Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
Thu Mar 27, 2014, 02:40 PM Mar 2014

Obama Reluctance on Bush Prosecutions Affirms Culture of Impunity



Alfred McCoy explained why on Democracy Now, way back on May 1, 2009:



Historian Alfred McCoy: Obama Reluctance on Bush Prosecutions Affirms Culture of Impunity

EXCERPT...

AMY GOODMAN: Well, talk about President Obama’s approach, on the one hand, releasing the torture memos — and I’d like you to respond to specifically what’s in those torture memos —

ALFRED McCOY: Sure.

AMY GOODMAN: — but then saying he will not be holding the interrogators responsible, people involved with it; we have to move forward, not move back.

ALFRED McCOY: Right. That’s exactly how you get impunity. That’s what’s happened every single time in the past. For example, in 1970, the House and Senate of the United States discovered that the Phoenix Program had been engaged in systematic torture, that they had killed through extraditial executions 46,000 South Vietnamese. That’s about the same number of American combat deaths in South Vietnam. Nothing was done. There was no punishment, and the policy of torture continued.

In 1994, for example, the US ratified the Convention Against Torture. There was no investigation of past practice. So, when that ratification went through, it was done in a way that in fact legalized psychological torture, because when we ratified that convention, we also, if you will, passed a reservation, which then got codified into US federal law, Section 2340 of the US Federal Code. In that code, we said that psychological torture, which is actually the main form of torture practiced by the United States since the 1950s, is basically not torture.

And we defined, very cleverly, under that code, what psychological torture is. We simply said it’s four things. It’s extreme physical pain, forced injection of drugs, threats against another, or doing that to a third party. OK? That’s all that psychological torture is. In other words, everything in those torture memos, all those techniques of belly slaps, face slaps, face grabbing, waterboarding, is, under US law, supposedly not torture, because when we — President Clinton ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, he didn’t look into the past, he didn’t discover what the nature of American torture was. And so, we’re now at a moment where if we don’t prosecute or don’t punish or don’t seriously investigate, that this will be repeated again.

Another thing that emerges from the memos is, in fact, that the Bush Justice Department is very well aware. If you read the May 2005 memo by the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Bradbury, he says, “Look, I can’t assure you that waterboarding is not torture. You know, the courts may find that it is torture. But don’t worry about it. Because you know what? The courts aren’t going to rule on this.” So in other words, don’t worry about the law, because the law doesn’t apply to you. The law will not be brought to bear. And that’s the problem of President Obama’s procedure. The men were assured that they could torture, because it wouldn’t come before the courts.

There’s another problem with those memos, as well. Those memos argue again and again that the most extreme of all the authorized CIA techniques, waterboarding, is not torture, because it does not violate that same Section 2340 of US Federal Code. But it does. Waterboarding is the most cruel, the most extremely cruel form of torture known to man, very simply because of this — and people don’t understand, I think, waterboarding. Amy, if you and I were riding in a car, and we went off a bridge in January here in Wisconsin and crashed through the ice and went down to the bottom of the Ohio River, within three minutes you and I would be dead from drowning. If there were an infant in a car seat behind us, that infant could survive for twenty minutes under water. A weak, fragile three-month-old infant could survive twenty minutes under water, be plucked by the rescue crew from the waters and suffer no brain damage, be perfectly fine. Alright? How can this happen? It’s the mammalian diving reflex. The human being is so afraid of death by drowning that we are hardwired into our biology, into our…

JUAN GONZALEZ: I want to —

ALFRED McCOY: — brains with this bizarre mammalian diving reflex. So, therefore, waterboarding, which induces this primal fear of death by drowning, is the most painful form of torture you can concoct. That’s why it’s existed for 500 years.

CONTINUED...

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/1/torture_expert_alfred_mccoy_obama_reluctance



For whatever reason, President Obama has allowed Baby Doc Bush, Sneering Dick Cheney, and their fellow traitors get away with war crimes and who knows what else. McCoy's warned us that it's business-as-usual for Empire and it will happen again -- unless it's punished and those responsible held accountable.

