we held that "following orders" was not exculpatory, I think it would be wrong to prosecute field agents or anyone in the CIA while those who authorized it go free. It would just be the travesty of the Abu Ghraib investigations all over.

    It seems to me the principal lesson of the Bush years is (to paraphrase Leona Helmsley):

    only the little people do time

    If no one goes to prison over this, the right wing will only be more emboldened when they next get hold of office (which may be sooner than we'd like to think).

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 07:58:14 AM EST
    this is really bigger than Obama. It's about our country.

    Parent
    There really is nothing to say that (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 08:44:28 AM EST
    this won't embolden Democrats too.

    It would be great to think that this is just a Republican problem, but I'm now inclined to think that this is systemic at this point.

    David Gregory - who I've found to be very disappointing in recent months - actually provided a very cogent argument for investigating what went on saying that we need to review how decisions were made during that time and try to develop a more rational framework for the next time our government faces a crisis like 9/11.

    Parent

    I see David Gregory's (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:03:00 AM EST
    point:  great T.V., panels consisting of extreme right wingers, moderate right wingers, and moderates, telling us what we saw and heard and what to think. And, nothing actually happening in the end, other than immunizing suspected wrong doers.  We need a special prosecutor.

    Parent
    Yes that thought definitely crossed (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:18:30 AM EST
    my mind - and my bringing up his comment in now way means that I actually think that a Congressional investigation would yield anything remotely impartial or fair.

    I think the best thing is to play this out through the courts and let the chips fall where they may.

    It is interesting because the CIA's position on this issue is that if there were prosecutions there would be a chilling effect and they'd be disinclined to trust orders given to them by their superiors.  So specifically with respect to orders they are given to torture people is that a bad thing?  Would it not be a good thing for CIA officers to get really clear about the prohibitions against torture?  Wouldn't it have been better if Jay Bybee was so hot to torture prisoners he was left to having to do it himself because everyone else was really clear on the law?  Wouldn't it ultimately prevent our temporary denizens of the Executive Branch from corrupting our career civil servants?  Wouldn't it make it more difficult to put together the people they would need to subvert the laws?  I think that is a "chilling effect" that I could easily live with as an outcome of prosecutions.

    Parent

    How about let's (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 08:01:44 AM EST
    forgo investigations and commissions and go to proscutions. Leahy has pretty much conceded that there won't be a Truth Commission so that's not an option. I don't trust congress to do a thorough investigation. Just let the courts handle it IMO.

    No prosecutions for torture (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 08:07:43 AM EST
    We need the resources to crack down on drug users.

    Priorities?

    I am having trouble believing (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 08:58:41 AM EST
    a lot of what he says lately.  I dont actually think he would block prosecutions and I dont think he cares about drug users.
    I am thinking a lot of what he says lately is similar to a lot of things he said during the campaign.
    smoke and mirrors.  I have more respect for the mans craftyness with each passing day.

    Parent
    Craftiness? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:10:29 AM EST
    I have another name for it.

    Parent
    I was being polite (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:15:12 AM EST


    Parent
    having said that (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:18:15 AM EST
    I do not think that "craftiness" or whatever you choose to call it is a bad skill for the leader of the free world to have in this crazy world.

    lets hope he can fleece our enemies as easily and effectively as he has fleeced our citizens.


    Parent

    Only problem is that craftiness implies deceit. (none / 0) (#70)
    by DeborahNC on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:42:35 PM EST
    I've had my fill of crafty politicians. How about shrewd? It has less negative connotations.

    Parent
    Respect? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:18:19 AM EST


    Parent
    yes, respect (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:20:40 AM EST
    clear eyed, unfleeced, non partisan, grudging respect for the mans skills.

    Parent
    are you sure (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:06:56 AM EST
    you're really Capt Howdy?

    Parent
    that is the second time (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 11:04:14 AM EST
    I have heard that in two days.  
    reality:  I am not easily pigeon holed but I assure you I am the one and only.

    Parent
    What we don't need (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Farmboy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 08:45:31 AM EST
    is a congressional circus.  No long lines of "expert" testimony defining and redefining what torture is.  No all day coverage of posturing congresscritters reading pointless speeches into the record.  No years-away deadlines for returning a 700 page meaningless report that obfuscates the situation.  No sternly worded response after the report that promises to take up the investigation at some future date. No.

