Torture Accountability Options

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 09:33:53 AM EST
Tags: torture (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Washington Post today quotes a political advisor to Condoleeza Rice on the Bush/CIA torture policies:

"The systematic, calculated infliction of this scale of prolonged torment is immoral, debasing the perpetrators and the captives," said Philip D. Zelikow, a political counselor to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who reviewed secret Bush administration reports about the program in 2005. "Second, forfeiting our high ground, the practices also alienate needed allies in the common fight, even allies within our own government. Third, the gains are dubious when the alternatives are searchingly compared. And then, after all, there is still the law."

Also don't miss Frank Rich in the New York Times: He leads with Dave Cullen's new book on Columbine (congrats to Dave) and then moves onto Bush and torture. This week will mark the 5th anniversary of the photos showing the abuse at Abu Ghraib:

Just like the myths about the Columbine killers, there were myths about the Abu Ghraib abusers:

If our country committed torture, surely it did so to prevent Armageddon, in a patriotic ticking-time-bomb scenario out of “24.” If anyone deserves blame, it was only those identified by President Bush as “a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values”: promiscuous, sinister-looking lowlifes like Lynddie England, Charles Graner and the other grunts who were held accountable while the top command got a pass.

Now the world knows how laughable that explanation was, and the reality is that the U.S. engaged in torture.

Yet we still shrink from the hardest truths and the bigger picture: that torture was a premeditated policy approved at our government’s highest levels; that it was carried out in scenarios that had no resemblance to “24”; that psychologists and physicians were enlisted as collaborators in inflicting pain; and that, in the assessment of reliable sources like the F.B.I. director Robert Mueller, it did not help disrupt any terrorist attacks.

Rich continues on to accountability, emphasizing there must be some:

President Obama can talk all he wants about not looking back, but this grotesque past is bigger than even he is. It won’t vanish into a memory hole any more than Andersonville, World War II internment camps or My Lai. The White House, Congress and politicians of both parties should get out of the way. We don’t need another commission. We don’t need any Capitol Hill witch hunts. What we must have are fair trials that at long last uphold and reclaim our nation’s commitment to the rule of law.

Criminal trials in federal court would begin with a grand jury investigation. Grand juries have subpoena powers. The Justice Department has the power to immunize officials to obtain grand jury testimony. The Court has the power to sentence those who refuse to testify notwithstanding immunity to jail for the life of the grand jury -- up to 18 months, and more if the grand jury is extended. On the other hand, grand juries operate in secret, so the public won't learn anything if they conclude without indictments. Even if people are indicted, and the grand jury testimony is released to defendants, it won't be released to the public.

While Congressional committees have subpoena power, they haven't always been effective. Donald Rumsfeld ignored one issued to him over Abu Ghraib.

So, criminal trials or bureaucratic torture commissions or partisan congressional hearings? If those are the choices, which do you favor? Or are you with President Obama, and his " it's over, let's move on" philosophy?

< Saturday Evening Open Thread | Stuart Taylor, "Centrist": Torture Saved Lives >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Torture Accountability Options | 20 comments (20 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I'm firmly in the criminal trial camp (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by andgarden on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 09:56:40 AM EST

Though hearings would probably be less bad than "just moving on."

: Follow the law (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by BackFromOhio on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 11:56:11 AM EST

I'm in favor of following the requirements of our law as reflected, inter alia, in the treaties to which we are a party. Turley has stated unequivocally that the U.S. is required to prosecute violators.

Trying to think this one all the way (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Anne on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 10:29:00 AM EST

through, to arrive at a result that will allow us to move forward, and there may not be a perfect solution/approach.

I think, first and foremost, people want and need to know what happened; there has been so much secrecy, so much deliberate obfuscation, that it is impossible to trust what we are hearing from some of those involved, who seem mostly intent on doing whatever they need to do to cover their own butts.

Second - or maybe 1(a) - is that the end result should not vindicate the policy of torture; even though Obama has banned it, and has said we are not going to do it, I don't want there to be even the tiniest chink through which the next Bush/Cheney/Bybee/Bradbury/CIA-DNI chief can wiggle through to bring it back in some succeeding presidency, or even long after we are all in the next world.

