"War Criminal Obama Blocking War Crimes Prosecutions"

 
International Red Cross Defines Bush Interrogations As Torture
 
Published 1, March 16, 2009 by Jonathan Turley at http://jonathanturley.org
 
The International Committee of the Red Cross added its considerable authority and voice to those who have called the Bush interrogation policies torture under international law. Now, Bush officials, bar groups, countless experts, and leading international organizations have all agreed that Bush ran a torture program prohibited under a variety of treaties. Those treaties require the United States to investigate and prosecute such acts as war crimes. Yet, President Barack Obama continues to block any such investigation in flagrant violation of international law.

The International Red Cross is viewed as a definitive voice on such matters and issued a secret report that informed the Bush Administration that what it was doing was torture under international law.

The IRC was given access to 14 of the CIA’s “high-value” detainees after they were transferred in 2006 to Guantanamo Bay. One such detainee was Abu Zubaydah, a Palestinian man who ran Al Qaeda recruitment. Zubaydah said in the weeks after he was captured, he was shackled naked while listening to consistent music or static. He also says he had limited nourishment and was not allowed to sleep.

President Obama has insisted that “no one is above the law” but has refused to allow an investigation into a clear and knowing war crime by his predecessor. Under international law, such obstruction is itself a serious violation. Various senators and Bush officials have stated that, while Obama was pledging to guarantee that no one is above the law in such matters, he and Holder were assuring people privately that there would be no investigations into war crimes, here and here.

There is an obvious belief in the Administration that an investigation of President Bush and his aides would endanger the Democratic hold in Congress and the president reelection. The problem has been the relatively passive role of the mainstream media on the story. There is a clear obligation of the Obama Administration to investigate and prosecute these crimes. Yet, the media has treated this as largely a political story and have rarely raised it with the President or pushed him on how he can say that “no one is above the law” while preventing high-ranking officials from being criminally investigated, let alone prosecuted.

Sen. Kit Bond States That Eric Holder Secured His Vote By Privately Promising Not to Prosecute Any War Crimes

Published 1, January 29, 2009 by Jonathan Turley at http://jonathanturley.org
 
Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond (R., Mo.), the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has told The Washington Times that Eric Holder privately assured him that there would be no prosecution of Bush officials for torture or unlawful acts. The story is reminiscent of last week’s statement by Gen. Michael Hayden that he was assured by President Obama that there would be no investigations or prosecutions allowed for war crimes committed by the Bush Administration. I discussed this story and the recent ACLU demand for the release of the torture and surveillance memos on this segment of Countdown.

Sen. Bond says that Holder secured his vote with the promise and the story has added to concerns by civil libertarians that the Democrats are playing another game of bait and switch on the issue: pretending to consider prosecution while privately assuring Republicans that no one will be held accountable.

While Holder denies the statement (and Obama denies the statement to Hayden), these concerns would be put to rest if the Administration would simply say that any alleged crimes will be investigated and, when the evidence warrants it, any accused criminals will be prosecuted. War crimes are not matters of discretionary politics. The fact that they are still not making that simple statement adds credibility to such accounts.

Gen. Hayden Claims Obama Promised Not To Investigate War Crimes A Month Ago

Published 1, January 18, 2009  by Jonathan Turley at http://jonathanturley.org

Many of us have been alarmed by the obvious effort of the Obama staff to avoid any investigation of confirmed war crimes by the Bush Administration in the torture program. Obama and Attorney General nominee Eric Holder have been suggesting that a war crime investigation would be “uncivil” and “looking backwards.” It has not gone over well since torture is a crime under eight treaties and statutes. Now, General Michael V. Hayden claims that Obama secretly promised him that there would be no war crimes investigation or prosecution in a meeting in Chicago.

Hayden’s role in this growing controversy is particularly distressing for civil libertarians. Not only does it confirm signals coming from the Obama camp since the election, but Hayden has been a particularly dark figure in the unlawful surveillance and torture programs, including statements that have been criticized as knowingly misleading or outright false.

Hayden had a closed door meeting with Obama last month in Chicago. He said Obama made it clear that the Bush Administration and CIA staff have nothing to worry about. “He’s looking forward,” Hayden said, “and that’s very appropriate.” If true, it would be confirmation of a bait-and-switch by the democrats. For years, the Democrats insisted that they could not act on torture until they controlled Congress. Once they were given both houses of Congress, Democrats insisted that they could not do anything without control of the White House. When they won the White House, the Democrats insisted that there was not enough time before Inauguration. Now, they are insisting that they must “look to the future: and notably not to the war crimes in the immediate past.

Democrats believe that they have nothing to gain personally and politically from prosecuting war crimes. They have been trying to sell people on yet another meaningless commission as a substitute for prosecution.

Not surprisingly, Obama aides are denying the story, here.

Of course, there is a very easy way to dispel any such rumors. Obama simply needs to say that any war crimes will be investigated and, if evidence if found of such crimes, prosecuted. That is what it means when Obama and Holder repeatedly say “no one is above the law.” The fact that they have struggled to simply commit themselves to enforce the law is highly worrisome and only serves to confirm the Hayden story.

 
Published 1, January 15, 2009 by Jonathan Turley at http://jonathanturley.org
 
Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. began on a high note this afternoon by acknowledging that waterboarding is torture — an admission that Mukasey refused to make. However, he did not commit to the obvious implication of that statement: he will enforce federal law and international law that makes torture both a crime and a war crime. I discussed the testimony on this segment of Rachel Maddow’s show.