    What we do need are hearings based on evidence and hard facts.  We need a grand jury, made up of regular citizens and led by an impartial federal prosecutor, to hear this evidence and vote whether or not to indict.  If there are indictments we need trials based on the rule of law to determine innocence or guilt.

    And then, regardless of outcome, we can know that we did the right thing.

    I agree with this (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 08:56:20 AM EST
    no public hearing circuses.  no grandstanding.
    quiet behind the scenes research and investigation.
    and when its done lay it all out.
    when that is done in serious way the PUBLIC may demand prosecutions.
    IMO that would have to be the first step.

    ps
    Fred Hiatt is a weiner.

    Parent

    Agreed. And where is the person (none / 0) (#15)
    by SOS on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:28:14 AM EST
    and persons who are willing to stand up to these f_c~'r$? (Excuse my choice of nomenclature.)

    But patience does have it's limits.

    Parent

    The Democrats (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:29:57 AM EST
    probably want to lose Congress and the presidency so they can hide behind the "Republicans won't let us!" mantle again.  It was so much easier then.

    We're seeing their true colors now, aren't we.

    And someone said the reason for the hesitation is that investigation will likely unveil Democratic involvement. I agree. No doubt Fred Hiatt knows that, maybe has been told so by party "insiders".  Such an investigation might change the notion that Republicans are evil to both parties are evil.  

    Anyone who is ambivalent about criticizing Obama for not prosecuting, you've got to ask yourself...what would your feeling be if McCain had won?  Put that outrage on Obama, since he's not prosecuting either.

    I speak only for me (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:37:43 AM EST
    but I am "ambivalent about criticizing Obama for not prosecuting" precisely because I care about the progressive agenda.  I am interested in health care and saving the country from complete economic collapse and protecting the environment and many other things that will not get done if Obama allows the administration to be distracted.  which he clearly is unwilling to do precisely because he does NOT want republicans to win.

    I was not an Obama supporter and have become a reluctant Obama supporter.  but to suggest he does not want to get things done seems completely out of touch with reality to me.
    like what he is doing or not, you cant say the man has not laid out an ambitious agenda.  


    Parent

    If you (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:45:06 AM EST
    don't have a congressional investigation and just let this wind it's way through the courts none of the above is going to happen.

    I don't see Obama as really have a "progressive" agenda. How is killing the Geither Plan going to acutally hurt? I would think that would help. Healtcare is pretty much off the table. From what I've read nothing is really going to be done there at all.

    It seems to me that the GOP is already winning if you have people like Leahy saying we can't do this or that because the GOP won't sign on. Well, the GOP isn't going to sign on to anything. He needs to get a clue as to that.

    And needing 60 votes on something is just another excuse. Bill Clinton passed a bill with just 50 votes and Gore cast the tie breaker. There's no excuse for this. Dems control everything and they can't continue to blame the GOP for their problems. In that sense they're just like the GOP. I got sick of the GOP blaming Dems for all their problems when they controlled everything.

    There's been absolutely no leadership. Washington is like the inmates running the assylum.

    Parent

    "progressive" agenda" (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:50:47 AM EST
    I dont see how you can have lived thru the last 8 years and believe that.
    lets take one issue:  health care.
    he has bascially signed on to Hillarys version of truly universal health care.  do you think McCain or, god forbid, would do anything approaching that?

    he is not Dennis Kucinich but Dennis Kucinich will never be president.


    Parent

    Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:06:23 AM EST
    told us before the election that we don't have the votes for universal health care.

    So they're talking, talking, talking.  Nothing will get done.

    And if we go along with the wrong-doing because we get a little something out of it, how much wrong-doing should we put up with?

    Where do we draw the line, Captn?

    Parent

    first off (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 11:54:02 AM EST
    who cares what Kerry says?  he is an idiot who speaks for no one but himself.
    for the record - and for my part - I am certainly not saying nothing should be done.
    I do believe a full bore, special prosecutor style investigation of the crimes of the Bush administration would be a disastrous and pointless waste of time and opportunity.  we - democrats - controll all three branches of government.  possibly for the last time in my life time.
    I do not want this opportunity squandered.  

