Panetta: No Prosecutions For CIA Torturers
The AP reports that CIA Director-nominee Leon Panetta has stated categorically that there will be no prosecutions for torturers.
Asked by The Associated Press if that was official policy, Panetta said, "That is the case."
It was the clearest statement yet on what Panetta and other Democratic officials had only strongly suggested: CIA officers who acted on legal orders from the Bush administration would not be held responsible for those policies. On Thursday, he told senators that the Obama administration had no intention of seeking prosecutions for that reason.
Panetta, in an interview with the AP after a second day of confirmation hearings with the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that he arrived at that conclusion even before he began meeting with CIA officials.
"It was my opinion we just can't operate if people feel even if they are following the legal opinions of the Justice Department" they could be in danger of prosecution, he said.
Panetta demurred on saying whether the Obama administration would take legal action against those who authorized or wrote the legal opinions that, for a time, set an extremely high legal bar for an action to constitute torture.
"I'll leave that for others," Panetta said.
...Panetta formally retracted a statement he made Thursday that the Bush administration transferred prisoners for the purpose of torture.
"I am not aware of the validity of those claims," he said.
As I've written before - and Scott Horton in particular has done a great job in pointing to the correct legal precedents for - being told torture and other war crimes were legally justified (especially when they cannot be) is no excuse. International law which was in part established by American prosecutors and judges at Nuremberg is that it is up to each individual to act his conscience and to bear the consequences of so doing.
Worse, not prosecuting the torturers sets up a malicious feedback that fatally undermines prosecutions for ordering torture. If there's no prosecution for commission of a crime, how can someone be prosecuted for ordering what is apparently admitted isn't a crime? No defense lawyer is going to pass up such a gift argument and the Obama administration knows it. Not prosecuting those who tortured is a "get out of jail free card" not only for the torturers but for those who ordered torture and those who falsely said torture could ever be legal. It's a travesty of justice and one that Chris Dodd has sadly admitted Democratic leaders have looked the other way on for purely political reasons.
And with the news that Panetta wants to reserve the possibility of using "enhanced interrogation" techniques which go beyond the US military code - which in turn is simply a retelling of the Geneva Conventions and binding treaties on torture - along with the Obama administration's complicity in shielding Bush officials from revelations of torture...well, my Newshoggers colleague Jay McDonough is correct. "We cannot, despite assurances otherwise, trust our government not to render and torture detainees."
Crossposted from Newshoggers
Or so the Germans would have us believe.
well, there goes any leverage to force
or negociate any way to the real perpetrators
of these illegal acts of torture.
WTF are you doing?
I'm sorry Leon, but you just fecked up.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
I heard some of Panetta's views. He seems to be against prosecuting torturers if they obeyed the law as explained to them. I never heard whether or not we'd go after those who did the explanations like the traitor john yoo, or issued the orders like donald rumsfield and boosh.
It is rather confusing on the progressive end. Do we prosecute the working soldiery for obeying the law as they understood it and the way it was explained to them, or do we prosecute them based on moral failings, when many of us see morality as relative, and not divinely mandated?
Of course that's not taking into account Ius Naturale, secular humanism, and basic human empathy.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
If soldiers followed the AFM, then they wouldn't have to worry.
However, the CIA sought to exempt interrogators from such limits as following military protocol.
Support the troops who refuse illegal orders!
Those that follow illegal orders blindly into the pits of hell, deserve to be scorched.
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
Let the troops know that, when they return from their Iraq/invasion.
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Yes, I know it says a lot.
And yes, the troops were used as pawns to appease Bush/Cheney blood/oil lust.
What makes it right?
However, we are addressing acts of war crimes.
"FOLLOWING ORDERS" into the pit of hell is not an excuse.
Military law allows soldiers to refuse orders they feel are illegal. Sure, the military will discipline them, however, through a court martial, their case can be heard.
Had interrogators thought for themselves and revolted, America may have had this discussion a long time ago. But because the military indoctrinates soldiers to not think, only to obey, the weight to the crime MUST rest upon their superiors.
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
I think those at the top who crafted the "legal" opinions and who gave the orders should be held accountable - found guilty, sentenced to something.
Those down the line who "just followed orders" should receive some suspended sentence or the like.
The message MUST be sent that this behavior is unacceptable.
Just having the trials and sentencing the guilty - however light the sentence - is NECESSARY.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
I concur.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
how the Bush administration handled the situation. They gladly threw the lower enlisted under the bus.
This situation leaves open the possibility that those that justified, rationalized, marginalized, and approved torture can still be held accountable.
I am bothered by the developments but still believe international law will require, and this adminstration will respond to, some definitive action against the principals. But considered, calculated action has to be the order of the day. Just read Ferrofluid as I was typing this and agree.
I don't think this administration will hang out the little ones to dry.
just 'following orders' from their CIA masters, the grunt's NG officers had made themselves absent to avoid any future unpleasantness.
This is documented in the court files, the higher ups had gone AWOL and left the grunts to follow the orders of the TLA types.
50 percent cowboy. The international laws justifying locking up alleged terrorists (and innocents as well) doesn't apply to us in their minds. They can't understand that the same international laws prohibit torture and this country pushed for them when we wanted to go after those who tortured our servicemen.
The harm we will be doing if we don't do, at least, what you are proposing will be very long lasting. Look at the Japanese who even today refuse to admit any wrongdoings in WWII. That refusal poisons all of their relationships with their neighbors, especially Korea and China. Their stance is still costing them.
The "I was only following orders" argument, carried no weight at Nuremburg, for good reason. Crafting bogus legal opinions that torture and other crimes against humanity are legal is exactly what Hitler arrainged to happen in his nazi Germany. Under the nazi legal code every atrocity was not only legal, but obligatory in some cases. And, the "but, what I did was perfectly legal" argument did no good good at Nuremburg, either. Also for good reason. It must never be allowed that a nation or an individual despot can overturn generally recognized Human Rights-based standards of morality or legitimize atrocity with the stroke of a pen. Such things would threaten the integrity of all civilization, if allowed to stand by the world community.
I think that the argument, "we can't have our agents and soldiers wondering if what they are doing is a crime or atrocity" is built on a defective premise. I'm sorry, but that's exactly the question we want our soldiers, agents and civil servants to be asking when they are confronted with orders or directions to do something morally reprehensible, something that shocks the conscience. If our leaders fail to create the culture where those questions are not asked, criminality and atrocity become inevitable. If people know that there are no consequences for egregious violations of standards of Human Rights and the rule of law, then acts that shame this nation will never end. In fact, they will only become more numerous over time. On the other hand, if their conscience is not shocked by such orders, they have no business being in military or government service in the first place.
