It was reported in the Washington Post that leaked CIA memos confirm Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was informed about the practice of torture being used against detainees. Pelosi, in an interview in February with Rachel Maddow stated that she was only informed that these techniques had been authorized and that she had no knowledge of their use. Curiously she also stated that anything she had been told was covered by national security laws that prevented her from disclosing the details of her briefing.
Pelosi's protestations do not appear to stand up to scrutiny. Why would she have thought that she would be informed that certain methods had been authorized if there were no plans to use them? That now appears to be nothing more than a transparent attempt to cover her own behind. Now it seems abundantly clear that she was informed of the actual torture plans.
More ridiculous is her assertion that national security laws prevented her from disclosing the information to the public. Is it really her assertion that she was obligated to keep anything disclosed to her secret? If she had been told that there was a plan to engage in genocide would she have kept that secret? If she had been told that there was a plan to bomb an American city so that the flames of war could be further whipped, would she have kept that secret?
The answer to the above questions is certainly "No." As a member of Congress her duty is to the nation, not to keeping secret the violation of international agreements that ultimately caused harm to the nation through damaging its' reputation. Her duty to the nation was to inform the citizenry of the great crimes being committed in our name, even if that resulted in her being imprisoned for her actions. Yes, it was her duty, and that of the others who were briefed, to inform the nation as to the violation of our laws. In point of fact, it was only Pelosi and the other three members so briefed, who could have prevented this.
What prevented her from disclosing this information was her fear that the disclosure would be used against her politically. She, and other members of Congress, went along with torture because it was politically expedient. Like many politicians, Pelosi was afraid to challenge anything the Bush (mis)Adminiatration did for fear that they would be accused of being in league with al-Qaeda. It was just this lack of political courage that enabled the most egregious crimes For that, she bears culpability for these actions.
Pelosi has been one of the people standing in the way of investigations into the dirty little secrets of the last administration. Now we know why she seems to be holding up a thorough accounting of the acts of the Bush (mis)Administration. She is afraid her own complicity will be revealed.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Yoo, Bybee, the list goes on. To it we can now add the names of Pelosi (and Rockefeller and on and on). All those who were complicit in these actions, in both parties, must be held accountable. They placed their political careers before the nation and its ideals. At the time at which it mattered most that they fulfill their Constitutional duties, they bowed to pressure and acted primarily in the interests of their own political careers.
Showing posts with label Alberto Gonzalez. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alberto Gonzalez. Show all posts
Friday, May 8, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Es Verdad? Spain Steps Forward
Will there be justice at last? It is being widely reported that Spanish courts are soon to indict former Bush (mis)Administration members, Alberto Gonzalez, John Yoo, David Addington, Douglas Feith, Jay Bybee and William Haynes II for their part in the torture of persons held in U.S. custody. Gonzalo Boye, the lawyer who filed the suit, submitted a complaint on behalf of five Spanish citizens held in Guantanamo. The case is expected to be heard before Baltazar Garzon, the judge who brought the indictments against Pinochet.
There are two great questions lurking beneath the surface in all of this; why a Spanish court and why not Bush and Cheney as well?
The answer to the question of why a Spanish court is apparently because they take allegations of torture and the disregard of treaties seriously. Under international law it is the duty of the nation involved to investigate war crimes. Since it appears that there is no political will in the U.S. to follow through on these obligations, it seems that the Spanish are merely fulfilling their rightful role as a signatory of the Geneva Conventions given that the nation that should lead this prosecution is unwilling. Note that the Geneva Conventions require investigation and prosecution when credible allegations are made. Clearly, that legal hurdle has been surpassed long ago.
The second question, why not Bush and Cheney too, bears more scrutiny. Cheney has come as close to admitting and bragging about torture as it is possible. Bush has long justified any and all of his actions under the guise of his imperial presidency. Their very actions have destroyed the reputation of the country internationally and have sullied the nature of their offices. Their actions in causing an undermining of the protections of the Constitution on U.S. citizens through their wiretap and spying programs likely rise to the level of treason. Their part in the authorization of torture must be investigated if international law has any meaning.
Could it be that the Spanish courts are giving us our chance to get Bush and Cheney ourselves? Or are they bowing to political pressure in leaving them out of this. Americans who are upset by the Spanish taking these actions against members of the Bush (mis)Administration should demand that these actions be taken here. At present, the Spanish have been forced to take the lead. Will we do the right thing and take over as we should have long ago?
One more question: Why is it that right wingers who have cataleptic fits over the "rule of law," always seem to look the other way when it's their political compatriots who are breaking the law?
There are two great questions lurking beneath the surface in all of this; why a Spanish court and why not Bush and Cheney as well?
The answer to the question of why a Spanish court is apparently because they take allegations of torture and the disregard of treaties seriously. Under international law it is the duty of the nation involved to investigate war crimes. Since it appears that there is no political will in the U.S. to follow through on these obligations, it seems that the Spanish are merely fulfilling their rightful role as a signatory of the Geneva Conventions given that the nation that should lead this prosecution is unwilling. Note that the Geneva Conventions require investigation and prosecution when credible allegations are made. Clearly, that legal hurdle has been surpassed long ago.