    I think most readers of these threads know I was not an Obama supporter.  so what.  he is now the president. I do not intend to spend the next 4 or 8 years kvetching and whining and criticizing every single thing he does because my candidate did not win.  I see it happening around the web and I think its sort of sad.  honestly.  I see people I used to respect approvingly posting rants by people like Malkin and Renolds just because they will grasp at anything that is critical of Obama.
    my candidate is on board and doing all she can to help him.  in a not insignificant position.  thats good enough for me.  he was not my candidate but he is my president and I intend to do everything I can to help him succeed.  it is quite possibly the best chance we will ever have to enact many progressive agenda items that I have championed all my life.

    as far as where we should draw the line, I mostly agree with Digby.  I think a serious group of people working behind the scenes and completely without fanfare or media coverage to amass the facts and evidence makes the most sense.  then present it to the people.  any further prosecution would have to grow from the support of the people.  and if such an investigation was done properly it just might.
    that is the best chance for justice.


    Parent

    We draw the line (none / 0) (#63)
    by jnicola on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:00:51 PM EST
    when the country starts being moved in a non-progressive direction. And it isn't. You'd like it to move faster; so would I. Great, let's press for that. The speed, though, is much less important than the direction. We don't have to fix everything in four years; it's probably going to take at least sixteen.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:59:01 AM EST
    from what I understand he's changed his mind on healtcare and no longer supports Hillary's plan.

    Okay, so the standards are "not Bush" to be progressive. That's pretty low standards.

    My two issues are the economy and healthcare and Obama is failing on both of those issues right now. Maybe he can turn it around but maybe not. So far I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe he will. He's just simply not interested in policy it seems.

    Parent

    I don't believe in the system anymore either. (none / 0) (#21)
    by SOS on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:46:24 AM EST
    Never have I've always been wary of Western Capitalistic society. The difference is I go about my way but don't hurt people doing it. Take some leave some.

    I am interested in health care and saving the country from complete economic collapse and protecting the environment and many other things that will not get done if Obama allows the administration to be distracted.

    I am right there with you. The biggest problem is the Media (all of it spectrum and digital) and the continuing rapid fire bombardment of the "Culture-Values War" going on and being pounded into peoples consciousness every second of the day.

    Parent

    thats exactly correct (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:52:32 AM EST
    can you even imagine the MSM feeding frenzy that would never NEVER stop.

    nothing else would find a drop of ink or a minute or air time.

    Parent

    It's getting worse (none / 0) (#29)
    by SOS on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:58:21 AM EST
    The right has managed to drag the other sides down to their level. They've (non right elements) become in many cases what they despised the most.

    Parent
    To suggest (none / 0) (#28)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:58:04 AM EST
    "that he doesn't want to get things done".  Who suggested that?

    He doesn't want to prosecute, and I think it's because prosecution would uncover Democratic wrong-doing.

    I'm progressive and progressivism to me means standing for what is ultimately right.  

    And about healthcare, I'm all for healthcare reform (it was actually why I supported Clinton), but Congress has proven that they'll throw you a bone on that, nothing more.  Along with banking, the insurance industry is also their constituency.  We need to get the corrupt bozos out so we can get real reform (I know, it's a pie in the sky notion)

    Parent

    I am too (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by SOS on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:59:25 AM EST
    I'm not progressive because I want to have shiny toys and be ego stroked.

    Parent
    Yes, the administration (none / 0) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:50:03 AM EST
    would not only be distracted, but also, undermined.  The residue of the Republican party is like a wounded, cornered animal chewing on its own foot--but still capable of doing great harm to itself and others.  By the time a "commission" completed its work, Bybee et al would become great patriots (cf. Oliver North) being unfairly judged from the safety of 2009 rather than in the context of the national fright of 2002.  In the end, we would be where we are today, disgusted and frustrated along with a weakened Obama administration and a mended yet still scarred beast. What we need is a special prosecutor, not what will surely become a media carnival.

    Parent
    It's a huge burden to shoulder (none / 0) (#17)
    by SOS on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:33:26 AM EST
    for those who see through this nonsense. I'm not suggesting tyranny but seeing these "investigations" and knowing these guys are beer buddies in many cases or showing up at a Social Diary type event afterwords P's me Off.

    Parent
    And most sadly (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by SOS on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    uncompromising integrity has had to resort to going "underground" to survive.

    You know what? (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:33:03 AM EST
    If they walk, they walk. It happens all the time. However, that's not an excuse to not even try.

    New info... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:38:51 AM EST
    ...on CIA prision in Poland.

