Today Glen Greenwald of Salon wrote a passionate post in support of leading a criminal investigation against those at the highest level of the American government who knew about the torture being conducted, in our name, across the world.
He stated quite eloquently that, ” The need for criminal investigations is motivated by one simple, consummately apolitical fact: serious and brutal crimes were committed at the highest levels of the government, ones that left a trail of many victims. A country that purports to live under the rule of law has no choice but to treat its most powerful members who commit serious crimes exactly the same as ordinary citizens who do so.”
Unlike many of my liberal friends I haven’t been as steadfast on the issue as I have been on many other political issues. I’ve waivered. Going back on forth on what constitutes torture and if prosecuting high level officials is actually possible.
Of course I don’t condone torture but like many people my idea of torture revolves around devices, use of electricity and nails etc etc. For the average citizen, myself included, differentiating between roughing up a bad guy and outright torture is extremely, extremely difficult.
And even if we can accept that waterboarding is torture how do you prosecute those at the top who I’m sure have protected themselves against prosecution? Don’t you think Cheney and Rice knew the laws?
Come on now.
And you don’t even have to look too far to see who pays the price for breaking laws and treaties.
Remember Abu Grahib who took the fall there? The foot soldiers. The women and men at the bottom of the ladder were the ones ridiculed and prosecuted when in most cases I believe they were only following orders.
I can honestly tell you that I was not entirely supportive of the idea of prosecuting those soldiers and I believed if anyone should have been prosecuted it shouldn’t have been their commanders but I wasn’t naive enough to believe that was going to happen.
And until yesterday I was in total support of Obama’s policy not to seek criminal charges against those in the Bush administration because selfishly it’s not in the best interests of the Democrats to do so and more importantly the cost the Obama administration would pay, I believed, would be waaaaaaay too high.
How could prosecuting ex Bush officials help us turn around the economy or fix what is going wrong in Afghanistan or bring our troops home from Iraq?
But the more I thought about it the stronger my conclusion became that to not investigate those at the top of the torture pyramid would be tantamount to saying that the law does not apply to them or to those who govern. And it’s my belief that if they are two groups of people within a society who shouldn’t break the law its those who lead and create the laws and those who enforce those laws.
We depend on these men are women to be our leaders and if they don’t follow the law at the times when it is most difficult to do so what does that say to the everyday man or woman who is forced to abide the law even if those laws are against their best interests or the interests of a loved one?
An average citixen is not allowed to break the law and claim moral grounds neither should a leader regardless of their good intentions.
Justifiable illegal acts DO NOT AND CANNOT make those acts legal.
After 911 we were scared. We were suddenly confronted by an enemy that was a lot stronger and more dangerous than we initially thought and many of us including our leaders responded in ways that we now question and many may even have concluded, incorrectly, that some of our laws needed to be broken/bent in order to keep us sage.
However in an effort to protect our nation from the bad guys we shouldn”t have abandoned our morality or disregarded the laws that have made us the nation that we are today.
So we must prosecute those who ordered or sought to legalize torture.
In the beginning these proceeding will be extremely uncomfortable but ultimately we’ll reclaim the moral authority and increase the goodwill we once had in the world and arguably that will reap far more rewards than any information gleaned from a tortured prisoner.
April 24th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
@ blackliberal: Thank you for a very eloquent presentation of the deeply conflicting views many, myself included, have about this issue.
I see it as a spectrum. At one extreme end, ever person who engages in criminal activity must be rooted out, prosecuted and convicted. No amount of government falderol should stand in the way of that. Suppose, for example, a government lawyer knew actions were illegal, but constructed distorted legal briefs to provide the appearance of cover. That person should be prosecuted.
At the other end of the spectrum, there may be those soldiers, and commanders, and Washington analysts, and lawyers, and others who all did their level best to combat terrorism to the fullest extent of the legal boundaries. We are honor-bound to hold them safe from Monday-morning-quarterbacking when the political climate has changed.
I think there is no one answer. I think, like nearly all possible criminal activity, it must be evaluated on a case by case basis. The field commander who exceeded the prescribed authority: criminal. The lawyer who in good faith created a legal basis for an interrogation method: not a criminal.
