Obama: Interrogation prosecution possible – msnbc.com — Does anyone but me think this may be some sort of payback for Cheney’s recent mouthing off? Will anything come of it? I doubt it.
President Barack Obama left the door open Tuesday to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terrorism-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost “our moral bearings” with use of the tactics.
The question of whether to bring charges against those who devised justification for the methods “is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don’t want to prejudge that,” Obama said.
Well, you can’t prosecute those that did things under orders as long as they stayed within those orders. Note the abu ghraib situation.
However, that doesn’t mean you can’t follow the chain of command to the top and then prosecute for a bad decision. That’s what happens to commanders whose people do things under their command.
Most likely it would go to sec defense or some under secretary.
They won’t prosecute them, but they ought to use some of those “enhanced techniques” on the people that ordered it. Might change a few minds.
#1 Sure they can. If they determine that the orders were not legal when given and should have been refused, then they can prosecute. The Civs under federal law, and the military people under the UCMJ.
If the order was illegal, for example killing someone, and you carry it out then you will share culpability. Perhaps in a diminished fashion but still.
I can’t help but think this is a good thing. A very good thing. I listened to what Cheney had to say and this Conservative disagrees with the former VP 100%.
Ok, once again, Bush did not work in the dark, nor did he keep his Democratic counterparts in the dark.
As I have posted already numerous times, Democratic Darlings Nancy Pelosi, John D. Rockefeller, and Bob Graham were all in the know and approved waterboarding before it became politically expedient to pontificate against it..
http://tinyurl.com/2bqjj8
http://tinyurl.com/d4yvc6
This whole prosecute or no prosecute is a tiger with no teeth, good for show but no bite. Queen Nancy will never allow the investigation to go forward, because they, and certainly other leaders of the Democratic party will be caught in the net.
So what is the use of a threat when everyone knows you cannot follow through? – Publicity.
The second link:
http://tinyurl.com/d4yvc6
has a good couple of lines.
“A bipartisan cover-up.
The CIA and Justice Department have announced a joint inquiry, the White House is carrying out an internal probe, and the congressional intelligence committees are pledging to hold hearings. However, the complicity of the entire political establishment ensures that any investigations that are held will be designed to cover up the real extent of criminality. … On CNN’s “Late Edition” program, California Senator Dianne Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, insisted there be no “rush to judgment” … Rockefeller joined Feinstein in rejecting the appointment of a special counsel. He insisted, “I don’t think there’s need for a special counsel, and I don’t think there’s a need for a special commission. It’s the job of the intelligence committees to do that.””
Need I say more!
This is typical of Democrats trying to ‘air out’ their consciences without actually doing anything.
Obama is throwing some verbal meat to the leftwingers, but he doesn’t really mean it 😉
Obama is just like Clinton when it comes to doing some lip service to the fringe but that’s all it is.
The question is was a crime comitted. That is not for any Attorney Gerneal to decide, especially when the very department the President says is to decide was intimately involved. That is the role of the judicairy.
The victims of a crime should have standing to bring charges even if it is too politically uncomfortable for this or any other administration to do. If the argument is that the victim has no standing, then the mask has not just slipped, it is flat gone and the rule of we-will-do-as-we-like, not the rule of law has won. Abd the world will see that.
Many won’t like a trial. People we have been told were out to kill us will be claiming they were badly treated by our government. The larger issue has to do with our government’s obligations under treaty and international law.
Sweeping this under the rug, as the last administration tried to do, or hoping some appointee will simply say there is too little evidence as the current administation seems to hope, won’t do.
The stink of palying fast and loose for the sake of convenience will cost far more than a thorough airing of the facts.
Do I think it will happen? No. Do I think it will be spun as I tried. Sure. The guilty remain unblemished and the adminstration can sy it did what it could. Eveyone is served, except justice.
It has become an international issue. Failing to pursue action against torturers is seen in the eyes of the international community as condoning it.
It turns us into hypocrites WHEN an American servicemen gets captured and tortured.
#8 Scott
Eloquent, and right on target.
Nothing will happen, at least to the ‘top’ people like Cheney.
As usual, all the political elite tend to look after their own, whilst leaving some more junior staff to take the fall.
“Will anything come of it? I doubt it.”
Yes! As long as they have this issue to tangle in front of the public’s nose, they won’t get around to the issue of domestic spying and privacy rights abuses. And the electronic eavesdropping will continue for another term. Because the bureaucracy machine fears the general public’s eventual rise against it. It wants to know when the pitchforks and burning torches are coming after it.
Nice lip service. Let’s see if anything real develops.
Let me see if I got this right, the current president can order the killing of three teenagers [who for all we know hadnt killed anyone]for holding a hostage for ransom.
Yet the previous administration are to be accountable for using less mortal techniques on known terrorist.
No wonder the enemy thinks we lack courage and conviction. They see us – correctly to some extent– as a people that cant deal with real war. We can lob our bombs and missles from a comfortable distance, but cannot look the enemy in the eye and confront them by nessecary means.
Seems to me there is much less collateral damage interogating a high valued person than sending some cruise missle to some far away place. Where some low value foot soldier or civilian might be killed as collateral damage
#14, nice quote straight off of Rush Limbaugh’s script from last Wednesday. I was listening at the time when he said “I don’t know if it’s true but this is what I’m getting” and proceeded to tell the “tale” of the poor little black, Moslem, teenagers in the little teeny boat who just wanted to go home and have supper, and instead were killed. As JCD would say, CRIPES! What a way to stretch the truth to the limits to fit your agenda that NOTHING this President does will he agree with. After bitching & moaning the day before that Obama would never do anything or use force like Bush would to bring the situation to an end.
