Organizing for America | The Young American: To Prosecute Torture Or Not...

To Prosecute Torture Or Not...

By Leo - Jun 17th, 2009 at 8:33 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

Tags: Abu Ghraib, Al Quaeda, American, Americans, Cheney, congress, dignity, GITMO, Guantanamo Bay, House Party, iran, Iraq, Iraq Lies, life, michelle obama, Middle East, President Obama, Rape, Rumsfeld, Senate, torture

For me it's coming down to what we are preserving- or attempting to preserve- I think the bad far outweighs the good here- and I believe that if Obama sidesteps this it will be his downfall.

President Obama will forever be linked to the Bush Torture Coverup and our great victory over the establishment will be torn down.

"It's a trap are you blind?" (Hamish) ~Braveheart

There now exists bipartisan support of legislation sealing all additionally known photos and tapes related to torture at Abu Ghraib and beyond during the Bush Presidency. Some supporters of Obama are even beginning to sound the rumblings of acquiescence.

I wouldn't have a problem with sealing the records for 10 or twenty years, but we need those records to prosecute Bush and get our troops out of harms way asap. Sealing taxpayer records forever also seems too complicit to me- and I think the GOP will welcome Obama's participation in the cover-up.

For me it's coming down to what we are preserving- or attempting to preserve in America- I think the bad far outweighs the good here.

I just can't imagine that it would somehow limit the amount of bank robberies or murders, if we let all bank robbers and murderers off the hook and made grand statements about 'looking to the future and not the past'.

I also fail to see validity in the fear that there will be legal challenges and the people may not receive a conviction. Isn't that the risk in almost any legal prosecution? Maybe Bush and Cheney will be smart and take a plea deal.

I don't see this trending well in terms of future re-engagements either. After all, there are no repercussions to actions here, except for the soldiers who did prison time, right? Pregnant Lyndie England? One of the bad apples we were told that the President was disgusted about when he blamed torture on the soldiers? (Last 10 seconds of clip: "We certainly wish Abu Ghraib had not happened...This is the actions...of some...some soldiers"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcbEuHGsQI4

Now of course we know that President Bush was LYING to our faces, and that he and Vice President Dick Cheney themselves had attorneys perform written acrobatics so that they might order torture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAJ5i0quIHc

So without accountability, why would future leaders think they couldn't get away with breaking the law against the Geneva Conventions again? How would that not be more of a blow to national public trust as well as international public trust regarding America and it's government?

Given we're talking about letting people get away with torture (and murder and rape if we're to believe what news figures and people on the ground in Iraq say)- all this brings me back pointedly to the question that doesn't seem to give in my mind...what is it we're actually trying to preserve in America again?

Because all I see that is left at this point, is not ONE America stripped of it's treasury and industry, but TWO Americas stripped, where there exists a powerful elite who are above the law...and common peasants who are not. Am I blind? Where am I wrong?

American Soldiers responsible for following the orders that they were given go to prison- but we allow the leaders who gave them those illegal orders to go free?

It boggles me that people are not seeing the issue with clarity. Accountability is the problem everywhere- and I thought that was one of Obama's chief campaign pieces.

Again- if Obama allows this unlawful act to go unprosecuted- it is an invitation to anyone who would rise to power to break the law, because it means there IS no law...only unfettered power.

Restoring faith in the rule of law is the new ball we dare not take our eyes off of.

Reader Comments	Comments RSS
Comments are closed for this post.

To prosecute or not... | Report to Admin

By The Bard of Wilmette Jun 18th 2009 at 2:59 pm EDT (Updated Jun 18th 2009 at 2:59 pm EDT)

It appears that Leo and I are having a (hopefully) friendly disagreement regarding the wisdom of prosecutions for torture of suspected terrorists in captivity. As a practical matter, based on presently known information, I believe that prosecutions of Bush and Cheney would never result in any convictions, but would result in their achieving an outrageously undeserved folk hero status. I believe that Bush and Cheney, aided by clever lawyers, would be able to turn the tables completely on the prosecution, in a similar way that disreputable Col. Oliver North did a generation ago. Poorly conceived congressional hearings and criminal prosecutions allowed Col. North to transform himself from criminal to folk hero in just a few days.

Leo writes: "It boggles me that people are not seeing the issue with clarity." With all due respect, I suggest that political reality trumps moral purity. Bush and Cheney may deserve to rot in prison for their misdeeds, but it is not going to happen. The next available option, in my opinion, is eternal disgrace. Do not let Bush and Cheney become martyrs, which will surely happen if they are subjected to criminal prosecution. Let the facts come out, and let Bush and Cheney live out their remaining years in physical comfort, and may they have many years left to ponder how their actions left them generally despised by the historical record.

There is one caveat to all this. I noted above that this is all based on presently known information. If new credible information reveals that they were far more involved in sanctioning torture than what we know now, I would agree with Leo's main point. Unless and until that happens, I favor Bush and Cheney being condemned by the court of public opinion, but I would not pursue them in a court of law. By the way, I do agree with his point about a time limit of 10 or 20 years for sealing the records.

Re: To prosecute or not... | Report to Admin

By Leo Jun 18th 2009 at 5:58 pm EDT (Updated Jun 18th 2009 at 5:58 pm EDT)

Regarding the friendly disagreement between the Bard and myself, Bush and Cheney already enjoy undeserved folk hero status, and within the far right realms, they will always enjoy such status regardless of outcome. That is very well illustrated in regards to G. Gordon Liddy, who unlike Ollie North, was convicted of his crimes, and was still enthusiastically welcomed as a folk hero who enjoys status as a voice of the right wing even today.

As much as the political reality of such experience disgusts me, I feel that I have a clear understanding in that regardless of outcome, ideologues will continue to push their agenda. I would hope, therefore that you would agree with that, which somewhat neutralizes your point regarding Ollie North. In other words- it's going to happen regardless so why fear it as a repercussion?

Regarding the practicality of prosecutions based upon what we now know:

_We KNOW that American soldiers have been charged and convicted and have served prison time for torturing captives

_We KNOW that leading up to those convictions we were told by President Bush and others that those decisions were made by individuals and on several public occasions Bush 'cleared the air' by stating categorically that the US did not approve of torture- that it was clearly against the law

_We KNOW that since that time there has been a steady, frog-boiling pace, at which the President and Vice President have slowly reversed their position on the matter- with a constant emphasis on the legality of authorizing such torture becoming the new issue

_We also know that skids were greased in having legal officials attempt to exempt administration decisions from the Geneva Conventions

IMHO, it seems obvious that even should a conviction prove elusive, the transformation from 'hiding behind a pregnant enlisted soldier following orders' to 'finally admitting that you authorized torture yourselves' would prove shamefully embarrassing at worst and legally damning at best.

The Bard writes: "Do not let Bush and Cheney become martyrs, which will surely happen if they are subjected to criminal prosecution."

Although I respect the Bard's opinion- I find this statement speculative with no basis in fact. Bush/Cheney are already martyrs to those who worship them and this will not change, therefore it can only cloud one's judgement to consider such outcomes in regards to the overall matter.

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.