    'Polish journalists this week claimed
    to have uncovered new evidence that
    Poland ran a clandestine CIA prison
    which it used for extra-judicial extradition
    of terrorist suspects...

    ...According to the journalists, in
    December 2001 the then government under
    the premiership of Leszek Miller leased a
    section of the Polish Intelligence Service's
    training camp near the village of Stary
    Kiejkuty to the American CIA. This was
    then used to hold and interrogate terrorist
    suspects. The journalists also provided
    evidence that 20 Polish intelligence officers
    were assigned to the Americans in order to
    assist in anti-terrorist activities.

    Further evidence shows that in December
    2002 the CIA began operating secret flights
    to the nearby Szymany airport and that in
    2003 at least five planes landed there.
    On board one, says a witness, were "People
    in handcuffs, with blindfolds on." They were
    subsequently "led from the plane."'

    -via New Poland Express (no link)

    I've been wondering where the secret prison in Poland was.  Now I'd like to know what exactly went on there.

    If Obama really thinks that he's (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:45:14 AM EST
    going to be able to bury years of rendition and torture practices most of which if not all went on in foreign countries he's crazy.

    This stuff will just keep coming out and continue to cause embarassment and undermine HIS credibility with the international community if he does not put himself clearly on the side of what is "right" rather than "reflection".

    Is it even possible to think that the Obama Administration lacks the imagination to understand what is going to happen as the drip, drip, drip starts to really turn into a body of water that they can't ignore - and do they not understand that if they deal now - there is less traction for these stories?  Stunning really.

    Parent

    What (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:43:13 AM EST
    difference does knowing mean when there are no consequences?

    Parent
    As a Pole... (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 11:00:25 AM EST
    ...my concern is in holding the PIS (and their political enablers) accountable for being complicit in the CIA's torture and rendition activities.  

    To say that there are "no consequences" is jumping the gun as the Polish justice/political system, along with the historical context, is quite different than the US.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 11:19:29 AM EST
    I was talking from the point of view here. We're not going to do anything about it it seems.

    Maybe the Polish and their recent history will make the populace engaged on this issue. Or at least that's what it sound like from what you're saying.

    Parent

    Engaging the populace... (none / 0) (#64)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:19:03 PM EST
    ...would be good in two ways.

    First, a little international pressure would not be a bad thing in regard to the US's torture policies.  

    Second, despite the Poles deep love of all things American, it is time they realized that the US government does not have their best interests at heart.  From the missile bases to our steadfast refusal to relax Visa requirements to cooperating with the CIA, the balance is decidedly one sided.  

    Parent

    It's been eight years now (none / 0) (#13)
    by SOS on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:19:51 AM EST
    And every time this issue surfaces the powers that be slap out another . . . "yes we're going investigate now. . we're really  serious this time and going to put together a panel". .

    Then as predictable as the sun rising and setting it goes back under the radar and nothing gets accomplished. Am I the only one who see's the pattern? Of course not but how do we break this pattern of deception?

    Unfortunately, (none / 0) (#19)
    by bocajeff on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:41:30 AM EST
    I still think this is a political loser for progressives and Democrats. You don't want to go down this path. It is the right thing morally and legally but I think it will be political suicide. Just one Oliver North looking the part in front of a bunch of politicians and this will blow up in their face.

    What I think should happen is the Obama administration (or any Dem with a spine) should find out how many people were tortured and what methods were used.

    Belive me, if the American people found out that Bin Laden was caught and tortured to death by the worst torture imaginable I bet 80% of the people would be fine with it. Maybe 75%.

    You don't get it (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:50:20 AM EST
    The public was overwhelmingly opposed to the wrongdoing in Iran-Contra even though Oliver North was personally popular.  They still thought Reagan lied.  They still thought Bush lied.  They still thought it was wrong to break the law.

    The fact that Bush got elected is hardly proof that the public secretly supported the lawbreaking in Iran-Contra.  It just means that people had a bigger problem with Dukakis and his campaign than they had with Bush.  I think it is certainly indisputable that Bush won in spite of Iran-Contra, not because of it.

    Parent

    No they weren't, (none / 0) (#40)
    by bocajeff on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:12:58 AM EST
    They may have said they were, but I believe that the people have a gut feeling about things even if they can't articulate the particular reasoning behind it. Bush Sr. lied, broke the law, etc... and was elected overwhelmingly. Albeit Dukakis was a weak candidate. But if you can't beat a candidate who has lied, broke laws, and subverted the constitution with a Dukakis then I have to believe that people either didn't care (which could be true) or secretly agreed.

