Obama defending Rumsfeld's torture.

[garybeck]

I just heard a report on the torture lawsuits against Rumsfeld, on NPR. (3 US citizens are suing him, saying he approved torture on them).

The reporter said that the Obama administration is fighting/arguing against the lawsuits and defending Rumsfeld. Trying to get the lawsuits thrown out, saying Rumsfeld is immune.

I just don't get it.

:shrug:

[hlthe2b]

1. As disappointed & angry as I am that the admin has not prosecuted

Bush* officials for torture, I think this legal stance is pro-forma. I think that the issue is whether or not officials in any Presidential administration have immunity or not. Based on that issue, I think I can understand their stance, but it still pisses me off.

[sabrina 1]

4. No one should have immunity for war crimes, not even a President

(Bush) or VP (Cheney) and definitely not Rumsfeld. If that were the case it would be basically telling people that all you have to do to commit war crimes and get away with it, is to become POTUS or one his/her cabinet members. I don't think that's how it is supposed to work.

[garybeck]

8. Ding Ding Ding! there are limits to immunity. If a person commits murder, rape, torture, ....

there is no immunity.

or at least there shouldn't be any.

[hlthe2b]

16. As I said.. I don't disagree...

Merely stating that this is consistent course of action with Presidents in recent decades-- to protect their power by immunizing the actions of their administration officials.

[sabrina 1]

28. Yes, I see that now, whereas before Democrats took over I thought

they would begin to restore the rule of law. Clearly torture and other war crimes are US policy and until something major happens to change that, those in charge of things will never allow anyone to get close to the WH who is not on board with that. I used to wonder why Obama was so reluctant to discuss this issue, holding war criminals acountable, during the campaign. Now it's all become too, tragically clear. He couldn't stand against it, because if he did, he would have been taken out of the race. That's the reason Hillary had to stumble and stutter when she was asked about torture also. They had to be on board or they would not have had a chance.

Knowing that, all I can say is that once they learned that, if they themselves don't believe it is right, they should have spoken out anyhow and let the people know the truth. It's not worth selling your soul just to be president, unless of course if you don't have one to begin with.

[Octafish]

33. When the top is above the law, there is no top-down corruption.

Which, for law-abiding Americans, is sickening.

[roguevalley]

20. I can't. this is the most unamerican thing done. he's helping them

and he's dirty too. I can hardly stand it anymore.

[AnOhioan]

2. Because it would set a precedent...no President wants that

They don't want their own crimes coming back to haunt them.

[garybeck]

5. oh so they want to make sure that if THEY torture, THEY won't get busted

I understand the need for immunity in many cases. But this is ridiculous. Where do you draw the line? Do you have immunity if you rape someone? Murder?

If they're worried about precedent, they should just make sure they don't do anything as stupid as torturing US citizens and they'll be fine.

[AnOhioan]

9. Agreed

[garybeck]

14. In other words they're saying "screw Justice, I want to live above the law."

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Without having read the pleadings, my guess is

that the administration is defending the lawsuit on the basis of a claim of discretionary immunity of government officials in order to protect that precedent, rather than specifically to defend Rumsfeld or torture. I will try to find the filings on line to see exactly what their legal theory is.

[garybeck]

6. see my post #5.

[sabrina 1]

7. Rather than defending him, Congress should long ago have held

its own hearings on these war crimes. Since the US government has chosen to ignore these crimes, victims are trying to get some justice in other ways. And they won't stop. People do not 'move on' from these kinds of crimes, not until they get some kind of justice. See South America where even decades after the crimes were committed, people never gave up and they are finally getting some justice.

[loyalsister]

10. He defending the country

If he were to validate this, he would essentially be pleading guilty on our behalf. Other countries could pressure the UN to come after us- as a country- for war crimes.
This wasn't individuals making private decisions with public consequences. These things are on all of us, because like it or not, the Bush administration was our voice and our representative on the national stage for 8 yrs.

[garybeck]

13. countries don't get sent to the Hague for committing war crimes. People do.

It's not on us.

[loyalsister]

18. Ask people from Germany

what it means to have your leadership convicted of war crimes. Anti- German sentiments are still present as an undercurrent in stereotypes. Any responsible president would be mindful of those effects. Especially considering that we are not as well liked as some would have us believe.

[garybeck]

24. if you think Obama is doing this to protect you and me,

you're on the wrong track my friend. even if he was, that would not be a good reason to cover up torture.

[Bluebear]

31. +

[EFerrari]

15. Uncle Don is being sued, not the U.S. n/t

[loyalsister]

19. Maybe

but he's being sued for what he did in the context of representing the US. The last thing we want is to see an inevitable "I was following orders" defense. Orders coming from a president we, as a collective, elected.
I didn't vote them in, but they were the administration "representing" my interests in an international context- in a way in which I did not approve.

[TheKentuckian]

25. The violation of that trust is one of his many crimes and defending it just makes it worse.

In fact, it is acting as an accessory after the fact.

[former9thward]

26. The U.S. is being sued. Rumsfeld is named because he was Sec Def.

No is suing Rumsfeld because they thought he personally did it.

[Fearless]

11. Color me unsurprised. The "elite" of this nation must stick together.

[Marr]

12. See how the privileged and powerful defend their class?

They can come right out and say, essentially, 'yeah, we tortured you, plebe-- it's our right'. And people are so conditioned to subservience, to this double standard of violence being acceptable when it comes from the ruling class, that they actually defend it as legally reasonable.

[lovuian]

17. He is defending Rumsfeld torture is his defense against his torture

of Manning

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. There ya go!

And I'm sure we've had many, many, many water-boardings or extraordinary renditions since BO has been Prez. He HAS to defend Rummy. That is SO DAMN SICK.

[indepat]

21. Is America sliding over the precipice from which there is no

return: to wit, is it a renegade state not bound by international law and conventions? :patriot:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

22. Rumsfeld should have been locked up long ago

he should be ashamed of himself but he is a cold-hearted creature.

[autorank]

27. k*r Ola! Gary! I get it

It's been a con job from day one. That's going to take a bit of time, few months, to sink in but it will.

The magic words Geithner and Summers were the give away...

[The Northerner]

29. K&R n/t

[indurancevile]

30. Obama Is Implementing Plans For War Throughout the Middle East Created 10 Years Ago by the Neocons

What explains these widespread wars throughout the Middle East?

As American reporter Gareth Porter reported in 2008:

Three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then-under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith’s recently published account of the Iraq war decisions. Feith’s account further indicates that this aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by military force and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the country’s top military leaders.

Feith’s book, War and Decision, released last month, provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W Bush on September 30, 2001, calling for the administration to focus not on taking down Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network but on the aim of establishing “new regimes” in a series of states…

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/guest-post-obama-is-implementing-plans-for-war-throughout-the-middle-east-created-10-years-ago-by-the-neocons.html

[seabeyond]

32. my favorite, people on both sides using.... it is in the past. let it go. all crime is in the past

in order for it to be a criminal act, has to be done. once done, becomes "in the past"

[hifiguy]

34. The representatives of the war machine/plutocracy

always cover for each other. Clinton did for GHW Bush, as well.

[Honeycombe8]

35. Legal stuff. The White House will almost always defend White House & cabinet decisions...

of the past. To do otherwise would mean that decisions of the current and future WH and cabinet and administration could be constrained and held liable. They almost always do that. It's what the executive branch does.

I don't hold that against him (much). But of course, Obama doesn't directly get involved in lawsuits, so I kinda wonder about the source.