31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obama Reluctance on Bush Prosecutions Affirms Culture of Impunity (Original Post) Octafish Mar 2014 OP
Rumy, Condi, Yoo, Bush, and Cheney laughing Supersedeas Mar 2014 #1
Impunity. Octafish Mar 2014 #7
Octafish provides the Coup de gras Puzzledtraveller Mar 2014 #2
Obama Adviser Cass Sunstein Rejects Prosecution of ''Non-Egregious'' Bush Crimes Octafish Mar 2014 #10
A cycle of criminalizing public service? mindwalker_i Mar 2014 #11
You have to be pretty fucking naive to expect an american president to prosecute CBGLuthier Mar 2014 #3
When did a Republican do something nice for a Democratic president? Octafish Mar 2014 #4
Then they are guilty as well.... TheNutcracker Mar 2014 #5
That is what it really is. TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #17
then go on the nearest streetcorner wearing a sandwich board calling Obama a war criminal. dionysus Apr 2014 #26
I didn't write the penalties or the law, if such was a bridge too far then why ratify? TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #31
So presidents aren't really about "liberty and justice for all" - right? polichick Apr 2014 #27
for some reason, a bunch of DUers think the public would get behind trying the bush admin for war dionysus Apr 2014 #28
Hey, wait a minute. (not really relevant, but still...) postulater Mar 2014 #6
Good catch! I noticed that, too, when I heard it on Democracy Now in 2009. Octafish Mar 2014 #13
We're just a bit defensive here in Wisconsin lately. postulater Mar 2014 #14
Feingold was the only one to vote against USA PATRIOT Act. Octafish Mar 2014 #15
du rec. xchrom Mar 2014 #8
The Wall Street settlements and the new aristocracy Octafish Apr 2014 #29
a two party system...where? Supersedeas Apr 2014 #30
"For whatever reason..." Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2014 #9
The reason is simple..it's so HE won't get held to account for the drones etc after HE leaves office truebrit71 Mar 2014 #12
Orwell got it wrong. Octafish Mar 2014 #16
Excellent post. woo me with science Mar 2014 #24
I was told right here on DU, TWICE yesterday, that there is no way a US President can be prosecuted sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #18
As long as there are two of us... Octafish Mar 2014 #19
Octafish, the feeling is mutual! sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #21
k&r, dammit. johnnyreb Mar 2014 #20
K&R woo me with science Mar 2014 #22
Some days it's easy to imagine living in the Wiemar Republic in 1938...k&r n/t bobthedrummer Mar 2014 #23
A zero-tolerance for IMPUNITY kick. n/t bobthedrummer Apr 2014 #25

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
10. Obama Adviser Cass Sunstein Rejects Prosecution of ''Non-Egregious'' Bush Crimes
Thu Mar 27, 2014, 03:37 PM
Mar 2014

Must be a relatively narrow meaning for what "egregious" means.



Obama Adviser Cass Sunstein Rejects Prosecution of “Non-Egregious” Bush Crimes

by Jonathan Turley
July 21, 2008

With many Democrats still fuming over the refusal of Democratic leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi to allow even impeachment hearings into detailed allegations of crimes by President Bush in office, close Obama adviser (and University of Chicago Law Professor) Cass Sunstein recently rejected the notion of prosecuting Bush officials for crimes such as torture and unlawful surveillance. After Sen. Obama’s unpopular vote on the FISA bill, it has triggered a blogger backlash — raising questions about the commitment of the Democrats to do anything other than taking office and reaping the benefits of power.

The exchange with Sunstein was detailed by The Nation’s Ari Melber. Melber wrote that Sunstein rejected any such prosecution:

Prosecuting government officials risks a “cycle” of criminalizing public service, (Sunstein) argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton — or even the “slight appearance” of it.


Sunstein did add that “egregious crimes should not be ignored,” according to one site, click here. It is entirely unclear what that means since some of us take the views that any crimes committed by the government are egregious. Those non-egregious crimes are precisely what worries many lawyers who were looking for a simple commitment to prosecute crimes committed by the government.

CONTINUED...

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/07/21/obama-adviser-cass-sunstein-rejects-prosecution-of-possible-bush-crimes/



Thank you, Puzzledtraveller! And to think some people wonder why the NSA Hoover could have such a big impact on, ah, who gets impunity.

mindwalker_i

(4,407 posts)
11. A cycle of criminalizing public service?
Thu Mar 27, 2014, 03:53 PM
Mar 2014

Holy shite!

You know what? When public service includes attacking countries to steal their oil for well-connected corporations - using soldiers for corporate profits - then yeah, public service is criminal. When it includes electroshock of "detainees," which is a nice word for people who just got picked up by an occupying force with no due process, then yeah, it's fucking criminal.

And here Issa is digging up dirt on the other party, but we can't go after him because it might send the wrong message. Sometimes I wonder why elected Democrats enjoy punching themselves in the face so much.

CBGLuthier

(12,723 posts)
3. You have to be pretty fucking naive to expect an american president to prosecute
Thu Mar 27, 2014, 02:45 PM
Mar 2014

Like born yesterday naive. Like, what planet are you from, naive? Seriously how can anyone with half a brain expect anything like that to happen?