As in all things, there are shades of gray along this spectrum, and each person’s place on it must be judged independently. That, at the end of the day, is the best reason to open this whole thing to the light of day, and let reasonable judgments prevail. We shouldn’t make a blanket statement that we don’t examine the facts; nor that everyone involved is a criminal.
http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/
April 24th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Wow. How could an obviously intelligent person such as yourself be so completely wrong?
The enemy wasn’t stronger after 9/11. 9/11 happened because Bush told intelligence officials, “Okay, you’ve covered your ass.” When they warned him about the coming attack while he was vacationing in Crawford. Had he simply tightened down security measures well in place, nothing would have happened. Bush dropped the ball. Oops.
What the hell does that have to do with the torture memos you’re talking about? The detainees were getting beat up in an effort to fabricate a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq in the lead-up to the invasion.
It’s got nothing to do with saving lives. FBI interrogators handle getting life-saving information from uncooperative sources quite well, they’ve done it legally for a long, long time.
April 25th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Hi Center Square,
Thanks so much for your comment.
I really appreciate your thoughts and observations, you’ve obviously thought a lot about this issue and like me you seem to see the many shades of gray and complexities involved in this debate.
I do hope, in the longrun, as you said, ‘reasonable judgments prevail’ because that’s the only way we’re ever going to be able to put the past behind us legally and morally.
CS I can’t wait to hear your thoughts on some of my other topics/posts and I will definitely be adding my voice to your blog as well.
Thanks for posting.
April 25th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Hi Sole4Sail,
Thanks for the compliment. Much appreciated and thank you so much for commenting on my post.
Your thoughts and observations were definitely insightful.
You’re right in suggesting that Bush and Bush officials dropped the ball when it came to possibly preventing 911 but are you suggesting that simply tightened down security measures would have prevented 911 from occurring?
I don’t know however, if I agree with your assumption here since the towers had been targeted before in ’93 and yet security measures weren’t tightened enough to prevent 911 or a 911 type attack from happening at some point in the immediate future after that attack these measures were only put in place AFTER we had seen the destruction and terror the enemy was truly capable of.
And in discussing Abu Ghraib, Sole4Sail, I was simply trying to state a the fact that many professionals, the guys and gals at the bottom or the totem pole are often left carrying the water for others at the top who are often the ones in direct control and knowledge of their subordinates activities of their subordinates activities.
Sole4Sail, thanks so much for your comments and please make sure you come back again I would love to hear your thoughts on some of my other topics.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 am
“but ultimately we’ll reclaim the moral authority and increase the goodwill we once had in the world”
I like the way you critically reflect this topic, but the sentence I´ve cited – that is exactly that, what pisses off lots of people in the world and that finally supports violence against all US-related things. The US neither had the moral authority in the world nor will they ever have it. There are lots of truths in the world. The world is not black and white, there´s a lot of gray.
In relation of Afghanistan and Iraq: military action will never defeat civil violence of e.g. car bombers or corruption that is widespread. For such things you police is needed and not military action. The USSR failed in applying military violence against Afghanistan over years and it seems the US have absolutely nothing learned from this lesson. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and now there´s more violence than it was under Saddam Hussein. About 100.000 people have lost their life because of the US. Each killed person produces more hate against the US among the relatives of the killed person. The only way to win Afghanistan and Iraq is to apply peace strategies.
What strange way of thinking is it to send troops wherever things happen not in US-interest? This way of thinking could possibly be supported, amongst others, by the thought the US have the moral authority in the world. Al Quaida is now in Pakistan. So we start military action in this country, too? For future conflicts preventive peace strategies have to be choosen to win the people of the country. A country where injustice occurs has to be freed by its people and not by foreign intruders. For example Iran has to change by its people. We can force those peace processes by supporting the people of the country. Any military action only supports the current leaders. But perhaps this is wanted by some stakeholders, because in the history of the world military action was mostly caused by economic interests.
Thanks for your blog and sharing thoughts!
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Hello Jens,
Thank you so much for your comment and your kind words. I really appreciate it.
Jens, I agree with almost everything in your post but I have a few questions for you…Would you agree with me when I say that preventive peace and conflict resolution strategies, can only work if the national climate is favorable to these types of techniques?