    Remember, Ford came incredibly close to beating Carter and that was AFTER pardoning Nixon.

    If you ever think that Bush, Cheney, and every Democrat who supported this policy will be held accountable then I suggest you click your heals three times to get home tonight. Ain't gonna happen.  You can't have crooks doing the prosecuting.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:48:33 AM EST
    I certainly can't argue with your gut feeling about what hundreds of millions of Americans were really thinking at the time they told the pollsters they disapproved of Iran-Contra.

    But the question here is not whether torture prosecutions are a political winner.  I don't see anyone here who is adamant about pursuing prosecutions because it will help the Democratic Party win elections, I see them angry because it's a matter of principle.

    So the question, then, is will it be harmful politically?  Hard to see how it would, unless you think you can make a case that Iran-Contra actually helped Bush get elected.

    Parent

    For me it goes beyond anger (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 03:08:26 PM EST
    To me it is all about accountability and trying to reestablish the fact that torture is not allowed or accepted by our country.

    This position was voiced by Jonathan Turley:

    He further states, and this is most important, that by not holding responsible those that may have committed crimes, he (Obama) tacitly condones those crimes, and effectively nullifies the criminal statutes for all those who may violate them in the future.

    Not taking action IMO sets very bad precedent and will made it more likely and easier for this to occur again in the not so distant future.

    I could definitely let go of my anger about this for even the faint hope that much needed programs will be passed.  I cannot, however, accept not pursuing legal action when I feel strongly that that action will lead to further occurrences.  

    Parent

    Remember that Lt.Col. North (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Farmboy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:53:29 AM EST
    was convicted of three of the criminal charges.  What kept him out of jail was the deal with the devil made to get his testimony in front of Congress. That immunity got his conviction reversed, and he got away with breaking the law and his oath as an officer.


    Parent
    North was indicted on 16 charges (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Green26 on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:42:11 AM EST
    and convicted on 3 of the lessor charges: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents.

    His conviction was reversed due to violations of his 5th amendment rights--due the government's use of his Congressional testimony given under limited immunity.

    The prosecutors decided not to re-try him.

    Parent

    the main point here (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:56:37 AM EST
    being he got away with it in spite of the millions of dollars and millions or hours spent in laying out the case.

    these people will too.  to think other wise, to imagine that the people truly responsible for this - Bush,Rummy and Cheney - will ever see the tiniest inconvenience to their perfect lives for this, is delusional.


    Parent

    Actually, my point has been that (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Farmboy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:41:33 AM EST
    a congressional hearing won't accomplish anything meaningful.  Just like North, if we let these involved talk to congress, they'll walk away from justice.

    We need criminal trials.

    Parent

    I remember that last day (none / 0) (#33)
    by SOS on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:00:44 AM EST
    of Iran Contra when the verdict was read. It was on NPR and I was listening.

    Needless to say it was disgusting.

    Parent

    Irrelevant (none / 0) (#41)
    by bocajeff on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:14:25 AM EST
    North was convicted but remains popular to this day for the actions he committed. What is relevant is that there is a sizable group of people who supported him and Fawn Hall....

    Parent
    Just a minute (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:21:35 AM EST
    North is popular with whom? The man managed to LOSE a Senate contest in 1994 in blood red Virginia.

    You have a view of the world inconsistent with reality.

    Parent

    Popular with the Tea Party crowd. (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:30:32 AM EST


    Parent
    Which is thousands strong in (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:39:46 AM EST
    a country of 300 million.

    Parent
    Maybe with the die hard 22 percenters (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Farmboy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:37:51 AM EST
    and folks who believe that they are above the law.

    Parent
    There's a sizable group (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 04:02:07 PM EST
    of people who would support Heinrich Himmler if he made a dewy-eyed appearence on t.v in a costume store Marine uniform.

    Parent
    Dollars to doughnuts (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 05:17:45 PM EST
    most of the people North is (allegedly) popular with would be hard pressed to give an accounting of what exactly Norths actions were and what they were "for".

    Parent
    For sure if Bin Laden was captured (none / 0) (#23)
    by SOS on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:50:21 AM EST
    and brought to the United States for trial no doubt the politicians would be thinking "okay how do we handle this so we don't threaten our lifestyles?"

