This is being reported:
President Barack Obama does not intend to prosecute Bush administration officials who devised the policies that led to the harsh interrogation of suspected terrorists, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Sunday.
[Earlier,] … he said “it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice, that they will not be subject to prosecution.” He did not specifically address the policymakers.
Asked Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” about the fate of those officials, Emanuel said the president believes they “should not be prosecuted either and that’s not the place that we go.
More details are needed. Is there or is there not a presidential pardon for CIA (or equivilant) field operatives and is there or is there not a presidential pardon for Bush White House “policy makers.” Who are “policy makers” and more importantly, who are NOT “policy makers.” (I.e., is there anyone left out of this rubric?)
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Legally, there is little one can do to prosecute once Barack imposes an executive “gag” order on prosecutions. I think that
once he says no to prosecuting these war criminals, only democracy in action–petitions, activists calling for prosecution at the grassroots level–will work.
So much of the matter has already been hushed up by the Bushies via obstructiom, and outright felonious activity such as deleting Whitehouse e-mail that it is unlikely the actual “architects” of torture will be caught; Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rove, et al.
So much of the matter has already been hushed up by the Bushies via obstructiom, and outright felonious activity such as deleting Whitehouse e-mail that it is unlikely the actual “architects” of torture will be caught; Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rove, et al.
I wonder if that isn’t why Obama doesn’t seem keen on prosecuting. What’s the point, when the folks who actually made it happen aren’t going to get prosecuted?
If you haven’t read it yet, Joseph j7uy5 over at Corpus Callosum has got an interesting take on this — that maybe Obama is really wanting to be forced into acting by public opinion.
http://scienceblogs.com/corpuscallosum/2009/04/amy_goodman_on_torture.php
And perhaps the beginning of pressuring Obama to act is already in the works:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/nadler_and_nyt_impeach_bybee_for_torture_memo.php
Actually, Obama might be bound by international law to prosecute for torture.
maybe Obama is really wanting to be forced into acting by public opinion.
My secret hope.
And Deen: Yes, that is an interesting point.
DuWayne “I wonder if that isn’t why Obama doesn’t seem keen on prosecuting.”
I think that he isn’t keen on prosecuting because he, like all politicians, wants only to do what “looks good” not what “is” good. And, he probably secretly sheits his pants when he thinks about the last black president–JFK–getting assasinated by those right wing criminals.
Deen: if the right wing bastards weren’t accountable for war crimes under Int’l law, what makes you think a Democrat will be responsible under Int’l law for prosecuting those crimes in “peacetime”?
BTW: who needs Int’l law anyways?
Signed,
JoHn bolton
This is what I was really complaining about on your last torture post Greg, it seems obvious NOTHING is going to happen. Yes, Obama is obliged by international treaty to prosecute those who torture, but like so many presidents before he will just thumb his nose at the law. Yet not prosecuting also has repercusions, in how both Americans and non-Americans will view the USA now and in the future, also in how likely this is to happen again.
President Obama can pardon people convicted of violating treaties, right?
Two separate clauses grant Congress the power “to define and punish piracy and other offenses against the law of nations” and the President to “issue reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.” This seems to reflect them being considered two separate categories; war crimes are surely “offenses against the law of nations” and the constitution can be straightforwardly read as not granting the president the power to pardon such…
Obama pardons vile torturers.
George, there is a difference between not prosecuting and pardoning, and it’s a rather important one. One can’t change one’s mind about pardoning, and no one else (within the country) can prosecute a crime that’s been pardoned.
… which is why I’m asking for more details.
Well, the difference is important in terms of what Obama does. I’m not sure it makes any difference in terms of what we should do next. Either plan calls for lots of screaming and a certain amount of reasoned explanation about why not prosecuting is lousy for our citizens’ safety, for us rebuilding any kind of moral authority in the world and for us understanding what it means to be civilized.
Well, that’s one of the attitudes I’d hoped the Obama administration would fix. The US have to stop flipping the bird to the rest of the world.