It’s Simple and It’s Mandatory: Prosecute the Bush Administration Torturers

[Vinnie From Indy]

It’s Simple and It’s Mandatory: Prosecute the Bush Administration Torturers

By Fran Quigley

A few weeks ago, I had a dinner discussion with two profoundly frustrated Kenyan attorneys. They were exasperated by the enduring corruption in their home country, including an apparently stolen presidential election and a lack of criminal prosecutions even when elected leaders are connected to massive bribes and organized violence.

I pointed out that the U.S. has its share of official corruption, too. But they refused my empathy. “The difference is that in the U.S., your government officials who break the law pay the price,” one lawyer said. “They are held accountable to the rule of law and they are prosecuted.”

Well, maybe. A bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report recently added to the mountain of evidence that the Bush administration openly defied U.S. and international law by sanctioning the torture of suspects in Guantánamo Bay, Iraq, and in various secret prisons around the world.

But two Obama advisors told the Associated Press that it was unlikely the new Justice Department would bring criminal charges. Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy said prosecutions in the U.S. “are not going to happen.”

The idea is that we need to focus on the enormous challenges posed by the wilting economy, two wars, a dysfunctional health care system, etc. Better to deal with torture by appointing a blue-ribbon commission, which is sure to issue a hand-wringing, toothless scolding, and then move on.

One problem: authorizing torture is a crime. And in the U.S., crimes are supposed to be prosecuted, whether the criminal is a Morgan County meth dealer or the President of the United States.

As President Obama told Senator McCain during the recent campaign, a leader has to be able to multi-task. We can simultaneously fix our economy and prosecute criminal deeds. The unacceptable alternative is to whitewash an ugly episode of executive branch lawlessness, thereby sending a message of impunity to future presidents.

Seasoned interrogators agree that torture is ineffective at obtaining reliable information, and it is clear the Bush-sanctioned brutality has undercut the U.S.’s moral authority on human rights. In my view, therefore, deciding to prosecute would be sound strategy for the Obama administration. Others disagree. But such a policy debate is irrelevant, because prosecuting torturers is not a tactical choice—it is a legal obligation.

By virtue of our agreements to the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture, President Obama is required to bring to justice those who have sponsored torture. The last thing we need is another president choosing not to follow the law when it is inconvenient.

Time and again, the Bush administration claimed a presidential prerogative to ignore existing laws and constitutional checks on power in any time of self-defined crisis. This is a familiar tactic in Kenya, where it is known as the “big man” approach of a leader putting himself above the rule of law.

As my Kenyan colleagues said, there should be no place for that in their country. We need to show there is no place for it in ours, either.


Quigley is an Indianapolis attorney working on local and international poverty issues. This column is online at http://www.indystar.com/article/20090209/OPINION12/902090340/1002/OPINION

Fran Quigley
Indiana-Kenya Partnership/USAID-AMPATH
www.iukenya.org
www.ampathkenya.org

(reprinted with permission)

[democrank]

1. No more excuses.

Prosecute the war criminals.

[mmonk]

2. Thanks for posting.

[ThomWV]

3. Kick and recommend just because the Rule of Law matters

[bdamomma]

4. I think we should e-mail Leahy and Senator Whitehouse

to start investigations, we will never be able to move on or these SOB's will regroup and return to cause more havoc. They are all still out walking around free.

[nichomachus]

5. This is a tough one

On the surface, I totally agree. We have to, for the sake of our national conscience, hold these people accountable.

However -- and this is a big however -- we are at an extremely critical point in the country because of the economy.

If we begin to prosecute Bush & Co., we can expect zero cooperation from the GOP in trying to fix the country. Also, any prosecution will cut deeply into boardrooms across the country -- and they will begin to adopt an extreme defensive, if not offensive, posture.

In short, we can kiss economic recovery goodbye for the next 20 years.

This is the same dilemma FDR faced after Prescott Bush and his friends tried to overthrow the government in 1934. FDR should have hanged all the conspirators, but his hands were tied, because they were the heads of some of the largest corporations in the country. Without corporate cooperation, the New Deal might never have succeeded.

Of course, we're paying the price now for not nipping fascism in the bud then. But, we have the same dilemma --

1. Purge the fascists, but have a depression that lasts 30 years with an incredible amount of misery.

2. Fix the economy, get people back on their feet, back working, back in their homes, but let the fascists slide.

Those are the choices -- and as I said, it's a tough decision.

[windoe]

7. Except that these criminals have OUR MONEY, that we need in order to rebuild our economy.

American people have to sue to get this money back where it belongs, working for us, and to repay damages done. Unless enough representatives do this for us, which would be a fraking miracle.

We need this money now!!

[nichomachus]

8. It's not clear that prosecuting them would get the money back

It's probably gone or well sheltered at this point. You don't think Dick Cheney has his billions of stolen money just sitting in his B of A account, do you. It is in gold in a Swiss vault, and there is no trail to find it.

[jtrockville]

6. and justice for all