When the military and civil servants know beforehand that they not only have the right but the obligation to refuse to obey orders or directions that involve war crimes and crimes against humanity, and yet choose to commit these acts anywise, they are owed nothing: no debt of gratitude from a grateful nation, no debt of understanding owed them by the People, no debt of forgiveness due them from the world.
I could support conviction with suspended sentence for enlisted and lower rank officers in the military, with general discharges under honorable conditions from the services. I could support convictions with suspended sentences for some of the lower level CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, etc. employees or agents for obeying orders to commit crimes against humanity or in the case of the NSA and like, crimes against the Citizenry, but they should not be allowed to keep their jobs in their chosen fields. Transfer them to the Forestry Service or something...they are dirty, unrepentant and untrustworthy...a risk to us all. They should be allowed no further opportunities to either disgrace or victimize the nation.
As for the senior people in the military, government service and elected office, sorry, they were the ones who knew better and should have set the example; they need to pay a dear punitive price. All of them. The senior-most officers, directors, legal counsel, political appointees and politicial leaders need to pay with their freedom, their wealth and their honor (John Yoo, for example, should never be permitted to teach or practice law, how much less walk free). And, singled out for special attention should be those in the healing arts and sciences, who used their healing skills to direct the horror shows on the tactical level, who taught the torturers how to do their job with greatest cold-blooded efficiency. They are arguably the most evil of the lot, their hienous betrayal of the social trust that they willingly took upon their shoulders arguably the most willfully grievous and egregious betrayal of all. There is no qualitative difference between them and a Mengele figure. None at all. They should spend the rest of their lives in solitary confinement without possibility of parole or mitigation of the terms of confinement, allowed no visitors, mail or human contact...not even allowed to see the faces or hear the voices of their jailers, watch TV or read a newspaper. This particular group is the worst, the most evil and most spiritually diseased and depraved that any society can ever produce, in any culture, at any point in human history. They should never again be allowed any degree of interaction with society again, however slight.
Let us hope that the International Criminal Court or other nations choose to act and do what we so clearly lack the moral courage to do for oursaelves. If Obama allows Panetta's decision to stand, he has lost my support. Even if it is throwing away a voter, I will vote third party on the national and local level from here on out. Perhaps it is time to dust off my plans to leave the country.
I had the audacity to hope that I was done with being ashamed of my citizenship when I voted for Obama. Apparently, I was merely being foolish.
would you happen too have a statute of limitation, with respect to your moral indignation? I understand your frustration and hold like concerns. Where we may differ, is in our views of justice.
I'm of the opinion that not all justice is superficial. I as well, would like too see physical punishment imposed do to hypothetical theories. Though absent our courts of justice, I do not disregard the inescapable harm of individual guilt. I'm not a believer, though I find great wisdom in (Matthew 7:1).
I also find comfort in the quote "Good things come to those who wait" and "Patience is a virtue", though not necessarily in that order. :-)
I've had to fix a few windows in my home, I'm not sure about you?
"In the unlikely event of losing Pascal's Wager, I intend to saunter in to Judgement Day with a bookshelf full of grievances, a flaming sword of my own devising, and a serious attitude problem."
[Rick Moen]
Study the symptoms not the virus...
I've given much thought to your question and have decided that my moral indignation will last at least as long as does my shame for the things that have been done in my name, made possible in part by the material means I helped provide by the taxes I have paid. As dirty and befouled as I now feel, my moral indignation could well last for the rest of my life.
As regards justice, I am convinced that, on the personal level, nobody escapes justice. Ever. We become what we do. That is justice. Even absent the imposition of justice upon these persons by competent authority, a form of immediate justice has already been visited upon them. To wit: the punishment for being depraved persons who commit atrocity, is that they are depraved persons who commit atrocity. Their crime itself becomes their immediate punishment, and in so doing, becomes the first evidence that justice is inescapable. More, in being such depraved persons, an infinite number of doors that could otherwise have been opened to realms of untold potential and latent possibilities in the world of being remain, instead, closed to them. Their exile, also, is justice. Even more, only the most minute handful of those who have allowed themselves to become depraved and degraded will ever allow themselves to experience remorse, thereby creating a pathway by which they might redeem themselves. As for the rest... they will instead choose to endlessly justify themselves. Using the building materials of intellectual dishonesty, spiritual self-deception and an endless variety of comforting lies, each will make it a significant part of their life's work to erect an inner construct intended to serve as an impregnable fortress, an inner ediface that protects them from any need ever to acknowledge their works. Initially, they will find within its sanctuary welcome protection from all promptings of conscience or feelings of shame. But from within these protective confines, they will spend vast sums from the treasury of their life's precious and irreplaceable energy endlessly rehearsing their rationalizations and justifications. Over time. endless rehearsal will lose it's power to maintain the fortress. As the days of their lives flow one past another, the lies, the rationalizations and the self-deceptions will steadily and relentlessly accrete, probably without notice; over time, what began as a fortress will be transformed into a most great prison. Within the prison walls will exist only comforting delusions, while standing outside the prison walls will be unreachable reality. It is the norm, an inevitable outcome, that those who choose this path become deeply estranged from reality. That estrangement is also justice. Finally, few - if any - will ever recognize that they have been judged or been compelled to accept justice. That oblivious lack of awareness of their state is also justice, one of its most grim, merciless and absolutely unyielding faces, poetic justice for those who escape the justice of the outer, contingent world. I speak with a perspective gained from many years of direct observation of the above process.
I am not so much concerned about the justice that is visited upon the guilty and culpable as I am gravely concerned about the precedent that is set if we fail to seek justice in the first place. If we do nothing, these things will happen again and again, enabled by legitimizing precedent. Also, I do not wish to push the responsibility and burden upon an as yet unborn generation to set right and apologize for the things their forebears committed nor for them to inheret a harm that results from our failures of principled resolve; I desire to pre-empt the harm that will inevitably occur in the intervening time period. The imposition of justice, whether it exacts the removal of freedom, wealth or honor, is not primarily for (or against) the criminals' sakes, it''s for the rest of us, especially those of us who would be tempted to commit similar crimes. It's an investment in a more honorable collective future. It is secondarily for the convicted's sake, in that it can create the circumstances that lead to the discovery of remorse. It is genuine remorse that makes up the first part of the ardous path that must be traveled by any former wrongdoing wayfarer who seeks to attain to the goal of personal rehabiitation and redemption.
