Saturday, April 18, 2009

Bush/Cheney War Criminals

I have been gathering my thoughts on the release of the so-called torture memos prepared at the behest of the Chimperator and Emperor Palpatine Cheney (who I suspect was the real moving force for torture) since the memos confirmed what some of us long suspected: the United States at the direction of Bush and Cheney clearly engaged in what constitutes torture. I applaud Obama for releasing the memos released to date. However, I strongly disagree with the decision not to prosecute CIA operatives who engaged in torture while "following orders." That defense was repudiated at Nuremberg and it is shocking that Obama wants to give American torturers a pass that was not given to those of Hitler and the Nazi regime. Copies of the memos are available here via the ACLU which has noted:
*
During the Bush administration, however, the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] became a facilitator for illegal government conduct, issuing dozens of memos meant to permit gross violations of domestic and international law. Some of these memos have become public through leaks to the media and through the ACLU's litigation under the Freedom of Information Act. But most of them are still secret.
*
That's the reality: the supposed leader of the free world knowingly ordered the very type of techniques used by the Nazi regime, the Red Chinese, the Soviet gulags, and other hideous regimes. What is most distressing is the fact that most average citizens seem to care little or nothing about the revelations. Perhaps this reaction - or lack of a vehement reaction - it is because for many it is not a surprise at all. People knew in their hearts the misdeeds done in their name. Or perhaps many simply do not want to fully admit to themselves just how lawless and reprehensible Bush, Cheney and their minions were in fact. The ACLU had this to say:
*
"The documents released today provide further confirmation that lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel purposefully distorted the law to support the Bush administration's torture program," said Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU. "Now that the memos have been made public, high-ranking officials in the Bush administration must be held accountable for authorizing torture. We are hopeful that by releasing these memos, the Obama administration has turned the page on an era in which the Justice Department became complicit in some of the most egregious crimes."
*
Like it or not, to regain credibility in the world, those who ordered torture need to be prosecuted and punished. No one is above the law - not even the President or Vice President. Here are some reflections from Andrew Sullivan with whom I agree:
*
[W]hat is far more important and far graver is the decision after the 2004 re-election, after the original period of panic, to set up a torture program, replete with every professional and bureaucratic nicety. This is why the Bradbury memo of 2005 is so much more chilling in its way. This was long after Abu Ghraib, long after the initial panic, and a pre-meditated attempt to turn the US into a secret torture state. These legal memos construct a form of torture, through various classic torture techniques, used separately and in combination, that were to be used systematically, by a professional torture team along the lines proposed by Charles Krauthammer, and buttressed by a small army of lawyers, psychologists and doctors - especially doctors - to turn the US into a torture state. The legal limits were designed to maximize the torture while minimizing excessive physical damage, to take prisoners to the edge while making sure, by the use of medical professionals, that they did not die and would not have permanent injuries.
*
If you want to know how democracies die, read these memos. Read how gifted professionals in the CIA were able to convince experienced doctors that what they were doing was ethical and legal. Read how American psychologists were able to find justifications for the imposition of psychological torture, and were able to analyze its effects without ever stopping and asking: what on earth are we doing?
*
The question of prosecution remains. It's a painful decision. My view is that those who pay the legal price should be, first and foremost, those who authorized this at the highest levels. My view is also that it is a travesty that the Abu Ghraib reservists were prosecuted, and yet far, far more culpable people are claiming it would be too divisive to prosecute them. My view is that no one is above the law, and that when a society based on law prosecutes the powerless and excuses the powerful, it is corroding its own soul.
*
My final comment is that it is reveal that those who have most consistently supported and cheered on the lawlessness of Bush and Cheney are the Christian Right elements in this country. Proving yet again that they are neither Christian nor right in their conduct.

1 comment:

headbang8 said...

Michael,

A thorny issue, fraught with pitfalls.

I agree that Bush and Cheney should be brought to trial for authorising torture, prima facie in violation of US law. They did something illegal, and should be brought to justice. And the clear legal doctrine of Command Responsibility demands it.

But to state that the Eichmann defense doesn't hold, well, it masks a number of other gruesome relities.

I wish I could recall where I read or heard it, but the son of the chief US prosecutor in Nürnberg was interviewed about his father's wartime recollections. He said that the tribunal uncovered many violations of policy, law, and simple human charity, on BOTH sides.

Lest every soldier be turned from hero to villain overnight for doing his job, they made a ready rule of thumb. If both sides did it, it wouldn't be prosecuted. If only the other side did it, then they would prosecute, and because the crimes were more repugnant, a conviction would likely result.

The fact that the Nürnberg defense didn't work in Nürnberg was as much a political outcome as a legal one. Subsequent applications seem to accept that it can at least diminish strict mens rea--William Calley applied after My Lai.

An American soldier gets training in lawful conduct in war (or does he?) and is empowered to disobey an unlawful order. But if the chief lawyer of the USA looks at the question, and advises the forces (however wrongly) that their acts are legal, should the Nürnberg defense apply? Many would argue that it should.

I'm not a lawyer. Your readers would love it if you would give it some further thought, and look into some of the issues. I certainly would.