Ford Pardoned Nixon. American presidents will NEVER hold anyone from a previous administration responsible for anything. Ever. Period.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
4. When did a Republican do something nice for a Democratic president?
Thu Mar 27, 2014, 02:47 PM
Mar 2014

Seems to me, apart from when the Republican Ford pardoned the Republican Nixon, it's the Republicans who disgrace the nation and it's the Democratic followers who let bygones be bygones.

dionysus

(26,467 posts)
26. then go on the nearest streetcorner wearing a sandwich board calling Obama a war criminal.
Wed Apr 2, 2014, 01:13 PM
Apr 2014


but seriously, have you any idea what would happen to the country If we attempted to try bush, cheney, rummy, ect, for treason and war crimes?

the sentence for those crimes is life in prison or execution.

are you naïve enough to think the country will get behind the possibility of executing the former administration?

because if you are, that's just sad.

TheKentuckian

(24,934 posts)
31. I didn't write the penalties or the law, if such was a bridge too far then why ratify?
Wed Apr 2, 2014, 09:35 PM
Apr 2014

Still, the song remains the same however sad it may be to your ears, "looking forward" makes you an accessory after the fact and is a cancer on the rule of law to the point of invalidating the concept.

It certainly saws a high horse down to a nub as far the hectoring and sermonizing leaders around the world for their crimes against humanity no matter how much some folks huff.

dionysus

(26,467 posts)
28. for some reason, a bunch of DUers think the public would get behind trying the bush admin for war
Wed Apr 2, 2014, 01:18 PM
Apr 2014

crimes and treason, stuff for which the penalty is life in prison or execution.... it boggles the mind.

not that they aren't war criminals, mind you, but like you said, the stunning naiveté of people to think
a) it would have public support
b) it wouldn't tear the country apart

just boggles the mind...

postulater

(5,075 posts)
6. Hey, wait a minute. (not really relevant, but still...)
Thu Mar 27, 2014, 03:05 PM
Mar 2014

This guy doesn't know his geography.

Amy, if you and I were riding in a car, and we went off a bridge in January here in Wisconsin and crashed through the ice and went down to the bottom of the Ohio River,


The Ohio River in Wisconsin?

Really?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
13. Good catch! I noticed that, too, when I heard it on Democracy Now in 2009.
Thu Mar 27, 2014, 04:35 PM
Mar 2014

The thing is, McCoy's out of character misstatement did not change the validity of what he said then, since, and before.

postulater

(5,075 posts)
14. We're just a bit defensive here in Wisconsin lately.
Thu Mar 27, 2014, 04:50 PM
Mar 2014

Not every state has a Ryan AND a Walker. Not to mention a McCarthy.

But we have had LaFollette, Gaylord Nelson (Earth Day) and Feingold.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
15. Feingold was the only one to vote against USA PATRIOT Act.
Thu Mar 27, 2014, 05:14 PM
Mar 2014

Wonder what his secret police dossier contained before the election?

On October 1, 2009, the Wisconsin senator issued an additional warning about Section 215 during a Senate Judiciary hearing: "Mr. Chairman, I am also a member of the intelligence Committee. I recall during the debate in 2005 that proponents of Section 215 argued that these authorities had never been misused. They cannot make that statement now. They have been misused. I cannot elaborate here. But I recommend that my colleagues seek more information in a classified setting."


SOURCE: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/russ-feingold-tried-to-warn-us-about-section-215-of-the-patriot-act/276878/

PS: Understand about the ultrakonservativs. I'm next door in Michigan, where we got Gov. Koch-Snyder.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
29. The Wall Street settlements and the new aristocracy
Wed Apr 2, 2014, 02:22 PM
Apr 2014

wsws.org, 2 April 2014

Last week, Bank of America became the latest major financial institution to announce a multi-billion-dollar settlement with US regulators of charges related to the 2008 financial meltdown. In a settlement worked out with the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the bank agreed to pay $5.83 billion in fines and buy back $3.2 billion in mortgage-backed securities from the government-sponsored mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to whom it sold the toxic assets in the run-up to the Wall Street crash. The settlement involves the largest fine levied by a single federal regulator in US history.

The agreement adds to the more than $100 billion in fines that have been levied by US regulators on major American and global banks since the financial crisis, more than half of which has been imposed over the past year.

The record size of the settlements points to the pervasiveness and scale of the criminality of the banks and their top officials. And yet, not a single leading bank executive has been criminally charged.

This is not for lack of evidence. The 2011 reports by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission document in considerable detail the fact that the 2008 crash was triggered by criminal wrongdoing by bank executives. Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said that the committee had found “a financial snake pit rife with greed, conflicts of interest and wrongdoing.”

The most egregious crimes by Wall Street and international banks that have led to financial settlements with US regulators include the following:

* Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase and other banks sold mortgage-backed securities they knew to be virtually worthless, helping to trigger the 2008 crash. Even as the banks were selling these securities to investors, they were making huge profits by betting against the same securities, without telling those to whom they were palming off the securities.