Because there are more than a few who want to make this about politics and policy, I fear that a grand jury conducted in secret, that is followed by, possibly, no indictments, would vindicate not the people under investigation, but the policy at the heart of it, and torture would perhaps live to fight another day.

The possibility of Congressional hearings does not excite me; we have seen repeated stonewalling by people at high levels of the Bush administration, and I cannot imagine, with perhaps more at stake, that there would be much in the way of voluntary cooperation from the people we need to hear from - and unless the Congress obtains more power than it has had in the past, I see many more sternly-worded letters than I do anything else.

Forget a bi-partisan commission - forget a commission that showcases any politicians - it's time we stopped ensuring that an investigation will devolve into turf protection, and instead convene a group that has a commitment to the truth and to shoring up the foundation of the democracy. It has to be clear that no one is safe just because they have a (D) after their names, and that not all people with (R) after their names are villains; I'm not sure any commission should have current or former members of Congress on it.

People will want immunity; that's a tough one if the only goal is sending people to jail. Selective use of immunity might be helpful in bringing more of the evolution of this policy and practice into focus, but I don't think everyone who is called to testify should necessarily be immunized.

The important thing for me is full disclosure in the bright light of day, as much accountability as possible, laying to rest once and for all that this is just an overblown debate about policy, and being able, at the end of the process, to say with confidence and belief: Never Again.

"Moving-on" (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by KeysDan on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 12:41:55 PM EST

without additional clarity would not serve democracy now or anytime in the future. We have an opaline situation deliberately produced. Seemingly contradictory views are held at once by the same individuals and groups. And, often with suspect or self-serving motivation. According to Frank Rich, the ink is hardly dry on the senate armed services committee report (which had the support of McCain, Lindsay Graham and Lieberman) and it has been labeled as partisan. So much for that approach. The first part of a "truth and reconciliation" commission, that is, a means to pursue the truth, is encouraging, but the second, a goal to reconcile wrongs seems misplaced if not premature (forgiveness or pardons upon contrition rather than acceptance may be a later consideration). But, structural constraints of a commission with efforts to show impartiality may wind up with a sane member balanced with an insane, a coherent with an incoherent and so on. Even under better conditions, plan on a makeup of usual suspects the likes of Sandra Day O'Connor, Tom Keane and Lee Hamilton. Worse, as in the 9/ll commission where Bush and Cheney negotiated an appearance together without taking an oath, the truth part of the work can go missing, too. I think the best way to proceed is through traditional judicial inquiry with open-ended outcomes. A review of Judge John Sirica's approach in the Watergate scandal may be instructive.

"Move On" violates international law (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Andreas on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 01:07:07 PM EST

The "it's over, let's move on" position is not legitimate. It violates international law.

I'm in the Obama has spoken camp (2.00 / 1) (#3)
by Catch 22 on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 10:53:07 AM EST

There will be no trials and there will be no investigations. That he has made clear.

I don't condone the torture. It was wrong. But the current US government is not going to put the majority of the last US government on trial for torturing a few hundred people - this is not Auschwitz. The current US government is not going to put the majority of the last US government on trial for world to salivate over. Not that we were the only country to torture. Does anyone think Britain didn't torture? Does anyone think any country who lost a soldier in Iraq and captured an Iraqi didn't torture? I'm not saying that because others did it makes it right. I don't condone torture it is wrong. I'm just saying that we are not an anomaly.

Yes what happened was wrong. But this was not the first time the US has tortured nor will it be the last even if we had trial and people were convicted - then pardoned or had sentences commuted. Police torture people and at most get paid suspension until things cool off. If they walk Bushco will walk. And who here really thinks that Obama wouldn't order torture if he thought it was necessary?

This will all die-off just like everything else does. Those outraged today will move on. Look at NOLA. The outrage then was just as big. The city still has not recovered. People still can't move back to their homes and rebuild if they want to. Jobs still have not been replaced. Where is the outrage about that? It died. Just as this topic will die.

In a few days or a few weeks there will be a new outrage to replace this one. That is the reality of the press big and small. Maybe even the economy will be important again in the press big and small. For a huge majority of Americans it still is. Torture doesn't even start to measure up to their personal economic worries.