Yes, patience is a precious thing. But as regards justice...justice delayed is often justice denied.
I have much enjoyed talking with you. Be well.
I believe your notions hold great wisdom, for as much as I interpret them. I must review the aforementioned in-depth before I can reply or if it's even necessary.
For now, I'll simply say thank you for your time and effort and the benefit of your thoughts. May you be rewarded as well.
Study the symptoms not the virus...
...that was kind. BTW, I hear you on the windows. Nice metaphor for a matter that also runs deep.
Best regards.
Hey there. You may not read this, since I'm a couple of days late in replying, but I felt the need to say something in reply to part of what you've written here.
In sum, I agree completely with you. However, I just want to add one small thing, by way of personal experience. If the feds are reading this, I may get myself into further trouble. :)
I'm not wealthy, so I've spent my adult life feeling crushed by my inability to live fully, "off the grid." In my own small way I've been as disengaged as I could be (no phone, no television, etc.), but limited resources mean that I have to have a job & be part of society to some extent.
I stopped filing my income taxes after G.W. Bush's first Inauguration - I'm sure I don't need to explain why to you. I'm a legal employee, so my employer fully complied with his obligations & withheld payroll taxes, but I refused to file.
I supplemented my income from my regular job by working as an independent contractor for a few years. After the advent of the illegal invasion of Iraq, I refused to pay taxes on that income entirely, in addition to my refusal to file.
Without going into all the details, once upon a time I did volunteer work helping low-wage H2B Visa workers fill out & file their taxes, so I can't pretend that I didn't know the risks involved with my own refusal to file. The reality is that the government looks most closely at those of us who are least able to pay. My regular work is in the service industry (lots of cash transactions), so I was in prime position to be targeted.
To make a long story short, the government caught up with me. I resisted for as long as I could, but I'm working-class & have no collateral, so I was in no position to fight. I did what I had to do - took a second job and gave every dime to the government until I didn't "owe" any more.
I'm telling you all of this because I want to convey very strongly that as hard as it is to live with the guilt & sorrow caused by participating in a system that has been so thoroughly corrupted, I believe that the alternative of entering the system as a prisoner is worse. While there is undeniable nobility in being a prisoner of conscience, there is also the awful reality of having your few remaining civil rights stripped away, in addition to the very real likelihood that 100% of your labour will go to increasing the profits of some parasitic prison contractor.
I don't know whether the last couple of years of indentured servitude were the right choice, but it's what I have to live with. So, I'm trying to figure out, from here on out, what to do - how to assuage the guilt without giving up all of my rights or surrendering my sense of self.
There is no way out. I've done the prisoner of conscience equivalent -applying for conscientious objector status while on active duty, and it solved nothing other than registering my moral oposition. While they were reviewing my case - in order to deny it, they also did everything in their power to both cause me to compromise my ethics and get me killed. Either outcome would have satisfied them. While neither outcome played out, I was compelled to serve out my full term of service....singled out during the remaining time for special "treatment". If we break the laws, we partially become that which we find despicable. In the end, the only effective way to fight a system that is all-pervasive, irresistably powerful, unresponsive and unlikely to be changed by any action that its citizens might bring to bear is to step outside of it....hence, my earlier comment about dusting off my plans to leave the country.
I am coming to the conclusion that this issue is the last chance I am willing to give this country to get itself cleaned up and rehabilitated. If it chooses the wrong path, I'm outta here.
"There is no way out." As an anarchist, I'm inclined to agree with you.
I've grown used to being the one who says that which is not supposed to be spoken out loud, so here I go again: America is already done. Cooked. Finished. It started several generations ago, but we're seeing the most obvious manifestation of the disease in our lifetimes (lucky us). I've read some of your posts, so I don't think I have to explain to you the myriad ways in which our republic was founded on a bedrock of lies.
This rotten foundation has been consistently exploited by a small group of wealthy elites for generations. I fear the most successful element of the system is its ability to adapt, evolve & subsume that which threatens it. President Obama's ascendancy notwithstanding, America is a textbook example of an oligarchy, and oligarchies are too untenable to persist. The ultimate irony is that the Founders took so much from the best of the Roman Republic, yet we still devolved into the worst of the Empire.
Unfortunately, I also believe that your first sentence applies to emigration. I'm actually a dual-citizen. Theoretically, I could leave the U.S. and return to the country of my upbringing, but the reality is that the entire world is inextricably linked to America. When America falls, few will be spared, unless they're already living a hunter-gatherer or subsistence lifestyle, or are willing to learn a new way of existing in the world.
Democracy is tedious, frustrating work, but perhaps when things fall apart, we in the wealthier societies will re-learn the value of hard work. While the reactionary nihilists on the right stock up on ammo & hoard gold, I've been attempting to prepare myself for whatever comes next by stocking up on knowledge & sharing it with whoever has ears to hear. I don't have a basement or a bomb shelter & I refuse to own a gun, so it's the best hope I've got.
Agree 100%. In Nuremberg that was no excuse.."following orders". If the perpetrators of the torture are immune, then the Obama White House must have the guts to go after and prosecute those who gave the bloody orders. Jeez this President has changed his tune very quickly on all manner of things. he has a duty to the people of this country to prosecute the priks who instigated the orders, he must show the world he will not tolerate it. Me thinks the Commander in Chief is doing a good amount of back pedaling. Why? He owes the friggin Repubs nothing, go get the wankers. Bi partisan approach is not working, the bastards are laughing at him.
This is what happens when we value expedient more than we value principle.
He was an honest man. He did right by us . I'm lost for words.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Under Bush, there was clearly no appetite for dissent or whistle-blowers. Those who held to the law were treated as pariahs.
If we truly instituted change with the inauguration of a new President, I believe that it will be demonstrated by tolerance for dissent along with respect for whistle blowers who place the law and conscience above personal expediency.
I have far less sympathy for the well-educated CIA field agents who knowingly broke the law than I do for the poor slobs in the military who got stuck running our gulags in Afghanistan & Iraq. However, I don't think punishing CIA field agents should be the goal. If we abandon even the possibility of prosecution, we give up one of the few tools we have for leveraging accountability for those who gave the orders.