Secondly, if we accept that the climate within this nation is unfavorable to traditional nation building techniques and strategies and that the current conditions present an imminent danger to our security and the security of millions within that society and global societies how do we assist the people in freeing themselves and protect our interests and security without demolishing or significantly reducing the importance of the old institutions without some form of violence?
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
December 4th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Hi,
it´s good to get this reply, because it clearly shows how extremely difficult the topic is. For this reason it´s worth to go into detail and I´ve taken some time for my answer. Probably Iran is the best example to talk about, because it confronts us with exactly the questions you´ve asked. In my eyes there´s no easy and no one and only answer possible. I think many tide of events and facets of the past should be taken into consideration…
- I was not always convinced that military action is pretty much always the wrong choice. For example I´ve thought ten years ago the NATO war against Yugoslavia was right. I can remember I´ve discussed that with a mate during my studies. I was convinced that military action is necessary to stop the murdering. I threw the nazi regime also into discussion. For me as a German I can say one of the best things that could happened to my country is that foreign military forces have defeated the nazi regime. But it´s hard to compare this unbelievable industrialized organized killing of millions of people by a whole nation with today´s conflicts. It´s just not appropriate to play this card when we talk now about Iran.
By the way: one day I´ve heard Tony Blair saying “Schroeder and Fischer have done a well job.” He meant our former chancellor and minister for foreign affairs had prepared the Germans very well to go to war again after WW II. Lots of lies have been produced to legitimate this illegal NATO war. This was when I started changing my opinion.
- When military action is really necessary, like against the nazi regime, then other measures that should have happened before, were not considered and / or failed. I remember that no country has tried to stop Hitler when he annexed Austria or the Czechoslovakia. In parts, the opposite was the case, e.g. US businessmen maintained good relations to Nazi Germany, even during World War II. IBM made excellent gains with the Hollerith punch card system that was used to register the jews, GM and Ford made enormous gains by the German war industry.
Parallels can be found in the history of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict. Formerly the US supported exactly that parties in the 1980´s, on which they´ve declared later the war.
And today? For example the opium poppy production is a main problem, but the US secret service is involved in weapon trade as well as opium poppy production and trade. Parts of the production are transported by US military airplanes out of the country. Since the US invasion the opium poppy production of Afghanistan experiences a gigantic increase.
Look at African parallels. The Africans are not the aggressive people as it is shown on TV sometimes. Again, companies of “western” countries are responsible for wars between the different tribes. They transfer money to certain warlords which protect the interests of the companies and enables them the exploitation of minerals and oil. With the money they receive, the warlords buy weapons and act brutal against other tribes to expand their power.
And Iran? They wouldn´t be able to construct the nuclear bomb when nuclear proliferation, e.g. from Russia, wouldn´t happen.
- When there was reason for military action in Afghanistan, then it was to capture Bin Laden. But that wasn´t done. I´ve just read on November 29th, Rumsfeld didn´t want a massive military operation to get him, only some hundred soldiers were sent to the Tora Bora montain range. This is the reason, Bin Laden could flew to Pakistan and till today he still attracts money and fanatics for his ideas. Forever the failed capture of him will have elementary consequences for the tide of events in relation to the occurence of terror.
- The former German ministre of defense meant, when now the Bundeswehr (German army) withdraws, the Taliban would be right back. So – what the hell the army has changed during the last six years? A German politician have been told by a German army doctor in Afghanistan that he can work best when no soldier is around.
- The Germans caused more or less two World Wars and now they are weapon exporter on third place worldwide.
- During the nazi regime there were different groups, that were in opposition to the nazis. The White Rose (“Weisse Rose”) was a political motivated resistant group. Others, that acted not political motivated, but just hated the uniformed and military orientated HJ (“Hitlerjugend”) and BDM (“Bund Deutscher Maedel”), were the Swing Kids. Unbelievable 42 times single people or groups failed in their try to assassinate Hitler.
The secret service in the former German Democratic Republic, the Stasi (“Staatssicherheit”), couldn´t be a better replacement for the Gestapo (“Geheime Staatspolizei”). The East German people knew why they are frightened of it. Nevertheless – we all know what happened exactly 20 years ago, in 1989. It´s still unbelievable how courageous the people went on the streets facing the dangers they knew very well about.