The second question, why not Bush and Cheney too, bears more scrutiny. Cheney has come as close to admitting and bragging about torture as it is possible. Bush has long justified any and all of his actions under the guise of his imperial presidency. Their very actions have destroyed the reputation of the country internationally and have sullied the nature of their offices. Their actions in causing an undermining of the protections of the Constitution on U.S. citizens through their wiretap and spying programs likely rise to the level of treason. Their part in the authorization of torture must be investigated if international law has any meaning.
Could it be that the Spanish courts are giving us our chance to get Bush and Cheney ourselves? Or are they bowing to political pressure in leaving them out of this. Americans who are upset by the Spanish taking these actions against members of the Bush (mis)Administration should demand that these actions be taken here. At present, the Spanish have been forced to take the lead. Will we do the right thing and take over as we should have long ago?
One more question: Why is it that right wingers who have cataleptic fits over the "rule of law," always seem to look the other way when it's their political compatriots who are breaking the law?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Christmas Deferred
It's January 20th and today I finally find out if I get my Christmas wish. Yes, the excitement of the inauguration of Obama adds a special lustre to the day, but his election was already a done deal by Christmas. For Christmas, I made a wish for the nation.
What I really wanted for Christmas is accountability for the Bush Administration. If I get my wish, as soon as he has taken the oath of office, Obama will order Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a few others (Gonzalez and Yoo, for two) to be immediately taken into custody and tried for their War Crimes against the world and the American people.
Obama has talked a great deal about "moving forward," but I would argue that it will be impossible to move forward until we deal with the sorry spectacle of the past eight years. The election of Obama stunned the world precisely because we lived up to our ideals. In doing that we regained some of the authority we once had in the world.
However, in order to fully regain our moral authority in the world we must clean our own house. We have committed torture, we have engaged in acts that are direct violations of treaties we have signed. We have also admitted it. Cheney even seemed to brag about it. To let it go without prosecution is to make a mockery of our values.
Imagine the reaction of the world should we prosecute these miscreants who have sullied our reputation and made us a lawless and feared pariah on the world stage. Stating that no one is above the law, especially those in government, would allow the U.S. to once again exhibit the ideals that have drawn countless people to our shores.
Over the past eight years this nation has come as close to fascism as I hope it ever gets. If Bush and the rest of his administration is allowed to fade into history without answering for their crimes, we the people, will be the ultimate victims. Our nation will be permanently damaged and the scars will continue to grow as history begins to realize what happened in our country during the Bush II years.
Okay, so I don't really think that Obama will have Bush taken into custody at the inauguration. I will continue to let this Christmas wish be deferred for a little longer. But if we fail to act as a nation, if we do not address the wrongs, the crimes, the evil that has been committed in our name, we will NEVER be a great nation again.
In order to move forward, we must first address the past. If this is allowed to pass, no matter the success of the Obama Administration, we will forever join the list of nations that have sanctioned torture and rationalized war crimes.
In the next few days I will present the case for war crimes trials against the Bush Administration. Further, I will also establish the case for the rest of the world to act against Bush et. al should the U.S. fail to act.
What I really wanted for Christmas is accountability for the Bush Administration. If I get my wish, as soon as he has taken the oath of office, Obama will order Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a few others (Gonzalez and Yoo, for two) to be immediately taken into custody and tried for their War Crimes against the world and the American people.
Obama has talked a great deal about "moving forward," but I would argue that it will be impossible to move forward until we deal with the sorry spectacle of the past eight years. The election of Obama stunned the world precisely because we lived up to our ideals. In doing that we regained some of the authority we once had in the world.
However, in order to fully regain our moral authority in the world we must clean our own house. We have committed torture, we have engaged in acts that are direct violations of treaties we have signed. We have also admitted it. Cheney even seemed to brag about it. To let it go without prosecution is to make a mockery of our values.
Imagine the reaction of the world should we prosecute these miscreants who have sullied our reputation and made us a lawless and feared pariah on the world stage. Stating that no one is above the law, especially those in government, would allow the U.S. to once again exhibit the ideals that have drawn countless people to our shores.
Over the past eight years this nation has come as close to fascism as I hope it ever gets. If Bush and the rest of his administration is allowed to fade into history without answering for their crimes, we the people, will be the ultimate victims. Our nation will be permanently damaged and the scars will continue to grow as history begins to realize what happened in our country during the Bush II years.
Okay, so I don't really think that Obama will have Bush taken into custody at the inauguration. I will continue to let this Christmas wish be deferred for a little longer. But if we fail to act as a nation, if we do not address the wrongs, the crimes, the evil that has been committed in our name, we will NEVER be a great nation again.
In order to move forward, we must first address the past. If this is allowed to pass, no matter the success of the Obama Administration, we will forever join the list of nations that have sanctioned torture and rationalized war crimes.