Prosecution of the guards at Abu Ghraib was used by Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld to cover their own asses, but that was because they knew they themselves were the guilty ones. An honest administration would have used the threat of prosecution to compel testimony against those who gave the orders, then the real trials would have begun. That is what should be happening with the CIA - tell the truth or go to jail. Each and every agent who committed torture needs to name names going all the way up the line. Their get-out-of-jail card is the truth.
Precisely.
The change will take a revolution.
took the words right out of my mouth.
NOBODY 2012
Nope you can believe in.
Nope, Change you can deceive in.
is just as illegal as torture.
There is an element of diversion in pretending that the low level CIA operatives are the ones that should be prosecuted. It's the ones that approved the policy and gave the orders that we need to be concerned about. Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Yoo, those are the criminals that need to be prosecuted.
While those that devised the methods and gave their stamp of approval were the genesis of the War Crime, "FOLLOWING ORDERS" was never deemed an acceptable excuse...
... For if it is ever to be acceptable, such acceptance legitimizes the war crime as being legal or morally just.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
If you had the cohice between taking down a major drug lord or a local neighborhood pusher, which would you choose?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
thats how the law and policing it works.
Don't forget the major pharma companies are lords and pushers all in one. You could hit two birds with one stone if you went after them first.
ysbaddaden,
Do we always have a choice?
Both contribute to the problem but in different ways.
Take out the drug lord and the pusher changes carriers(hopefully) and a new drug of choice takes it's place. Take out the pusher and the drug lord hires a new pusher to take the place.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
...both. But if you want to solve the drug problem, you legalize everything, give the government the monopoly on procurement and distribution, along the lines of a state ABC outlet. Make the drugs available so cheaply, that there is zero profit motive for gangsters (including the CIA). Have the government protect it's monopoly the way the mafia would when somebody tries to muscle in on one of its operations. Tax all sales and use that to fund rehab first, putting the rest into general federal revenues. Legalizing everything would destigmatize use, so that regular Joes along with cops, judges, lawyers, doctors and so on drug users could seek rehab if they had a problem they couldn't control, without destroying their productive potential for society. Prohibition never works and there is no other way to effectively control drug use. With the way things are done now, the only thing our current system achieves is providing price supports to the criminal element. We have created a perfect business environment for them. What we have now is merely capitalism working at its very best, in an ideal market environment: extremely high returns for those willing to take on extreme risks.
Pin Head Duh. Ain't in charge of prosecutions I thought. I thought it was Eric Holder who is going to do the dirty work.
CIA begins with C, DoJ begins with a D, C trumps D.
Since when does the CIA prosecute people? Why would this be asked of Panetta?
Actually, that makes it worse. that means the CIA is TELLING the DOJ no prosecutions.
Naw. Obama shouldn't get involved in something like that.
.
So,
I CAN get some lackey lawyer to pen an "OPINION" that murder, rape, torture, theft, and/or war crimes are legal when it suits me?
America is no longer a Nation of Laws but instead She has become a Nation where men decide what laws are convienient and for whom they shall be extended for.
The true definition of an O-Banana Republic, NO?
I didn't know "OPINIONS" were laws...
... I guess Laws be damned, NO?
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
Theres no other way to interpret this, we are no longer a democracy or a nation of 'lawful' laws and civil human rights.
Our only hope is that in the financial meltdown, gov large and small, immolates itself and loses power due to lack of money and staff bleed.
We know what they think of 'the people', they knowingly feed our kids contaminated peanut butter products.
It's not a question of law but treaties.
Supposedly the Supreme Court enforces treaties.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The Constitution of the USA clearly states that Treaties entered into are to be considered the "LAW OF THE LAND".
It is about Law.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
Article II, Section 2
(in part states)
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
fuck him
Is he clean? Can anyone find dirt on him? This man isn't fit for office, imho.
Uraho?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?ter...
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
The Obama Administration doesn't have to prosecute these guys. Once charges are filed overseas there is nothing the US can do. We don't have to harbor criminal action. Remember there is also civil charges that can be filed. Now if these CIA agents wanted protection George W. Bush could have given a order but he didn't and left them to hang. The crimes committed by the CIA agents were done to Foreign detainees who were innocent. Remember President Obama is an educated President and has a Law Degree in Constitutional Law unlike Bush who's Father paid for his degree.
If America is "supposed to be" a Nation of Laws, the law is clear. The USA has an obligation to prosecute, least we are no longer guided by the laws we force upon other Nations.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
So remind me again while we prosecuted all those nazis for "following orders".
America is now dead.
The CIA is a criminal org, solidly linked to drug and assorted illegal activities, it deserves every pin it receives.
Why did two CIA rendition planes crash (land) with cocaine on board, that illegal business isn't in their public charter !?
They have a fifty year history of 'rogue' agents & officials doing things they are not supposed to be doing.
Nice points.
Thank you.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=did+ian+fleming+help...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/u...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
For these actions. Sorry But We can not treat Obama and his adminstration like Bush supporters Treated Bush's. There is no defence for this.
United States of America:
July 4, 1776 - February 6, 2009
All is lost
If you never prosecute those in power for their criminality, you don't have the "rule of law" do you. And if you don't have the "rule of law" aren't we just paving the way to tyranny?
"Leon Panetta, said he believed Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons -- contrary to the opinion of the intelligence community he is about to lead"
that is DANGEROUS! Please pass this video on to others, we need to expose their lies to millions of Americans, not just thousands: See video: Warmongers who sold you the Iraq war, are pushing for a war with Iran.
http://www.YouTube.com/RepresentativePress
Everytime Obama or someone in his adminstration shows there not going to do the right thing The same groups pops up "Don't worry this is just to trick the GOP into a trap", "It's part of his master plan","oabam has to do this now so he can do the right thing later"
How does this fit into that "master plan"?
18 USC §2 Principals
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or
aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its
commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if
directly performed by him or another would be an offense
against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
18 USC §3 Accessory after the fact
Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been
committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in
order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an
accessory after the fact.
18 USC §4 Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony
cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as
soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person
in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
He best do the right thing or he will become an accessory of some of the worse actions an adminstrations of the USA has ever taken.
He does that. There are maybe 1000 Repugs and their lackeys who need some DoJ justice.
he allready has hes a tool!