Holder’s statement was refreshingly simple: “Waterboarding is torture.” What followed was not:

“The decisions that were made by a prior administration were difficult ones. It is an easy thing for somebody to look back in hindsight and be critical of the decisions that were made. Having said that, the president-elect and I are both disturbed by what we have seen and what we have heard.”

What precisely does that mean? The decision on war crimes is not a difficult one. The answer is that you cannot order them. Moreover, it is not really important how “disturbed” Barack Obama and Eric Holder may be about a war crime. The question is whether as Attorney General Holder would enforce the law. The Democrats failed to press that point.

The reason that Mukasey stated (rather implausibly) that he did not know what waterboarding was is that he knew an affirmative answer would commit him to enforce. Holder’s statement sets up a simple question. We now know that the Administration accepts decades of cases defining waterboarding as torture. There is no question that torture is a war crime. So, there is the simple question, will Obama and Holder walk away from a known war crime because it is politically inconvenient to prosecute. If so, they have attain little high ground by acknowledging a war crime and then doing nothing to prosecute the war criminals.

For the full story, click here.

Video

‘Waterboarding is torture’
Jan. 15: Eric Holder answers questions from Sen. Patrick Leahy about torture and the right to bear arms.
MSNBC

Obama has described Guantanamo Bay as a “sad chapter in American history.” He plans to issue an executive order calling for the prison to be closed.

Holder echoed that stance Thursday but said shuttering the prison would be difficult and would take time. Many detainees could be transferred to other countries, he said, and some could be charged in U.S. courts. That is a contentious proposal because many oppose the idea of bringing terrorism suspects onto U.S. soil.

“There are possibly many other people who are not going to be able to be tried but who nevertheless are dangerous to this country,” Holder said. “We’re going to have to try to figure out what we do with them.”

Holder promised to be an independent attorney general, telling lawmakers that he did not believe the attorney general’s job was to serve as the president’s lawyer — a frequent criticism of Gonzales’ tenure under President George W. Bush. He also pledged to restore the independence of a Justice Department where Bush administration appointees used political benchmarks when making hiring decisions.

“One of the things I’m going to have to do as attorney general in short order is basically do a damage assessment,” Holder said.

While the GOP was expected to use the confirmation hearing to demonstrate that the party is still relevant despite a Democratic sweep in November, Holder was largely spared any confrontational questions during the morning hours of the daylong hearing.

Law Professors At Northwestern, Houston: Obama Has Duty to Go After War Criminals

Published Friday, 05 December 2008 by Law Professors Anthony D'Amato and Jordan J. Paust

Some on President-elect Barack Obama's team wonder whether he will have the duty to prosecute or extradite persons who are reasonably accused of having committed and abetted war crimes or crimes against humanity during the Bush administration's admitted "program" of "coercive interrogation" and secret detention that was part of a "common, unifying" plan to deny protections under the Geneva Conventions.
 
The short answer is "yes."
Under the U.S. Constitution, the president is expressly and unavoidably bound to faithfully execute the laws, and the Supreme Court has recognized in many cases since the founding of our government that such laws include U.S. treaty law and customary international law. In fact, every relevant federal judicial opinion over the last 200 years has affirmed that all persons within the executive branch are bound by the laws of war, a point famously recognized by President Lincoln's attorney general in 1865. Moreover, Obama has assured the American people that he will work to restore the rule of law and integrity in our government, which have been among clear casualties during the Bush administration's "war" on terror.
 
The 1949 Geneva Civilian Convention, which is considered treaty law of the United States, expressly and unavoidably requires that all parties search for perpetrators of grave breaches of the treaty and bring them "before its own courts" for "effective penal sanctions" or "if it prefers . . . hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party."
 
The obligation is absolute. The United States must either initiate prosecution or extradite to another state. "Grave breaches" of the Convention include "torture or inhuman treatment" and unlawful transfer of a non-prisoner of war from occupied territory.

Similarly, the Convention Against Torture expressly and unavoidably requires that a party to the treaty extradite or "submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution." In 2006, the United Nations Security Council rightly stressed "the responsibility of States to comply with their relevant obligations to end impunity and to prosecute those responsible for war crimes," which include the use of torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. In 2007, the U.N. General Assembly stressed that use of torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment "must be promptly and impartially examined . . . [and] those who encourage, order, tolerate or perpetrate acts of torture must be held responsible and severely punished."
 
Many authoritative reports have already recognized that what we saw in Abu Ghraib photos and waterboarding, the cold cell, stripping persons naked and use of snarling dogs to instill intense fear are torture. If they were not, they are also cruel treatment. If they were not, they constitute inhumane treatment. As such, they are manifest violations of the laws of war and any violation of the laws of war is a war crime.
 
Some have argued that a Department of Justice memo is a "golden shield" for alleged perpetrators of manifestly criminal behavior.
 
However, the shield is made of fool's gold and is full of holes. For example, orders or authorizations to engage in interrogation tactics that will manifestly produce what the community will judge to be torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment are orders or authorizations to engage in conduct that is manifestly illegal whether or not the criminal accused knows that the conduct is illegal or knows that the conduct is torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading. Manifestly unlawful orders or authorizations are not a defense. A U.S. Department of the Army Field Manual notes that an order does not constitute a defense for the recipient "unless he did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the act ordered was unlawful." Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Convention Against Torture states: "An order . . . may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
 
It is time for real change in America. It is time for restoration of the rule of law, an end to seven years of impunity, and restoration of American honor, integrity, and respect within the international community. This can only be accomplished with presidential adherence to an unavoidable constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law.