They Are Telling Us They Will Torture Again

[ProSense]

They Are Telling Us They Will Torture Again

Dick Cheney has said over and over again that he thinks waterboarding should be used again. Believe him, he speaks for many still serving in the CIA.

The Wall Street Journal:

..until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements.

This 'politicizing policy differences' is a direct challenge that forces the opponents of torture to prosecute, because if it stands, we will find torture in our future.

And there is one more thing that should absolutely chill your blood.

Michael Hayden, the former CIA director on Fox News:

At the tactical level, what we have described for our enemies in the midst of a war are the outer limits that any American would ever go to in terms of interrogating an al Qaeda terrorist. That's very valuable information. Now, it doesn't mean we would always go to the outer limits, but it describes the box within which Americans will not go beyond.

Read between the lines. This is the argument that will justify even harsher methods of torture the next time people like him come to power.

Pulling out fingernails, genital shocks, whatever they can come up with, and they will BLAME IT ON LIBERALS; 'They made us use these harsher methods by exposing the techniques we used to use'.

They are digging in to preserve torture for when they return to power. It must not happen.

CIA official: no proof harsh techniques stopped terror attacks

[Avalux]

1. I mentioned the same sentiment the other day -

if these torturers are not held accountable and suffer consequences for their actions, they WILL be back.

And it will be the fault of those who chose not to punish.

[Senator]

2. And Obama Is Doing Nothing To Stop Them.

Cheney is wiping the floor with the neophyte Obama.

They are looking "strong and wrong" while Obama is looking "weak and not-even-right." We've seen how these "optics" play out over time. Contrary to vaunted Conventional DC Wizdumb, it's Obama's weakness on torture that will undermine the rest of his agenda.

Will this DC-Dem "leadership" ever learn?

--

[HopeOverFear]

3. It's not Obama's job to stop them. It's Holder's

Obama did his part, he released the memos. Now it's up to Holder to prosecute.

[Senator]

14. I see. The buck doesn't stop with him.

It's not really his department. Now there's a strong leader, huh?

But beyond that, if it really is "up to Holder," then why was Obama http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53H1Y020090418">immunizing CIA torturers prior to any investigation (illegally)?

Obama has done nothing yet but make matters worse.

--

[stillcool]

17. Don't you know how the law works?

You know investigations.. Poring over evidence. Considering what charges will result in convictions. De-classifying material. I'm so sorry you're disappointed that all of the military personnel who worked in Gitmo, or Abu Ghraib will not be prosecuted for conducting interrogations the way their government told them to.. "Immunizing"..What a joke. It's all about Obama for you isn't it?

[HopeOverFear]

20. Obviously not nt

[Senator]

25. Sure. And I know Obama is violating it.

Immunizing prior to prosecution is no joke. At least not http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53H1Y020090418">outside the DC euphemedia bubble.

And I don't know exactly what evidence needs poring over when the perpetrators are live on TV admitting their acts of atrocity and rationalizing them as "defending the nation." There is no "smoking gun" to even look for.

---

[LooseWilly]

30. Prosecution requires evidence.

Talk on the tv isn't evidence that anyone would want to base an entire case on in court. Further documentary evidence, on the other hand, would do the trick.

Obama has said that it's up to the AG to decide about prosecutions. That is a huge step. It is also exactly as it should be... so in taking that step Obama also begins the process of rehabilitating the DoJ.
I had my doubts, worries, and frets... but the current trajectory of public statements suggests to me that Holder probably has staff examining documents, trying to decide what can be de-classified, but also trying to find documents that will be useful as evidence. I do in fact get the feeling that investigations are coming, and prosecutions will follow. The "look forward" tone of the press releases has been changing to one of "let's look at the evidence and decide based on what we find". I think the proverbial ice is cracking under the feet of the W folks... but legal procedures are, by their very nature, slow moving. All the hindrances have been removed, now it's just time to stand back and let the process move forward.

The immunizations for the on the ground CIA and such like folk is dependent on their not having gone "off the reservation", if they did only what was ok'd by the legal memos that they were legally obligated to adhere to, then not prosecuting them does seem reasonable, maybe not wholly satisfactory, but reasonable. If they decided that the memos meant that they could waterboard someone every 5 hours for a month, they're liable to find themselves being judged as having exceeded even the protections of the bullshit legal memos... and being prosecuted.