CHAPTER 113C - TORTURE
-HEAD-
Sec. 2340A. Torture
-STATUTE-
(a) Offense. - Whoever outside the United States commits or
attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to
any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be
punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activity
prohibited in subsection (a) if -
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States,
irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged
offender.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
But that's where booshco spun it, on the legal definition of what torture is.
When I mentioned the Supreme Court enforces treaties the point that was missed was that it's unclear whether a CIA head like Panetta should be expected to prosecute his own agents.
More often then not when the Constitution spoke of treaties it was in regards to trade treaties. That's why it's included in a section about honoring debts.
Additonally, soon after the Civil War, even the Radical Republicans allowed Confederate States back into the Union without prosecuting people, although high ranking Confederate official were no longer allowed to hold office.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
ysbaddaden - I don't post here often. I mostly lurk, so I know you're a regular poster who is generally well-informed & who mixes straightforward opinion with comic relief. I wanted to say this at the start, so you know that I respect what you have to say, though I strongly disagree.
Once upon a time I thought that torture was a settled issue for Americans, but Bush & Cheney have shown me that's not the case.
It has troubled me to read the MSM meme that President Obama is relying on Lincoln's Presidency as a model, let alone Lincoln as re-imagined by Doris Goodwin. However, it shakes me to the core to consider the possibility that we would take our cues for how to move forward from the Bush era from what happened after Lincoln's assassination.
You're right that, apart from the commandant of Andersonville, no one was prosecuted after the war's end. I believe this was a grievous error that contributed mightily to all that later went wrong in the effort to unite the country. Prosecutions may have given the citizenry a chance to have an open & honest national dialogue about what had gone so horribly wrong. Perhaps we would have emerged with a better collective understanding of the legacy of slavery. Perhaps we wouldn't have reverted so easily to the Jim Crow cesspool that took slavery's place.
We, as a nation, have never done the hard work of reconciling the Founders' Enlightenment dream of liberty with the ugly reality of slavery. Few outside the African-American community understand that there would be no America without Institutionalized Slavery. Will we allow future generations to believe the lie that Bush & Cheney et al were right? Do we want future generations to believe that we can maintain our liberty with torture & illegal war?
I suspect that few, if any, of the guilty will be convicted in an American court, or elsewhere. However, we still must prosecute. For the sake of posterity & our conscience as a nation, we must seek the truth wherever it leads us. That is justice & without it, there is no America worth saving.
So very well said. You should do less lurking and more sharing of your thoughts.
"Additonally, soon after the Civil War, even the Radical Republicans allowed Confederate States back into the Union without prosecuting people, although high ranking Confederate official were no longer allowed to hold office."
y,
There was one notable, and justified exception: Col Wirz, who was the commander of the Andersonville POW/death camp. He was hanged on the Capital Mall for the atrocities he allowed to happen in his prison camp:
http://www.old-picture.com/civil-war/Executio...
Even then, despite the fairly unanimous sentiments of our national leaders, it was recognized that there is a line that can never be crossed or allowed to go unpunished if it is crossed. It can reasonably be argued that the execution of Wirz helped set the framework for keeping our hands relatively "clean" of atrocity in all following conflicts, setting a standard that stood until the Bush regime usurped power. Allowing perpetrators of similar atrocities to walk free and free of any consequences sets the opposite precedent. There is no possibility that such a choice can lead to a good end in the future.
I haven't heard of that one, thanks, I 'll look into it.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
David Sirota here.
Just extrapolate for the prosecution of war crimes, torture or anything else.
The Kleptocracy continues unimpeded. Untidy things like prosecutions of former officials would not be good for business.
First on the Kleptocrat list remains the Bungling and Swindling Banksters.
Don't you forget it, peasants!
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
oh, that would mean that Obama is in on it too then.
maybe that's why he is buddy buddy with war criminal Henry Kissinger
(see my post below)
I especially like how the Michael Phelps controversy helps distract the populace. Ooooo, Ahhhh, the "War on Drugs" is still alive.
Hey, did you hear how Jessica Simpson cried on stage and I hear she's put on weight...
... Can't wait for "Dancing with the stars."
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
From an applicability standing. Are there any differences that may arise with regard to the "United States Code" you reveal and the "Uniform Code of Military Justice"?
Study the symptoms not the virus...
but I believe the first question is jurisdiction which the military would claim for their own in service. Outside of service would be civilian authority. But as I say I am not certain.
The CIA is a secret government unto themselves. They would be subject to civilian authority.
Here is Jonathan Turley with KO on Panetta.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
THANK YOU!
I don't have cable and appreaciate hearing Jonathan Turley and his logic.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
Thank you for your time & effort. :-)
Study the symptoms not the virus...
indicated, he is bothered by Turley's analysis. So am I but we still have to see how things will unfold. Two weeks going on three, what the....
Please expect American citizens to be next. there is no reason not to. habeus corpus is gone.
You say it only applies to foreigners? That's what they said about domestic surveillance.
Allows the TLAs to literally torture American kids to get their parents to confess to whatever, if a hypothetical '24' scenario came up.
Did habeus corpus come back yet? Is the President awake?
NOBODY 2012
the greatest weapon the U.S. has against terrorists is its moral authority and commitment to the rule of law.
WTF?
... except when it's applied to the USA.
(/snark)
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
Starting at the top. I would be okay if the low rung CIA officers were given immunity for testifying against their superiors.
let them hold hearings
if they find that cia or anyone else broke international law, they can refer the case to justice...panetta isnt in charge there
and leon has to work with those guys...remember?
and before you can prosecute a cia officer, bush, cheney, rummy, rove and fredo all have to stand before the man
look at what happened in abu gharaib...the little guys took the fall
We torture. We've always tortured. We always will torture.
We don't do it because it gets "the good intelligence." We do it to terrorize, same as anybody else.
And we won't stop. We've been doing it for decades.
And Democrats will not seek to prosecute anyone for anything that's happened in the past eight years. Because they are complicit. Because they knew all along.
And the know about what's happening now. Which is torture.
This is true.Anyone who thinks the CIA never used torture before the Bush years is crazy.
I agree to an extent, but there has never been a campaign to get Americans to accept, support and justify torture.
They've made it so Sheik.
.
Of course it's not TORTURE when we do it.
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
Thats the sad state and morals of TLA tactics.