According to Rasmussen
Advertisement

58% Oppose Further Investigation of U.S. Torture Allegations

I'm in the Obama has spoken camp. Call it the Reality Camp.

"this is not Auschwitz" (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Andreas on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 11:47:09 AM EST

One of the main aims of the torture was to fabricate reasons for the war on Iraq. So far about one million people died because of that war.

While this "is not Auschwitz" George Walker Bush and Richard Cheney are war criminals like Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring and they need to be punished appropriately.

Does anyone think Britain didn't torture?

It is widely known that Anthony Blair is a war criminal. He needs to be arrested and put on trial for those crimes.


Only 25% (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by BackFromOhio on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 11:58:55 AM EST

here were in favor of Watergate impeachment hearings. That % changed to 75% as the hearings went on, and the nation was educated on the facts and applicable law. U.S. law requires us to prosecute torturers. Are we a nation of laws or transient political polls?


The difference here is twofold as I see it (2.00 / 1) (#11)
by Catch 22 on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 12:36:06 PM EST

#1 there are not going to be any hearings going on that will help shift the publics mind. Obama and the Democratic leadership made that clear last week as they stood in solidarity and tole you as much. So that example of yours non-applicable.

#2 times are different than in Watergate. For one you have a wrecked economy and that is the main thing on regular people's minds. They are not obsessing nor will they obsess about torture and put it above their own bread and butter concerns.

I will add that IMO people are done with the entire Iraq-Gitmo-Torture thing. Eight years of it was enough for them. Bush is gone - hooray they say. They want out of Iraq. They want the entire episode to fade from their memories. They want to go back to living and doing well for their families. Their real concerns are self-centered as they should be, especially now. let the historians write about it they think. 'But me, I want to move forward' they are saying.

You can hope for the polls to change but I wouldn't hold your breath. The winds of change on the subject of torture are not in your favor.


: Catch you make some good points (none / 0) (#15)
by BackFromOhio on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 01:05:55 PM EST

but, regaining our stature in the world may depend on what we do about torture, not just what we say, and our stature in the world may affect our ability to rebuild economy and trade or, at least, be in a position to have our ideas seriously considered on the world economic stage and in foreign policy. What nations will support us economically on Pakistan & Afghanistan if they are seen as being allied with a nation that only pays lip-service to the condemnation of torture & the rule of law?
Yes, many in the U.S. are understandably preoccupied with economic conditions, but I think we underestimate their caring about the image and role of the U.S. in the world.

So, as near as I can tell, your theme (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by Anne on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 12:02:12 PM EST

song is "What's The Point?" or perhaps, "What Difference Does it Make What We Think?"

You can bold your assertion that torture is wrong all you want, but your main purpose seems to be to convince people to just sit down and shut up, to roll over and submit, to learn to accept the screwing we're getting.

How's that workin' out for you? Managed to silence anyone for thinking we should actually be doing something about what happened?

Didn't think so.

I think there are more than a few people here - me being one of them - who see your just-give-up-now attitude as one that only assures that the evil men do will be allowed to continue; it's nearly as repulsive as the issue itself. And supporting your just-do-nothing approach by putting the torture of the last 8 years in the "not as bad as _____" category is probably how we got into this mess in the first place (Cheney: hey, it's not like we're exterminating people, so who's going to care about a little torture?).

And no, I don't have any respect for that why-bother attitude, the comparative history lesson, or the opinions that accompany them.


More Rasmussen (2.00 / 1) (#8)
by Catch 22 on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 12:14:17 PM EST

According to Rasmussen:

"Just 28% think the Obama administration should do further investigating." "13% are not sure."
"Democrats are evenly divided over whether further investigation is necessary".
"62% of voters not affiliated with either major party are against more investigating."
"Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans...are against more investigating."

It is not a partisan issue to NOT investigate. The poll makes that clear.

Only a total of 28% think we should investigate. That matches up with my comments of the last few days that said I felt most Americans did not care about torture investigations and instead were concerned about the economy and their own situations. According to a Gallup Poll the top 5 financial concerns account for 58% of all voters. Coincidently the same percentage as those opposing further investigations. How about that.

So while the press big and small represent a small percentage of the publics total opinion, Obama has the majority on his side. So public pressure is not there for him to conduct investigations. Meaning this issue will die and will die quickly just as I have been predicting. I've been saying Obama has spoken, it is time to move on. It is.


