General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama 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 Obamas approach, on the one hand, releasing the torture memos and Id like you to respond to specifically whats 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. Thats exactly how you get impunity. Thats whats 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. Thats 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 its four things. Its extreme physical pain, forced injection of drugs, threats against another, or doing that to a third party. OK? Thats 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 didnt look into the past, he didnt discover what the nature of American torture was. And so, were now at a moment where if we dont prosecute or dont punish or dont 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 cant assure you that waterboarding is not torture. You know, the courts may find that it is torture. But dont worry about it. Because you know what? The courts arent going to rule on this. So in other words, dont worry about the law, because the law doesnt apply to you. The law will not be brought to bear. And thats the problem of President Obamas procedure. The men were assured that they could torture, because it wouldnt come before the courts.
Theres 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 dont 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? Its 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. Thats why its 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.
Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)and as they criticize the President for weakness
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)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. Obamas 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 Nations 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)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)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)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.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)TheKentuckian
(24,934 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)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)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.
polichick
(37,152 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)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)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)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)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)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.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)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 profitsat 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, Madoffs main banker, agreed to pay $2 billion to settle charges that it knowingly profited from Madoffs 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 finesmany of which are tax deductibleas 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
Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)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)....All animals are equal, it's just that some animals are MORE equal than others...
Octafish
(55,745 posts)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.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...we have not lost.
Time for a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy
sabrina 1, you are TOPS! I'm proud to be on your side.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And thank you, that gives me hope.
I like the idea of the VLWC.
I am proud, sincerely, to be on your side Octafish.