In the next few days I will present the case for war crimes trials against the Bush Administration. Further, I will also establish the case for the rest of the world to act against Bush et. al should the U.S. fail to act.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Dick Cheney: Werewolf of Wyoming
If you claim that the crime you admit to is not a crime, should that prevent your prosecution? Dick Cheney seems to think so. On the heels of a bipartisan report from the Senate Armed Services Committee that stated that the actions of Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez and Cheney aide David Addington, "led directly" to the violation of laws and treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, most of the named parties attempted to hide behind legal interpretations designed to give cover for torture.
Cheney, give him credit for being so self defined, went one step further, admitting in a televised interview, that he condoned and sanctioned waterboarding. His cavalier attitude in this admission brushes off worldwide condemnation of the practice as torture. In admitting that he not only approved this action, he admitted to a war crime.
Waterboarding has been defined as torture since the time of the Spanish Inquisition, when the practice is reputed to have been developed. Refined over time, the United States actually prosecuted Japanese soldiers for this very action after World War II. During the War Crimes Trials at Nuremberg the defense of "following orders," was no defense at all. What about those giving orders?
If Cheney's seeming claim that nothing is a crime if you don't believe it is, is allowed to stand then every sociopath in prison could claim the same defense.
Therein lies the answer to Cheney's admission. Only a relatively small minority could imagine even attempting to rationalize torture. Only a sociopath could order it. To brag about it puts one in a whole new category.
Cheney, give him credit for being so self defined, went one step further, admitting in a televised interview, that he condoned and sanctioned waterboarding. His cavalier attitude in this admission brushes off worldwide condemnation of the practice as torture. In admitting that he not only approved this action, he admitted to a war crime.
Waterboarding has been defined as torture since the time of the Spanish Inquisition, when the practice is reputed to have been developed. Refined over time, the United States actually prosecuted Japanese soldiers for this very action after World War II. During the War Crimes Trials at Nuremberg the defense of "following orders," was no defense at all. What about those giving orders?
If Cheney's seeming claim that nothing is a crime if you don't believe it is, is allowed to stand then every sociopath in prison could claim the same defense.
Therein lies the answer to Cheney's admission. Only a relatively small minority could imagine even attempting to rationalize torture. Only a sociopath could order it. To brag about it puts one in a whole new category.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
A Good Place to Start
In the first week after his election, advisers for Barack Obama have begun to "leak" his plans to close the disgrace of a prison at Guantanomo Bay. Undoing the damage of the Bush Administration will likely be a challenge that will require supreme efforts by Obama during the next four years. Bush has screwed up so many things it is hard to know where to begin.
Closing the prison at Guantanamo is a good place to start. Guantanamo or "Gitmo," as it has come to be called, is symbolic of the utter disregard for human rights and the rule of law that has pervaded the Bush Administration. Gitmo exists primarily as a means to evade U.S. laws concerning the right to trial and fair treatment, ignore centuries of law going back to the Magna Carta as regards the right of habeas corpus, and to circumvent international law regarding the proper treatment of prisoners and prisoners of war.
When Alberto Gonzalez referred to the Geneva Conventions as "quaint," he effectively exposed the true disdain for human rights that exists within the Bush Administration. Gitmo has been a blemish on our international reputation and a stain on our collective psyche. Too many, especially those within Bush's own party, have failed to question what this aberrant approach to incarceration has inflicted upon the nation. More than any other single issue, the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has sullied our national reputation and made the U.S. appear a hypocrite on the world stage.
As stated, closing this disgrace is a good place to start to regain our standing in the world. Beyond that, it is also a good place to begin to reclaim the values that made this country great. Standing for human rights and justice, fighting tyranny and extending a helping hand to those in need are all values once associated with this country. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has destroyed all of these notions, both at home and abroad. To move forward, Obama must consciously undo the damage done by Bush.
Closing Gitmo is only a start, but a very good one.
Closing the prison at Guantanamo is a good place to start. Guantanamo or "Gitmo," as it has come to be called, is symbolic of the utter disregard for human rights and the rule of law that has pervaded the Bush Administration. Gitmo exists primarily as a means to evade U.S. laws concerning the right to trial and fair treatment, ignore centuries of law going back to the Magna Carta as regards the right of habeas corpus, and to circumvent international law regarding the proper treatment of prisoners and prisoners of war.
When Alberto Gonzalez referred to the Geneva Conventions as "quaint," he effectively exposed the true disdain for human rights that exists within the Bush Administration. Gitmo has been a blemish on our international reputation and a stain on our collective psyche. Too many, especially those within Bush's own party, have failed to question what this aberrant approach to incarceration has inflicted upon the nation. More than any other single issue, the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has sullied our national reputation and made the U.S. appear a hypocrite on the world stage.
As stated, closing this disgrace is a good place to start to regain our standing in the world. Beyond that, it is also a good place to begin to reclaim the values that made this country great. Standing for human rights and justice, fighting tyranny and extending a helping hand to those in need are all values once associated with this country. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has destroyed all of these notions, both at home and abroad. To move forward, Obama must consciously undo the damage done by Bush.
Closing Gitmo is only a start, but a very good one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
