Tuesday, December 09, 2014

rule of law: pardons for patriots?


NYTimes |  BEFORE President George W. Bush left office, a group of conservatives lobbied the White House to grant pardons to the officials who had planned and authorized the United States torture program. My organization, the American Civil Liberties Union, found the proposal repugnant. Along with eight other human rights groups, we sent a letter to Mr. Bush arguing that granting pardons would undermine the rule of law and prevent Americans from learning what had been done in their names.

But with the impending release of the report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have come to think that President Obama should issue pardons, after all — because it may be the only way to establish, once and for all, that torture is illegal.
That officials at the highest levels of government authorized and ordered torture is not in dispute. Mr. Bush issued a secret order authorizing the C.I.A. to build secret prisons overseas. The C.I.A. requested authority to torture prisoners in those “black sites.” The National Security Council approved the request. And the Justice Department drafted memos providing the brutal program with a veneer of legality.

My organization and others have spent 13 years arguing for accountability for these crimes. We have called for the appointment of a special prosecutor or the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission, or both. But those calls have gone unheeded. And now, many of those responsible for torture can’t be prosecuted because the statute of limitations has run out.

To his credit, Mr. Obama disavowed torture immediately after he took office, and his Justice Department withdrew the memorandums that had provided the foundation for the torture program. In a speech last year at the National Defense University, Mr. Obama said that “we compromised our basic values — by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.”

But neither he nor the Justice Department has shown any appetite for holding anyone accountable. When the department did conduct an investigation, it appeared not to have interviewed any of the prisoners who were tortured. And it repeatedly abused the “state secrets” privilege to derail cases brought by prisoners — including Americans who were tortured as “enemy combatants.”

What is the difference between this — essentially granting tacit pardons for torture — and formally pardoning those who authorized torture? In both cases, those who tortured avoid accountability.

10 comments:

BigDonOne said...

Would be interesting to see how Subrealism's view of torture might change if a family member(s) were to die in some Fuxxlim terrorist plot that could otherwise have been prevented. "A liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet"

John Kurman said...

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/torture-report-dick-cheney-110306.html#.VIci5r522IU

BigDonOne said...

...You need to be creative with techniques, e.g., in full view of all the others, one-by-one you have a semi-nude woman pour pig blood on them and then behead the subject with a dull knife, until the ones who are left start giving you some information you can really use.....

BigDonOne said...

Lot of info out there on the web for knife lethality in proximity to officer with gun/tazer/pepper spray etc.
Officers would have been taking a chance in this case with anything less. http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm



Besides, then you have to support this lowlife street scum murderer for 50 years room/board/medical care and security at taxpayer expense in prison.....

CNu said...

You mean, "rule of law"?

And it's not as if prison industries wouldn't put his pudgy behind to work for the cost of fried baloney sandwiches and no human rights. In any event, if I, as a middle-aged family man, would have no hesitation about taking on this assailant without any of the tactical advantages that each of these overseers enjoyed, then there's no excuse whatsoever for two of them to shoot this guy down in cold blood.

I say this knowing full-well exactly how profoundly dangerous even short fat assailants who may happen to work in a meat packing plant and make several thousand cuts a day - can be with a piece of edged metal. Even young, dumb, and full of cum, I thought twice about taking those fights.

CNu said...

The IQ-75 potus that BD is quoting chapter and verse. Better to hear it directly from the horse's ass itself http://youtu.be/Mp4vLBvU1bA

BigDonOne said...

@CNu..."You mean, 'rule of law'?"

Actually, there are *NO* rules. Judges and government execuives can make any rules they want, whenever they want.....

Up to and including a PissPOTUS http://subrealism.blogspot.com/search?q=piss+potus
who routinely circumvents pesky Constitutional limitations whenever his Fuzzlamic Marxist purposes are suited....

Vic78 said...

What makes you think you aren't one of the slower sheeple? You're under something much worse than the average American. You want to feel safe from the wolves so whatever happens is cool as long as you feel safe.

CNu said...

lol, and wield the "stick of truth"
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/54/3037/1600/Tom_of_Finland_05D2.jpg

Vic78 said...

Damn, you put that boy on front street. He sets himself up for it. As long as he's happy.

In Netanyahu's America, IDF Veterans Get American Veterans' Preferences...,

responsiblestatecraft  |   In what might sound like something out of Louis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, or for the more modern twist...