Opening Statement before the International Military Tribunal
I guess Panetta thinks Justice Robert Jackson lost this argument, NO?
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
CIA = Stazi = Gestapo
Their common feature??? Keeping the teeming unwashed fearful and catatonic. It's the most effective way to undermine the citizens' sense of self governance and ability to act, followed closely by fucking the same proles out of their equity. It's a two-tined pitchfork and pure Machiavelli. Been working well for 500 years and there's no end in sight.
"Secular humanism -- a fearless, realistic world view replete with doubt and scepticism that attempts to attain an unachievable state of equilibrium between and among the human qualities of reason, intuition, imagination, memory, ethics and common sense.
The Nuremberg Defense was a legitimate legal defense. What is being proposed here is not a Nuremberg Defense. No defense is required where there is no defendant.
There is no such thing as a Nuremberg Defense.
You are thinking of a "Following Order's" defense.
Official American history says "USA and Allies defeated Fascism in WW2."
It is NOT true.
American fascists financed, advised and provided propaganda for Hitler, then used the ensuing war to build up the American Military Industrial Complex which THEY (the American Fascists) control.
They've used the same game - financing and profitting from both sides of conflicts THEY incite (as well as others that arise) - to profit and maintain control, time and again.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
I have seen several people say "its up to the international community, or its up to congress."
Barack set the tone during the campaign. He stated that he "hoped" the new leadership he appointed at the DEA would consider his stated policy, that raiding medical marijuana clinics is a waste of time and resources. So there is no assurance that the raids will stop.
Apply this to Barack setting the tone for Leon. he must have "hoped" Leon would consider his stated policy, that America does not torture.
Even if it isn't his job to prosecute, he can say "that shit just doesn't smoke in my administration." but he's not.
Does anyone think that there was NOT a litmus test for the nominee of the CIA?
If they stated they were gung ho against torture, and would vet out anyone in their organization that thought otherwise, do you really think that person would have the position? Even if it was consistent with Obama's campaign rhetoric?
Obama launches predator strikes on Pakistan within 10hrs of swearing in,
Obama refuses to investigate torture, Obama "revises" rendition rules,
Obama threatens the UK if they reveal torture evidence in British trials
Obama dispatches Henry Kissinger on a secret mission to Russia to talk with Putin.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nor...
I guess now we know why Kissinger kept making all those New World Order references to Obama and his team.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD3BqK-9ZiU
Obama, now collaborating for US security with cold war War Criminal Kissinger. Now that's some Change you can Deceive in!
Wake up. You've been scammed.
How could anyone be surprised by this?
We can't have a future if we build our nation on shifting sand the way we have done for 200 years now. Ever since the Civil War, we have been covering up the malfeasance of our lawmakers and leaders. Panetta is just another good ole boy who will let criminals of HIS CLASS go free again. We can't have a nation built on laws with lawlessness allowed to go unpunished.
We need to get on OBAMA'S CASE about this. Apparently he wants to hear from us and will listen. He doesn't want to be bottled up by goons who would torture and lie.
He can be reached at the WHITE HOUSE WEB SITE. It's easy to find.
We know prisoners were tortured. They did not stand trial because they were tortured. Where's the fucking logic here, Pansy? How can you wear a Judges robe when your head is up your ass?
Time for a recall. Fuck Obama!
yes indeedy!
I always vote Dem, because the alternative is just plain grotesque, but nothing is more predictable than Dems behaving like pussies. For 40 years or more.
The sooner you make peace with this fact of life, the less you'll bang your head on the wall.
is that its stops hurting (after a while) when you stop banging.
My name is Big John and I have posted here from time to time over the last few years. I have ALWAYS maintained that the Dems would change nothing regarding restoring the rule of law or habeas corpus and related matters. The Dem partisans here always poo-pood me, that this time was somehow different and my my don't we all feel good about ourselves.
Well guess what, I told you so. Anyone who puts down the kool aid long enough to examine the events of 9/11 could tell you the outcome.
The USA is a one party state. Its best trick it that most citizens don't know that.
the sooner we'll take matters into our own hands and reject this grotesquery outright. Quite automatically cooperation and respect from the people is dropping off just by the futility of arriving at anything we can relate to. All of them are making themselves obsolete. It's already happening.
There are many ethical lawyers, though not all lawyers are ethical in my opinion. Laws, laws and more laws... We draft laws, amend laws and tomorrow they'll make more laws...
Who drafts the laws? Who writes the laws? Who rules on said laws? I believe it's kinda like that, fox guarding the hen house thing. And when they screw up, who do ya tell, the Bar association? Good grief! :-/
I can only hope for justice, time permitting. Fortunately, I believe good things come too those who wait and patience is a virtue.
PS. I think we got a few lawyers in government... :-/
"Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced."
[Albert Einstein]
Study the symptoms not the virus...
People taking orders without the ability to question, I'm alright with letting them be. I wish they would have resigned, but I'm alright with it. The people who enabled it, however, should be prosecuted and this article is a bit misleading in stating that they won't be... it doesn't say that...
setting a very dangerous precedent that the US government is above the law. They can do whatever they want with impunity.
In the meantime, us regular Joe Schmoes can go to prison for smoking a joint. As a matter of fact, the feds demand that people be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for minor offenses.
HYPOCRITES! And they wonder why we don't trust them (US Gov).
The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men.
Plato
I was in for a hard time from C&L commenters for sniping at a Dem president's policies. Thanks folks.
The final big test comes Monday, when a hearing will determine whether Holden will continue the Bush administration's assertion of “state secrets privilege,” claiming that the disclosure of information in a lawsuit case involving five former detainees who allege they were victims of rendition-to-torture could damage national security.
One of the plaintiff's is Binyam Mohamed, who was the subject of the UK case Suzie posted about yesterday - the one where Obama's team continued a blackmail threat of the British government and legal system.
Don't hold your breath till Monday, please - but I'll be posting as soon as there's something to write about on that one.
Regards, C
Cernig,
We Progressives need to be holding some feet to the fire.
Hell, the MSMbs refuse to.
Keep it up.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
and I was saying the same thing...
We will probably have to hold Obama's feet to the fire. I just don't get knee-jerky about it.
Your comment reminds me of the 1968 Democratic National Convention, when the Chicago police indulged in a police riot against the protestors who were standing outside the convention center, live on national TV. The crowd was chanting, over and over again, the words, "The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching...".