Those people were killed for hijacking a freighter on the high seas (piracy), coming on board with guns, taking the captain prisoner and holding him at gunpoint for ransom. The end result in my opinion perfectly fit the situation.
As for torture, I am in agreement with some in the notion that while it may not be right, when you are dealing with animals, different techniques might have to be used than when you are dealing with humans. A people who kill children for wanting to marry, cut off limbs for petty offenses, hang people for talking to women in public, and other horrific deeds that have been well documented, are pretty much animals in my opinion. Those animals use torture in their own prisons. I’m not saying it’s right, but we can’t be the only good guys in dealing with those idiots.
Torture is whatever happened under Bush.
Interrogation is what happens under Obama.
Even when it’s exactly the same process.
Just wait and see.
Eventually we’ll see if all of you who are SO concerned about torture (like Andrew “Tortureboy” Sullivan) can bring yourselves to remove a certain President’s member from your throats long enough to admit that nothing will change…except for less record-keeping and more renditions.
About time this idea became mainstream!! How can we ever hope to win back international respect if we do not prosecute our own pols for violations of the Geneva convention and U.S. law regarding torture?
#1 – Jim,
I’d explain to you why “just following orders” is not a valid defense, but don’t want to risk invocation of Godwin’s Law.
Suffice it to say that the very small number of people I’ve known well enough to have the conversation that were in the military agree that illegal orders must not be followed. Even our soldiers are taught that.
So, having the order come from Bush/Cheney/Condi/Rummy does not make it a valid order. Those who committed the crimes should be charged. Those at the top should be charged with even greater crimes for knowingly giving illegal orders to do so.
Perhaps we should have the Bush admin officials do an internal investigation and see if anything turns up.
Does anyone think the CIA or their contractors in other countries had not done this prior to 9/11? I can also guarantee there is no direct paperwork that explicitly ordered it. You write a vague order, and let some overzealous lackey run with it. The law is vague also. It being done out of country, the detainees not POW’s, and some locals paid to do the hands on torture. Torture was not unknown in South Vietnam, under US supervision. This will go no where, there is too much political power in danger.
Doubtful anyone gets ‘prosecuted’ but a few Bush cronies are sweating bullets right now.
At the least, a legacy of disgracing American values is what Cheney and cronies deserve.
Bush escapes the harshest criticism for being a clueless buffoon as to what was going on.
Hey Cheney shut the f#ck up.
Prosecute the attys who formed the legal opinion? And, I was starting to think that this guy had a brain. Oh well.
Alfred – You are a deranged mutherfckr. Threats of unfounded baseless reprisal is a typical right-wingnut tactic. Get the tea-bag out of your mouth so you can hear yourself. You anal-surfing, broad-stanced, airport bathroom perv.
Let’s set a precedent of purging the outgoing members of the previous administration. After eight years of Obama we will want to purge anyone associated with him and this gives us an excuse.
Not to worry. No one is going to try and prosecute. O’Mama is just trying to calm the loony left. If you know any Fed Prosecutors, go ask. He/she will laugh. IF, O’Mama really thinks that he could successfully prosecute the atty’s for the opinions, he’s dumb as a post.
#27 ..The tide is turning dickhead…we’re coming back and this time..blah blah
LOL. Right wingdings like you have not only lost, you are now increasingly irrelevant as the Repug party tries to reinvent itself. Religious wingnuts are as relevant now as the KKK.
Having said that, I’m encouraged that the GOP will return to conservative values free from the cancerous ‘better than thou’ morality pontificates.
Obama pursues this and he is toast. Most Americans agree with the tactics taken by the CIA after 9/11. Remember at the time everyone was sure we were going to be attacked again. There were thoughts the terrorist may have a dirty bomb. If your the president what would you do? Sit back and take the chance thousands of Americans may die in another attack or maybe push interrogation methods to the grey area of what is considered torture to try and obtain whatever info you could. From all reports the info obtained from the so called torture saved possibly thousands of lives. Let’s see the info obtained Obama since you were quick to reveal our tactics to the enemy. Personally I would rather be tortured with a bug than have my head cut off.
#26 Paddy-tr-0-ll,
If you know any Fed Prosecutors …
Now you’re claiming to know federal prosecutors??!!? Or, am I merely misinterpreting this to be a claim on your part? Most people who would say something like this actually are attempting to assert that they know at least one federal prosecutor and have indeed asked. With you, we can be quite confident that such would be an inaccurate statement.
Have you no shame at all about what you post?
BTW, the idea of a federal prosecutor rolling on the floor drooling next to you still does not actually make for a debating tactic.
Perhaps you just meant a local prosecuting attorney fresh out of school who failed to get a better job and had recently eaten laughed when you asked, i.e. literally a fed prosecutor.
# 33 Misanthropic Scott said, “Now you’re claiming to know federal prosecutors?”
Sure, not everyone has spent his/her life in a lowly position, locked in a cubicle coding…
#29 – Dallas,
Having said that, I’m encouraged that the GOP will return to conservative values free from the cancerous ‘better than thou’ morality pontificates.
I am also encouraged by the idea of a Republican party that I can merely dislike with equal fervor to my distaste for the Democratic party instead of hating them with a burning seething fiery passion.
I think this nation would be a lot better off with two parties that are at least reasonable (i.e. only moderately bad) rather than totally off the wall insane maniacs.
Really though, I would love to get the Liberal party back. I hate having to vote for the party that actively killed my party. (No. It wasn’t the repugnicans; it was the democraps who didn’t want the competition and allowed liberal to become a dirty word.)