* Major US banks, including Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Bank of America, illegally processed and even forged home mortgage documents in order to more quickly foreclose on the homes of families that had fallen behind on their mortgage payments. The number of people illegally foreclosed on will never be known because the Obama administration put a stop to the tally, but the figure is likely in the millions.

* Nearly all of the major US and international banks manipulated the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), the benchmark global interest rate used to set rates on some $350 trillion in financial assets, including mortgages, credit cards, student loans and bonds. By falsely reporting the interest they paid for loans from other banks, these institutions concealed their losses and increased their profits—at the expense of individual retirees, home and car owners, pension funds and municipalities all over the world.

* Major banks, including JPMorgan and UBS, were key partners in the $65 billion Ponzi scheme operated by Bernard Madoff. Earlier this year, JPMorgan, Madoff’s main banker, agreed to pay $2 billion to settle charges that it knowingly profited from Madoff’s scam. The deal shielded JPMorgan and its CEO, Jamie Dimon, from criminal charges through a “deferred prosecution” provision.


The settlements themselves were worked out between the banks and their regulators so as to have the maximum public relations effect, creating the appearance that the banks were being held accountable while minimizing the financial impact on the companies. The banks write off the fines—many of which are tax deductible—as part of the “cost of doing business.”

Not only have no top bankers been prosecuted, no major US banks have been broken up or nationalized. The big banks have grown even bigger and more powerful and have recovered their previous levels of profitability. Even taking into account the settlements with regulators, the six largest US banks made $76 billion in profits last year, just under the record set in 2006 and eclipsing every other year since 2008.

Wall Street pay, too, has hit record levels. The average bonus payout for Wall Street employees grew by 15 percent in 2013, reaching its highest level since the crash. Last week, both Bank of America and Morgan Stanley announced they were nearly doubling the pay of their respective chief executives for 2013.

SNIP...

The refusal of the government of the United States or that of any other major industrialized country to prosecute the bankers whose illegal operations triggered the crash of 2008 and subsequent global recession, or take any action against the banks that they head, demonstrates that society is once again dominated by a parasitic elite that, like the aristocrats of old, is above the law.

CONTINUED...

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/04/02/pers-a02.html
 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
9. "For whatever reason..."
Thu Mar 27, 2014, 03:35 PM
Mar 2014

Too many complicit/enabling Dems would have been dragged down with Bush Co. in the process. The blame for the Iraq/torture madness is splashed across both Parties.

 

truebrit71

(20,805 posts)
12. The reason is simple..it's so HE won't get held to account for the drones etc after HE leaves office
Thu Mar 27, 2014, 03:56 PM
Mar 2014

....All animals are equal, it's just that some animals are MORE equal than others...

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
16. Orwell got it wrong.
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 06:25 PM
Mar 2014

He was too optimistic in Animal Farm and 1984.

Today we have same fascist authoritarian mindset with supercomputers and drones:
No public investigation. No trial. No jury. Just executioner.



Team Obama's Justification For Killing A 16-Year-Old American In A Drone Strike Is Stunning

MICHAEL KELLEY
Business Insider, OCT. 24, 2012, 2:04

Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to President Obama's reelection campaign, recently became the first person on Team Obama to address the killing of 16-year-old American citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, Conor Friedersdorf of the The Atlantic reports.

Abdulrahman was the son of New Mexico-born cleric and al-Qaeda propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki. Both were killed in separate drone strikes last year.

A reporter asked Gibbs: "Do you think that the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, who was an American citizen, is justifiable?"

Here is Gibbs' answer:

"I'm not going to get into Anwar al-Awlaki's son … I would suggest that you have a far more responsible father if they're truly concerned about the well being of your children. I don't think becoming an al-Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business."


CONTINUED...

http://www.businessinsider.com/alwaki-son-yemen-16-drone-2012-10






Turning Americans into bug splat and worse without trial started under Baby Doc Bush. The fact this "policy" continues under President Obama bothers me.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
18. I was told right here on DU, TWICE yesterday, that there is no way a US President can be prosecuted
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 06:31 PM
Mar 2014

for crimes no matter how egregious.

I thought we were told that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW! And our laws themselves do not put ANYONE, no matter how high the office on such a Royal Pedestal.

But that is the consensus of some who apparently believe that there is no rule of law for elected officials holding high office.

My opinion is the exact opposite. The higher the level of trust invested in an elected official, the higher the standard they should be held to.

But the reality is that the DUer who told me essentially that there is no rule of law for high officials, is sadly correct. We have lost our democracy. How do we get it back? Maybe it's too late.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
21. Octafish, the feeling is mutual!
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 01:12 AM
Mar 2014

And thank you, that gives me hope.

I like the idea of the VLWC.

I am proud, sincerely, to be on your side Octafish.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama Reluctance on Bush ...