Obama would do well to recall that the whole world is watching....and stands ready to judge.
Obama was the lesser of the two evils, but the issue where he was the lesser of the two evils was on the competition between those who labor (wages, 'salary (in lieu of wages)') and those who obtain income on the labors of others (dividends). That is the area where we can expect a difference in policy, and motivation. On other areas, Obama was the smarter of the two candidates, and we'll see the existing policy executed more intelligently, but it will be the same policy. The biggest difference in policy shift will probably occur in health care, where the Democrat recognizes that people need health coverage and relief from disease, whereas the Republican sees a need for more disease, and more maintenance regimes as a means to shoring up recurring revenues to shareholders in the medical industries.
One example of a policy shift to be expected; it was idiotic to proclaim that torture was a legitimate policy to be implemented openly at Guantanamo, as opposed to being implemented covertly. So, expect Obama to more smartly sweep under the radar scope (rug) our dirty business. Bush was not the sharpest knife in the drawer. There will be no attempt to legitimize our “enhanced” interrogation of suspects going forward, so I think. To the extent it still occurs under Obama, it'll occur covertly. Remember, the reason that we have a national security threat is because, under Bush, 911 was seen as an opportunity to fulfill an existing agenda to attack Iraq, instead as an obligation to defeat Al-qaeda, who attacked us. As a result of that policy, Al-Quaeda has masticized to Pakistan, who has the bomb. Under Bush, dealing with Al-Quaeda was not top priority.
One thing that will be an improvement in the Obama administration by an order of magnitude is the willingness to negotiate with adversaries. Talking is one thing, agreeing is another. The unwillingness of the Bush administration to negotiate was idiotic. The bar to simply initiate negotiations will be much lower in the Obama administration than in the Bush administration, I think. The result may be a cheap way out of some problems.
So, we have a smarter President than the predecessor. But, in many cases, I don't see a change in policy, rather, I see a change in the implementation of the policy. However, in the end, the economic situation is going to force the change of policy. For example, we can't afford to be the world's policeman any more. In many areas, the economic crisis will force policy changes due to affordability, as opposed to some underlying motivation.
We wouldn't even be having this discussion had we selected, and subsequently elected, Kucinich.
Sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Here is my question:
Who Got To Panetta?
Democratic Leadership? The President?
Republicans loyal to BushCo? The CIA? The NSA? WHO?
Who Got To Him?
In the end, the 2008 election was between the lesser of the two evils. And Obama won, because he was the smarter of the two candidates. So, going forward, expect a lot of existing policy to be more 'intelligently' implemented. I'm not sure we got anything else from the Obama administration as far as foreign policy is concerned. (And yes, how we deal with 'foreigners' is foreign policy).
So Panetta job is to do a better job of sweeping under the rug an existing policy, as opposed to changing policy.
Since, because as a nation (as evidenced by the elections of 2004), we chose to support Bush's policy of curtailing the war against Al-qaeda in Afghanistan in favor of nation building in Iraq, unfortunately, any new prisoners from Afghanistan will deal with the policies of Panetta, which will probably be to change the overt to the covert. Had we focused on Afghanistan throughout, we might have been extricated from Afghanistan by now.
[Deleted. I won't be playing silly buggers with you all night long. You should never repost something that's been deleted. See you Monday. And if you post more of the same when you return, we can make this arrangement permanent-Sitemonitor]
The more things don't change, the more things stay the same.
the USA is officially a banana republic. The two party system has totally corrupted US politicians, they cover each other's asses and desperately hold on to their power and wealth.
There is only one way out: A viable third party - a progressive one. (Only one, because a revolution is not an option at this stage. Or is it? Even a peaceful one?)
putting a progressive/liberal third party in office(s) would be revolution enough.
Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss!
Seems to me it's the president and all the president's men who need to be held accountable, not those who were obeying orders and thought what they were doing was legal. All I can say is I'm going to be EXTREMELY disappointed if something is not done about this. It's not enough to say that the U.S. no longer tortures. Those who so broke the law and so badly soiled our reputation need to be brought to justice.
"We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow." Justice Robert Jackson at Nuremberg.
As a nation, we must take this issue on and prosecute those who have violated our statutes against torture (healingsgreen.blogspot.com)or as a nation we have ceased to be a model of governance for the world and for ourselves. If a thousand people have been captured and tortured and it takes ten CIA agents to carry each of these cases out, then there are 10,000 cases of criminality that evidence needs to gathered and brought to the courts. Also the powerful who ordered the crimes must be prosecuted, from the president on down and all brought to trial. This will take a Simon Wiesenthal type effort to accomplish. So let's begin! Let's take our county back! Let's stop complaining about someone else not doing the work and start to do the work ourselves. Let's begin by gathering the testimony of those tortured and make it public.
They do have to be responsible -- morally responsible -- and it isn't good enough to say "that's between a torturer and his God". As bureaucrats, they are only thinking about the organizational machine and its personnel.
That is the beauty of a truth and reconciliation commission. Confess your war crimes in full detail before the public and if you were just taking orders, most likely you still have a job, a wife, and your kids will have money to go to college. _But_ you will have taken personal moral responsibility, and society will have taken a stand on principles. This is a nation that has neglected humanitarian and community values far too long. It is past time to reverse that.
That's a way of having the guilty ask to be readmintted to the national community. Most should be granted that opportunity...good work for commissions. However, others - the architets and orchestrators, should be made to pay a price commensurate with the harms they unleashed on the world. Their fate is properly for tribunals to decide.
When did the head of the CIA become part of the Judiciary system?
It seems to me that the CIA director would have no say as to who gets prosecuted for their crimes. The only thing he could do is become an obstructionist and thereby becoming complicit himself.
I do not like what Obama appears to be doing with some of his nominations. It is beginning to seem as the more we "change" the more we stay the same. I am very disappointed by this recent development.
Even though Panetta was not head of the CIA at the time of the offenses, when did agencies get the power to police themself?
His answers came at a confirmation hearing where questions are framed like, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
I'm not clearing America for what they did. As a former Airman I know the UCMJ, and with my legal training the Constitution. But one thing we have to remember about Nuremberg was those on trial LOST the war.
I'm not saying America is the victor in all this, it seems to have gone to a standstill, possibly to flare again, but we're obviously not the loser.
And Nuremberg was an international effort, not a German one, punishing their own former leaders and soldiers.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
carrying one load of national guilt for not doing so.