Look what´s going on in the streets of Teheran. There are lots of people which know what kind of government they have. Mass demonstrations of fanatics seen on TV are always organized by the government and do not represent the whole Iranian nation. During my studies I´ve met two girls from Teheran. Mate, they were like us – they´ve worn jeans, they´ve heard our music and made party with us and they didn´t like their current government!
- The Iranian government has a joker card when they can talk about the crimes against human rights by the Israeli government against Palestinian people. When United Nations resolutions are always blocked by the US veto – that is brilliant for radical islamists. Questions: Why is the Israeli government against international investigations when they have nothing to hide? And why does the US block UN resolutions? Just one more time lobbying makes politics.
Phew. The reason I´ve written all this stuff was to show there is a lot to consider when we search for future solutions:
- when there is no other option and an immediate danger occurs, a very special and selective military operation should be taken into consideration, but this is far away from invading the whole country. And this is always the last and worst option. When there is need for military action, it should be well advised and executed. Today and now we have to work on it to break through the spiral of violence. This could include:
- early acting against first signs of adverse developments
- support oppositional groups with knowledge and money
- no exports of military goods in other countries
- no financing of military goods in other countries
- fight certain business interests
- fight corruption
- fight lobbying
- fight poverty and take care people have access to water, land, education, health
- decrease investments in military expenses, increase expenses in development cooperation (However, not developmenet aid like genetically modified corn from Monsanto, it needs help people can help themselves e.g. with micro credits)
- when “western” companies act in development countries they should be committed and controlled to follow environmental guidelines and compensation measures that also exist in their own country
- because global climate change will worsen limited access to water and land, the environmental issue is a main topic
To answer your questions directly:
1. Yes, I would agree. However, I wouldn´t speak of a necessary “national climate”. I think there´s never a single, uniform one, so that it´s not possible to speak of THE national climate. I rather think it needs at least some people which are willing to listen to another opinion. If it´s the group of lesbian and gay people e.g. in Poland or Russia which face an extreme phobia in the society against them or if it´s the people which demonstrate on the streets in Teheran – I think in each country there´s for sure always a group of oppositional people.
2. This automatically answers also the second question – there´s never a country where all persons have the same opinion, even in the nazi and in the former East German dictatorship were resistant movements. In addition: who tells us about “imminent danger to our security and the security of millions within that society” as you’ve written? The people which told us Saddam Hussein is the most dangerous person after Bin Laden? The people which told us about mass destruction weapons in Iraq? The people which told us about the need of radar and anti-missile system sites in Poland and the Czech Republic against Iranian missiles? The “fear factory” is amazing in producing lies and supporting economic interests.
First of all, it is very interesting to study the Iranian history, especially what role played certain countries in the past of Iran´s history. Futhermore – Ahmadinedschad is a clever guy. He won´t attack a country, because this would be the end of Teheran. He knows that very well. The Middle East conflict plays also a significant role. It supports Ahmadinedschad as well as non governmental terrorists with arguments. For this reason two things are of elementary importance:
- clearance of illegal Israeli settlements
- creation of a Palestinian state
I think today there´s no danger, that one of the “problematic” countries like Pakistan, India, Syria, Lybia, Algeria, Iran or North Korea will attack one of the “western” countries. The problematic countries are probably more afraid to be attacked by the western NATO states. The wars in Iraq and in Yugoslavia are best examples that unfortunately clearly show problematic countries they need the nuclear bomb to avoid military action against them. What we have much more to face today are non governmental individuals and groups of terrorists. To fight them it doesn´t make sense to invade other countries. Otherwise we have to invade at least half a dozen countries. Much work to do! Instead we have to fight the roots and origins of terror. Furthermore we have critically to reflect ourselves whether our political and economic behaviour is counterproductive for peace in the world. This is why I´ve written so much about things in the past. When we use nuclear energy it´s impossible to forbid it in other countries. When we criticize Russian nuclear proliferation to Iran, what about nuclear proliferation from the US to India? Furthermore we increase the danger of terrorist attacks with nuclear material by ourselves e.g. when German and French nuclear waste is stored open air (!) in Russia. I also think we not only have to say good bye to the wish other countries will develop to the same society system we have, but we have to say good bye to the hope that change comes quickly within certain states, too. We have just to realize that other countries will go their own way that is different to ours.