Summarily grabbing up all the senior officials involved, and all the mid level officials, and all the ground level employees, tossing them all into prison and making them defend themselves from charges that haven't actually been filed yet would actually be just as morally and legally offensive as what those officials pretty much did. Give it some time. See how it shakes out. If there's no word about investigations and prosecutions a month from now... then you might have grounds to go after Obama's decision making process anew. Until then, a little patience is warranted.

[Senator]

34. Not when you have full confessions.

There is no "trick" left to do. No one is expecting anyone to deny any facts that must be proven. We've had all necessary evidence for years.

The "current trajectory" of Obama's immunizations http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53H1Y020090418">are an additional crime. Should he maintain trajectory, the world may be prosecuting him in 4 or 8 years (he ironically has immunity as a head-of-state).

You see there is no "reservation" on which to torture and there's nothing offensive about enforcing the law. You don't validate the failed Nuremberg "just following orders" defense by adding "four corners" to it. The relatively tiny number of officials involved are easily replaced. All the beltway-based whining and fear-mongering over them is about pensions and careers, not moral or legal reasonableness.

But this isn't about legalisms. It's about Obama's years-long failure to treat atrocities as anything more that political-business-as-usual. His failure to lead on American values or even uphold the treaty obligations that our greater generations fought and died to forge. He simply doesn't consider it to be http://talkingimpeachment.com/blog/Hall-of-Shame-Inductee----Barak-Obama.html">a particularly "grave" matter.

You're free to feel all the cracking ice you like. But since you're making plans for next month, I'm sorry to inform you that Holder has already testified that we won't be hearing from any of his "task forces" until the end of the year, at the earliest. Presumably this time is required to be absolutely certain that he "will not permit the criminalization of policy differences" -- as if torture and war crimes are somehow now a legitimate policy.

So it seems a lot more patience than you're calling for -- and more time behind the wheel of the torture getaway car -- is what Obama and Holder think is warranted.

--

[LooseWilly]

44. What full confessions? Who has "confessed", in the legal sense?

Statements made on Fox News are not admissible in court. There is no way to charge anyone for perjury for lying on Fox News (else the entire on-air staff would be behind bars), and so Cheney et. al. can simply claim that they were employing hyperbole to make their points on air.

The memos are all couched in a patina of legalese, and hence will require some time to craft a strategy to unravel the pseudo-legal opinions under which all this activity took place, before a case ought to be taken into court.

Now that Obama has publically stated that Holder should be the one to make the decision, he's taken the right step. He may not've done as much as you and I would like, or done it as quickly as we'd've liked, but he's moving in the right direction.

The notion that the trials should be starting by the end of next week is rather ridiculous. Even if they did have confessions drawn up and signed and witnessed by an officer of the court, they still would need at least a month to begin the trial.

If it takes more than six months, then I'll get suspicious. Until then, it is only reasonable to let the slow cogs of the justice system grind away...

[Senator]

48. We are not discussing any "legal sense."

We are talking about the president. He is not going to personally prosecute offenders in courtrooms.

Obama has not "publically stated that Holder should be the one to make the decision." He has publicly immunized an entire class of perpetrators -- in violation of international law and our treaty obligations.

As I've said, Holder has already testified that nothing will be happening for at least nine months. But the "slow cogs of justice" have nothing to do with Obama's duty to lead on the war crimes issue politically, and morally.

He's been failing at that for years.

--

[stillcool]

40. Sounds like you want this thing covered up...

after all, if a special prosecutor is appointed now, any new information would be controlled by the Justice Department, and as with all on-going investigations everyone would be mum. You are correct..there is no 'smoking gun'..there is just a shit-load of information and witnesses yet to come out.

[karynnj]

53. He is not immunizing prior to prosecution, he is staying an opinion,

but there is no granting of immunity. (The only way to do that is a pardon for any actions that were done.)

[Senator]

57. I understand that it's just "an opinion"...

...and lacks the force of law (unless he's issue some secret directive).

But I'd suggest that the substance of the statement far outweighs what shorthand description is used.

--

[NYC Liberal]

23. When Bush interfered with the Justice Department, was that not wrong?

It'd be the same thing if Obama did it.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYC Liberal]

28. 4 months in and what did you think would happen in that amount of time?

The federal investigation of Blagojevich took three years and is still ongoing.

there has been no substantive action on torture

You mean, except for http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Ensuring_Lawful_Interrogations/">banning all use of torture on his 2nd day in office?

[Senator]

29. I had no expectations ... for 4 months or even 4 years.

As I've been saying, Obama's failure on this (and the rest of the DC-Dem "leadership") http://talkingimpeachment.com/blog/Hall-of-Shame-Inductee----Barak-Obama.html">has been ongoing for literally years. Obama's treaty-bound duty to report and ACT to stop the ongoing torture and war crimes began the day he became a US Gov't official as a Senator.

But a substantive action is something that actually changes the circumstances of torture victims or perpetrators. None of the "banning" or "closing" has meant anything to detainees -- other than perhaps making their circumstance worse by http://www.pubrecord.org/nationworld/706-obama-admin-reportedly-sending-detainees-to-bagram-instead-of-gitmo.html">transporting them to Bagram.

On the perpetrator front there has actually been a substantive development. Obama has publicly http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53H1Y020090418">joined in the lawlessness by continuing to drive the torture getaway car.

--

[HopeOverFear]

37. No that is NOT what you're saying

You're saying you want Obama to politicize DOJ same as Bush did. What kind of sense does that make?

[mmonk]

21. Holder is part of the executive branch.

[karynnj]

52. True, but the AG is suppose to be independent of the President

He is not the resident's lawyer, but the entire government's.

[Hutzpa]

4. Really!!!!

How so?? What makes you come to that conclusion?? or you just felt like branding him, because your post does not provide any argument but vitriol.

[rasputin1952]

5. Cheney is not "wiping up the floor" as you put it...

quite the opposite. Cheney is one of most despised people in this country, he's actually coming off worse than he ever did before. He's a miscreanmt, and every time he opens his mouth, he is showing all of us just what a little man he truly is. Let him talk, he's as good as a turd on the lawn, no one cares what he has to say...except morans and goomers.

[Senator]

15. This is not about likeability, but accountability.

That turd on the lawn couldn't care less what "all of us" think. He's getting off scot-free with war crimes done in our name and destroying our national reputation.

And all the while laughing at Obama's apparent impotence to do anything about it.

--

[rasputin1952]

18. I would not underestimate the president...

He's one of the smartest men out there, he knows how to delegate. He's not about to dirty his hands with the likes of Cheney. Things will work out fine, he does not have to stoop to Cheney's level. Give this a little time, the wheels are already turning, and the president knows Cheney is hanging himself.

[babylonsister]

24. Thank you. I agree. nt

[Senator]

27. This is not an estimate.

I'm simply describing the reality. You can hope as audaciously as you want that he'll soon redeem http://talkingimpeachment.com/blog/Hall-of-Shame-Inductee----Barak-Obama.html">his years-long failure to take this seriously, but nothing he's done so far indicates that at all.

If there is a wheel turning, you'll have to describe it more specifically.

And FWIW, those who know how to delegate also know when not to delegate. But moral compass for our once-great nation is simply "non-delegatable."

===

[rasputin1952]

33. Let me put it this way, for whatever reason, you appear to be disillusioned

if even on a temporary basis. Neither you, I or anyone else knows what will come of this. Things can change rapidly in the political arena. A lot of that change is based on how much pressure is placed upon those who hold the reigns of power. You could join the tens of thousands who have contacted the White House about this, or you can complain here, the choice is yours.

The president has left a couple of doors open for investigation and charges to be filed. He could have easily issued pardons, (something I'm sure bush and Cheney would appreciate), but he has not, and I don't think he intends to. Personally, I think he is handling this rather well, staying above the fracas and allowing those who are charged with dealing with situation to do their jobs.

This president is a thinking man, as well as politically astute, I am willing to keep pressure on, but I am not ready to condemn him over this. The play is in but it's first act, we shall see where it goes.

[Senator]

35. Not at all. To be disillusioned...

...you have to hold the illusion in the first place. In fact, more disillusion is what is required here or the pressure will be insufficient to change anything.

And I do join the tens of thousands and still "complain here." There is no choice required.

As for issuing pardons, that would at least be a recognition of reality if not an application of justice. (Though I doubt bushcheney would appreciate them at all, as they don't think they need them and would probably publicly reject them.) But Obama is not "staying above the fracas," he is cowering from it. Because it is he who is charged with dealing with this.

What he is is a politician -- nothing more. Some of us have been pressuring him since he failed to stand with the late Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, Rev. Jackson, and Sen. Barbara Boxer against the unlawful Ohio electors. We've tried to http://talkingimpeachment.com/blog/Hall-of-Shame-Inductee----Barak-Obama.html">cure his inexplicable impeachophobia. And stop him from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/22/moveon-obama-must-keep-hi_n_108514.html">immunizing corporate bushcheney co-conspirators.

For others, this seems like a "first act."

--

[rasputin1952]

38. You are entitled to your opinion...

but I believe you shall eventually see that the president will allow this issue to mvoe forward, it is up to the Justice Dept., not the president.

[Senator]

41. As you are entitled to believe what you like...

but if your belief is, as stated, that "the president will allow" what is not up to him; I wouldn't hold out much hope for others to "eventually see" the logic, let alone the leadership, in that course of (non) action.

--

[rasputin1952]

45. I find it difficult to understand how the president is in any way...

at fault? He has left it to the Justice Department to move as they see fit, which is what any president should do.If you fail to see that, take another look...the president does not have to do anything in this case. He "could", but why should he?

[Senator]

56. It may be difficult because...

...you're misstating it. He has not "left it to the Justice Department to move as they see fit." He has pre-immunized an entire class of perpetrators.

Beyond that, he has promised "reflection not retribution" when retribution is what our treaty obligations, our domestic law, http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-26/why-obama-is-in-denial/full/">and our shocked consciences clearly demand. His "looking forward" is simply the age-old, politically expedient euphemism for looking away.

It is a failure worse than the torture and war crimes themselves. Because a few criminals the nation may be able to endure, but a precedent-setting failure of our criminal law enforcement mechanism causes permanent damage.

--

[rasputin1952]

58. The Justice Department has the authority to investigate and

place charges if necessary.

That is the way it has been for a long time. The president does not need to get into the mud with the criminal element.

The president has the power to pardon, not the power to bring charges or persue said charges. He is doing what he is supposed to do, let Justice do the work. As long as the cabal is not pardoned, I have no beef w/him.

[Senator]

59. Trouble is, the treaties require more.

He may well not have the power to pardon, but merely harbor, war criminals.

And his actions have failed to elicit a response from Spain suspending their prosecution. Instead, they have brought an accusation from United Nations' Special Rapporteur on torture.

But perhaps more damaging is that he's dividing Americans like you and me.

--

[LooseWilly]

32. Even the W-ites needed a few months to craft their bullshit legal farces.

Obama is, presumably, expecting "real" law work from the AG. I would assume that the real work will take a couple more months than W's bullshit legal opinions took to draft.

Cheney's probably hoping to sway potential future jurors...

[babylonsister]

7. Neophyte Obama?

He's far and away a better president in less than 100 days than idiot son was in 8 years.

And your perception is wrong. Cheney is digging that hole even deeper.

[Born_A_Truman]

12. In whose eyes? Freerepublic?

:puke:

[Senator]

16. No, in the eyes of the world.

It's the freepers who usually don't care http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53H1Y020090418">what the UN thinks.

---

[dionysus]

55. huffing glue is bad for you.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vaberella]

31. I bless them all the time. They're special. n/t

[karynnj]

51. Not true - Obama has changed the policy and said the US will not torture

and he has the ability to make this stick. Anyone now doing any of these things would be doing it in defiance of the CIC and would very likely face prosecution.

While getting to the truth is important, changing the way we operate is more so and both are more important than punishing the quilty. The latter might be easier after the first two. If the first leads to better relations with the world and if that is seen to have benefits and if the latter makes more people sick at heart about what was done in their name, the people who did it will at least have the consequence that this is a major part of their legacy. (Remember that in late 2003/early 2004, when far more people still were traumatized by 911 and were willing to accept anything that was said to keep us safe, Abu Ghraib shook many people - some of whom still saw it as necessary and a "hard decision" for Bush. (After the election, an in depth newspaper article studying Ohio found that the major factor for many was thinking things like this were needed and believing Kerry would be unwilling to do things like this when Bush would.)

[dionysus]

54. hookay there buddy...

:rofl:

[babylonsister]

6. Damn good thing they won't have the opportunity in the near future.

Maybe we can knock some sense into them in the meantime. We have to.

[phoenixriz]

11. If American does not investigate and prosecute

Manfred Nowak, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, states that the other members of the UN will prosecute at the Hague. He stated that they had information they have gathered through the years since 2002. He will be visiting the US in the coming months.

[G_j]

8. K&R

[grantcart]

9. I think that you are misreading their reactions

"They are digging in to preserve torture for when they return to power. It must not happen."


They have no illusions about returning to power. They can't even get a prime time invitation to their own national convention. They know what is coming. They are praying that all of the video evidence has been destroyed.

Cheney, and the others, prime and only focus, at this point is hoping to have enough impact on public opinion that he doesn't have to spend the rest of his life paying millions to lawyers only to find him in the docket of a trial that is likely to result in incarceration.

He isn't thinking about returning to power, but surviving the coming onslaught. He was Ford's COS (replacing Rumsfield) he saw what happened when Ford pardoned Nixon and knows that the liklihood of his getting a 'get out of jail card' are remote at best.

[ProSense]

10. "They have no illusions about returning to power. "

Ever?

[grantcart]

42. Not Cheney or the older senior officials - they are in pure survival mode

Cheney barely missed serious legal problems with Libby and I think he knows that there are enough sharks in the water that he is going to become a central target.

Remember we aren't the only ones who hated and fought him. There are many administration insiders who also had their careers ruined by this guy and they are waiting for payback.

For the younger generation of neo cons they are plotting to take over the Republican Party. At this point the party is heading for civil war and they want to get in and purify it. In their minds that will eventually lead to a restoration. They weren't even able to have an impact on who the nominee of the party was last time, let alone achieve national success.

[ProSense]

46. I understand that and agree, but

the "they" isn't about specific individuals. It's about the GOP. Whenever America turns a blind eye to holding them fully accountable, they come back empowered and worse than ever. Cheney and Rumsfeld have been hanging around for nearly four decades, since Nixon.

They, the GOP, will take full advantage (as described in the OP) if war crimes aren't prosecuted. Frankly, the country can then collectively hold its head in shame. I really don't see how they can have a war crimes office when the U.S. government is guilty of the same, and willing to look the other way.

[grantcart]

49. All of the other points I agree with

The one point, and it isn't the main point of your OP, that I see differently, is that all of this posturing by Cheney, including sending his daughter out, is one of great desperation.

I think he is very very scared of spending the next few years under the microscope.

He knows that his little hissy fit about Liddy in the end burnt his bridges with GW and his underlings know that he can't deliver on any pardon. The whole country dislikes him and he knows that in the end somebody is going to get tagged.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Bush walk away completely from this and see Cheney take the whole fall because Bush was smarter than we thought and kept up the wall of deniability.

Cheney knows his fingerprints are everywhere.

[KittyWampus]

36. Grantcart, I'd just like to say that I really appreciate your posts. Don't always agree, but you alw

always offer substance.

[grantcart]

43. thank you - your very kind

[cooolandrew]

19. As one reporter said nations that tortured eventually tortured their own people.So, the train has to

stop here it's only a lowering and lowering into debauchery if the brakes don't slam now. It's insanity inducing lure of power, so power must always be contained.

[depakid]

22. Does anyone doubt that in the slightest?

America's a very fearful country- and if these sociopathic folks manipulate the nations's various fears again to gain power, there's not telling what they'll do, especially if no one or very few are held accountable this go round.

[spanone]

39. to frame this as 'policy differences' is ignorant

[winyanstaz]

47. This is not a "policy difference"....this is treason..

because they took an oath to defend the Constitution and uphold the laws..this included the Geneva Convention.

[karynnj]

50. I think a different, in some ways worse, interpretation of Hayden's comment

is that the procedures described are the real "de facto" limit that Americans will go - that the limits in our law are not real, just for show. If this is true, our limits stray into the area that against international law. The Daily Kos post postulates the other, but my concern is based exactly on his words.

His words are why we need a national debate on this initiated by a report from whatever means is used to get the truth of what happened, followed by very clear, unambiguous new policies. I would say they should be codified into law - but the laws that make it illegal were already on the books.