As will the u.s. have a stain on their own psyches and in the eyes of the world. Just ask the Japanese while we're at it.
And what have we gained? The numbers are at 1,550,000 innocent dead Iraqis. This country here will pay the price for not acknowledging what we have done. We carry an immensely deep wound for the last 8 years of madness and if all we are given is "move on" we know there's a price to be paid in terms of assuring the american people and especially the world the u.s. can be trusted with anything. The halcyon days of "superpower" are descending into an embarrassment and disgust here and abroad.
As for Col Wirz, although I need to look into it, the primary thing I remember was during the Civil War was the first large scale internment camps on BOTH sides, where starvation, lack of medical attention, and death were commonplace.
Wirz may've only been another example of making an example of someone, and to the victor goes the spoils. I'm sure the Union side could've been tried for war crimes too. Under Ulysses Grant they practiced a scorched earth policy, burning and destroying everything as they went, regardless as to whether they were military or civilian.
And he ultimately became President of the United States.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I just had a spot of breakfast, I sleep late.
But without something comparable to the Geneva Convention, an aberration like our one National Civil War, where citizens are killing fellow citizens, convicting and executing someone would border on being an ex post facto violation.
It reminds me that when they publically executed the conspirators in Lincoln's assasination (Booth already was dead), one of those hanged was a woman who just rented them a room, and may've known nothing of their plans.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
If the CIA is not held responsible for torture then why are the EM from ABU GRAHB still in prison
those guys in masks and hoods with the waterboards were dancing in the streets.
NOBODY 2012
......where, as late as this August, (2008) the Bush Administration had threatened (in a letter) to withdraw intelligence sharing with the British Government if the court in Britain disclosed of its (Bush Adm) torture record.
............the above comment explains why it said 'it still stood' with this administration. Maddening. I would expect that behavior our of Bush/co....but will be deeply disappointed if the Obama Administration sticks with it.
It has always been the stated policy of Dems running for office, in the context of this issue, that we were not going after the individual CIA people who did the dirty deeds. always. Barack Obama said it. John Kerry said it. Keith Olbermann used to say it, but is now perplexed that Panetta (who is a massive tool regardless) is just stating what the plan has been all along.
we care about going after the people who gave the orders at the top of the chain - BUSH, CHENEY, RUMSFELD, and the like. there are already laws on the books protecting the interrogators. of course they should have refused the orders, but they didn't. they'll have to live with themselves.
but I don't get the anger here. I have never, ever, once, heard a politician suggest that we should be prosecuting individual CIA people over this. never.
I'm just concerned that ALL of this will be 'swept under the rug' just like the Iran-Contra stuff was.
I am hoping against hope that President Obama and Panetta are just holding cards close...so as not to freak out anyone from taking long trips......
we could hear about this shit as we heard about the Iran-Contra affair! I mean, those hearings were broadcast on TV all day for weeks and weeks. John Kerry was on TV at times accusing the CIA of dealing drugs with the Contras! we'll never, ever hear that much about this sordid affair.
but I'm just saying, the interrogators are already legally protected. even if we removed those laws, they still couldn't be charged under them. and they are small fish anyways compared to the people who made the orders - BUSH & his minions at the top of the admin.
we all know there will probably be no investigation of them, unfortunately. but turning around and going after individual CIA people would never be done as a way of getting at Bush and Cheney, it would only be a scapegoating measure to KEEP people from investigating further, just like we saw with Abu Ghraib.
Why people are feeling anger about this comes from something that should and even must be done is not even being confronted. Torture is a crime and needs to be prosecuted if there is evidence and there is likely evidence in the records of the CIA. These cases, when successfully processed will lead up the chain of command as people are willing to plea bargin for their life, in the cases of those who tortured to death captives, and will provide information about the surrounding context of what they did. There is no other way other than to hook up actual torture with those who did it to get to those who ordered it.
again, there are already laws on the books protecting the interrogators. beginning, middle, and end of story on that one. yes, torture is a crime, I think what BushCo. did was disgusting, amoral, and will keep all manner of people hating the US for years to come. and that's why HE and his CABINET should be investigated and prosecuted. what Panetta said is really totally uncontroversial. no politician, none, has called for prosecutions of CIA interrogators. it was never proposed in the first place, and its not going to happen.
............."INTO taking long trips"..............
No prosecutions for breaking the law?
Panetta,
you should find yourself another job..
YOU GOT NO NUTS..
No prosecutions for breaking the law?
Panetta,
you should find yourself another job..
YOU GOT NO NUTS..
...no Diggs?
The only way to hold the administration's feet to the fire on this is to force it up the public agenda.
Regards, C
To have to work on this is disheartening...and it is even more disheartening not to work on this...let's get this up everywhere
Moving Forward
B
I could have had this under McCain. Thank gods the Obama people got behind the right guy, or torture would have continued in this country...oh wait, it is continuing! So much for Obama the change-maker, Obama the savior, and Obama the outsider! For gods sake, you coulda had this under Hillary, and then raked HER over the coals, just like in the primaries! Would have set you Obamamaniacs right off a cliff of disgust. It does my heart good to see all of you get the government you deserve. After all the bloviating about EVERY other dem candidate, you finally see that to get the kind of government YOU wanted, Kucinich was probably your guy. He would have done something about torture, not spent so much time up the Repubs butts that Obama can now brush their teeth. At least you could have bbq'd Hillary over all this, instead of having to justify this awful behavior from YOUR OWN GUY. Can't wait to see who he throws under the bus next. A conservative SC justice to overturn Roe, just so he can be seen as bipartisan? A friend of the court brief to California throwing gay marriage to the wolves, all in the name of cum-by-ya? And here I thought dems were different, not a branch office of RepubsInc. So much for representing the democratic wing of the democratic party. Just another appeaser. Just another centrist in dem clothing. Congrats, suckers.
RE Panneta's no prosecution of CIA breaking laws against torture.
Are we now Nazis or are we still a free principled people who can do the difficult right thing? like our grandfathers did, who laid down lives in WWII for the following?
At the Nuremberg Trials, the Nuremberg Defense of "I was just following orders", was held to be unacceptable. Nuremberg Principle IV: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." Is the USA is still " a light on the hill" or now just another joke democracy, ie, banana republic? Or do we have courage to do the right thing here?
Comments are closed on this entry