You think right/wrong, partisan/non-partisan... (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by Romberry on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 12:41:37 PM EST

...are defined by the results of a public opinion poll? You think that reality is defined by public opinion polls? Really?

The law isn't designed to work via opinion polls. We don't look to pollsters to help us decide whether to investigate crimes. I can't think of anything less relevant to the principle at stake here (upholding the rule of law) than opinion polls.

So while the press big and small represent a small percentage of the publics total opinion, Obama has the majority on his side.

So? Bush had a 90+ percent approval rating after 9/11. And a large majority of Americans supported the Iraq invasion once it began. And a pretty substantial majority believed for a while (and may still believe for all I know) that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Does a 90+ percent approval rating after 9/11 mean that Dubya was a good president or that he was doing a good job? No.

Does a large majority supporting a needless Iraq war (once it began) make it a just war fought for good cause? Jo.

Does the fact that so many people believed that Hussein was involved with bin Laden/Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks make it so? No.

So what does an opinion poll have to do with whether or not we should investigate how the United States became a nation that tortures and hold those behind these atrocities accountable? I submit that other than providing potential political cover for not doing the right thing, these polls are meaningless. Utterly so.


I would ad (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by BackFromOhio on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 01:10:00 PM EST

that with full[er] disclosure by or in the media once trials or whatever got underway, public opinion on torture would change, just as it changed as to Dubya in general, the Iraq War, etc.


: I'd tend to agree. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Romberry on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 01:23:36 PM EST

The full story is far from out. I posted some old comments from Sy Hersh and Republican Senator Lindsay Graham in another diary thread and I have to think that once the full story behind these kinds of statements is known, public attitudes will in fact shift strongly towards investigations and prosecutions.
Sy Hersh and Lindsay Graham from 2004:

"Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out."
...
Republican Senator Lindsay Graham: "The American public needs to understand, we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience. We're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges."

I expect that what we know publicly at this time is just the tip of the iceberg. There is yet much below the waterline, unseen. Once people are aware of it, I believe we will steer a more prudent course towards (rather than away from) the rule of law. We'll see.

Nein (none / 0) (#10)
by The Addams Family on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 12:31:24 PM EST

You are in the "Obama ist Fuhrer" camp.


I hope she does too (none / 0) (#18)
by The Addams Family on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 01:11:00 PM EST

I hope Jeralyn takes note of this.

What you are saying is that it's over because Obama says it's over, whereas Jeralyn is accurately portraying Obama's position but not advocating for it. And when you're called on your cr@p, you label it a personal attack. Nice.

At this writing, you have four comments to go before you, as a (faux) newbie, are done for the day. It's kind of fun responding to you--like a hitter taking pitches and running up the count on a rookie.

Maybe Catch-22 is really David Broder... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Anne on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 01:24:14 PM EST

he seems to be advocating for essentially the same things.

"Obama has spoken" is not a strategy that is going to work out well for either Obama or the people who are dutifully following along like so many sheep.


: It will work as well with me... (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by Romberry on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 01:43:45 PM EST

...as the "Bush has spoken" line worked in the previous eight years.
It seems to me that some people sort of (consciously or unconsciously) wish we had a king. Defaulting to "The King has spoken!" frees them from all worry, all critical thought and just makes life easier. No longer an issue, 'cause the King has spoken.
I don't blame these kinds of attitudes on President Dim Son or President Obama. The attitudes come from what I refer to as the followers. I once thought that the phenomenon of followers was confined to the right of the political spectrum here in the US, but I was clearly wrong on that count.
Obama is charismatic, handsome and delivers a fine speech. (Some nutcases even think Obama covertly uses television hypnosis.) Those characteristics are enough for some who want to put away all need to concern themselves with thinking and action to latch on and become followers. (How anyone ever became a follower of President Dim Son is a mystery to me.)
Anyway, I prefer to think for myself even when the polls say that what I think is in the minority. And I prefer to stand on principle even when it's not popular or convenient. I'm not bothered being labeled contrarian. I would be bothered if I were labeled follower.

: To some, catch is toast. (none / 0) (#22)
by oculus on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 02:54:36 PM EST