    Parent
    Wrong message IMO (none / 0) (#30)
    by Saul on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:58:36 AM EST
    Obama feels that by making these memos come out he has done his job on transparency but by not going further to prosecute sends the wrong message here and to our enemies.  

    This is just a license to our enemies  that just got the green light to legitimize their torture on any American or one of our allies.  You guy did it and said it was OK so why can't we.

    I do not buy the CIA argument that the those that did the torture were doing it since they were told it was legal. Remember the Nuremberg trials syndrome:
    We were just following orders.  
    Remember what we told them about using that defense.

    Agreed (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:03:40 AM EST
    Turley framed it well.  

    Prosecuting war criminals should not be treated as just a nit-picky tit for tat retribution effort against the other party -- even though politicians tend to see things in those lights -- it's about making sure the wrong never happens again.

    And he also said that not prosecuting amounts to obstruction of justice.

    Yep, it's about our country's reputation and about the safety of those that are captured by our enemies.  No, we can't do anything about others' torture policies, but we certainly won't get the support of the rest of the world, if it's known that our government (right and left) was complicit in torture.  And complicit both sides are if he doesn't prosecute.

    Parent

    Support of the Rest of the World (none / 0) (#42)
    by bocajeff on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:16:21 AM EST
    Like most of the European Union, Japan, Canada, etc...or Russia and China?

    Parent
    Unwillingness to prosecute felons in the upper (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by DeborahNC on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 08:44:09 PM EST
    echelons of government does indeed send the wrong message. During times of national upheaval, I frequently recall what Ben Franklin said when asked about the newly formed government. He responded with, "It's a republic, if you can keep it."

    It seems that people from his time recognized the importance of a government free of tyranny. I think that today we often forget about the liberty we  have experienced in this country. It's taken for granted. But these recent events related to the torture memos have  been striking reminders for me of how quickly one or two people in powerful positions, along with a cadre of minions, can undermine a system of government.

    The key issue for me is maintaining a viable and effectively functioning constitutional democracy, through the use of checks and balances, and that can only be accomplished through transparency in government and having equal enforcement of the law.

    By creating "secret laws," with help from the Justice Department, the Bush administration created an environment where they could implement their policies and further their agenda by circumventing long-established governmental and judicial rules. The ease with which it was accomplished without sufficient pushback to interfere with their activities is really frightening to me.

    And, the torture memos and the actual torture are just a small part of their criminality, the scope of which is likely huge. Without prosecution of crimes, a critical precedent will be set, and future presidents might feel that they are entitled to be above the law too.

    Obama says that no one is above the law, but if he doesn't follow through with appropriate action, then he is enabling future governmental criminality. I don't say that lightly. I really do know that he is under an immense amount of pressure from all sides. It is a very difficult decision in the short-term, but looking out for the future of our country is critical, too. And if Obama doesn't defend the Constitution, the president's oath of office will be rendered meaningless.

    I've grown to like Obama in many ways, and I don't want him punished alongside the real criminals, but my concern for the future of our country is greater.

     

    Parent

    Your seriousness over these events is (none / 0) (#69)
    by BlueDevil on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:33:22 PM EST
    warranted. All of the illegal actions perpetrated by Bush and Co. are a threat to our framework of law if they go unpunished. Personally, I think it's a watershed moment in our nation's history.

    How do we define ourselves? People who are worried about their personal political agenda or people concerned about the underpinnings of our system of governance and the future of the country. DebNC is right. We have to think long-term.

    Parent

    That Sept 11 Commission Was A Big (none / 0) (#46)
    by tokin librul on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:32:39 AM EST
    success, iirc, right?

    Or was I thinking of the Iran-Contra Commission?

    Or was it the Kerner Comission?

    Or the Warren Commission? The 'single, dancing bullet always satisfied me...

    Where in the law does it say (none / 0) (#48)
    by tokin librul on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:34:20 AM EST
    "the People win"?

    It doesn't.

    The "People" always suck hind-tit, if the elites or their satraps are the object of investigation...

    Except (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:45:18 AM EST
    It's almost noon here in the east, dinner time in Europe.  Look at the websites for different major news outlets.  This story is off the front page, or buried so far, you really have to dig.

    Nothing more will come of this.  It's old news as of now.

    WaPo Editorial Calls For Torture Investigations | 69 comments (69 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment