The case for investigating the torture of 'detainees' and prosecuting those responsible is clear and irrefutable. Here's U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak in an interview with Glenn Greenwald:
"...whoever practices torture shall be brought before an independent criminal court and be held accountable. That is, the torturer, him or herself, but also those who are ordering torture practices, or in any other way participating in the practice of torture. This is a general obligation, and it applies to everybody; there are no exceptions in the Convention."
Those opposed to "looking backward" call the prosecution of war criminals --e.g. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld-- a political exercise in vengeance. David Broder in today's Oregonian, for example, asks of the Obama administration: "Do they now go back and investigate or indict their predecessors?
No, he says:
"That way, inevitably, lies endless political warfare. It would set the precedent for turning all future policy disagreements into political or criminal vendettas. That way lies untold bitterness -- and injustice."
"Policy disagreements?" No, David Broder. The authorization of torture is no simple policy disagreement. It's a criminal violation of both domestic and international law. The United States is obligated to investigate and then, if evidence of criminal wrongdoing is found, prosecute those responsible.
There is no morally acceptable alternative.
So what's Obama afraid of? The collapse of bipartisanship? What bipartisanship? The Republicans will oppose Obama no matter what he does, so why bother with the charade?
I think the real issue for Obama is the fear of these guys, nominally Democrats, but otherwise quite conservative on most of the issues that matter to Obama (health care is a big one.)
My advice to Obama is to do the right thing. Let the Congressional committees hold their hearings on torture. Let the justice department investigate. If it comes to it, allow without objection the appointment of a special prosecutor.
In other words, Mr. President, take the moral high road. Ignore the 'advice' of the insufferable David Broder*.
*(Glenn Greenwald, who may be the best online columnist/blogger out there, called Broder's op-ed piece a "truly wretched screed":
"The very same pundits and establishment journalists who today are demanding that we forget all about it, not look back, not hold anyone accountable, are the very same people who -- like Broder -- played key roles in hiding, enabling and defending these crimes."
One thing about which the Far-Right (RP) is correct: there's a shitload of hypocrisy going on with the Right (DP).
Obama is guilty of the train of criminality inherited from Bushco as well as of his own crimes in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Choosing to fail to prosecute war criminals ("Looking to the future rather than the past") is another Obama war crime.
"President Obama, by declaring that his administration will protect those who committed or conspired to commit torture despite the U.S. obligation under both domestic and international law to prosecute such individuals, is effectively reaffirming that same interpretation of Executive power adopted under the Bush administration." (Obama, American Ideals, and Torture as ‘a useful tool’)
"The fact is that the president already did incredible damage to the accountability movement, and possibly acted unconstitutionally and in contravention of international law, by publicly—and repeatedly—stating that he will not allow prosecution of the CIA torturers because they were 'in good faith' following evil orders." (A Closer Look at Obama's 'New' Position on Torture Prosecutions)
"Its one thing to anticipate Obama's many nauseating accommodations with - and advance (under new 'liberal' cover) of - Empire and Inequality, Incorporated. It's another thing to watch the worst aspects of the predictable ugliness unfold." (Barack Obama, Torture, and Habeas Corpus: Unsurprised but Shocked Nonetheless)
Posted by: Harry Kershner | April 28, 2009 at 01:22 PM