George Bush in 2003 via The Plank (emphasis added):
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
June 26, 2003STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture
Today, on the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the United States declares its strong solidarity with torture victims across the world. Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere. We are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law.
Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, ratified by the United States and more than 130 other countries since 1984, forbids governments from deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control. Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit. Beating, burning, rape, and electric shock are some of the grisly tools such regimes use to terrorize their own citizens. These despicable crimes cannot be tolerated by a world committed to justice….
The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. I call on all nations to speak out against torture in all its forms and to make ending torture an essential part of their diplomacy. I further urge governments to join America and others in supporting torture victims’ treatment centers, contributing to the UN Fund for the Victims of Torture, and supporting the efforts of non-governmental organizations to end torture and assist its victims.
No people, no matter where they reside, should have to live in fear of their own government. Nowhere should the midnight knock foreshadow a nightmare of state-commissioned crime. The suffering of torture victims must end, and the United States calls on all governments to assume this great mission.
I won’t argue with Bush on this. Let’s begin the investigations and the prosecutions for the torture committed by the Bush administration.
I too would love to see someone(s) investigated, prosecuted, but — I don’t think it’s going to happen, because congress will get dragged through the mud along with the Bush & Cheney and who ever else
Andrew McCarthy, who successfully prosecuted the terrorists behind the first World Trade Center attack, had this to say about waterboading in a recent interview:
(The complete transcript of that interview is here).
It seems such a charade at times: I think Team Bush made sure they were “covered” because they kept Congress informed about what they were doing and why.
Like the vote to authorize force against Iraq, congress “ducked” the issues, I guess thinking that if anything went wrong later, they could always, if no one looked too close, claim innocence and shock, and point the finger at Bush (who’s no longer relevant anyway).
At this point, Congress looks like the savior riding in on the shinny white house, but opps, the bad guys got away, and there is little they can do about it.
It’s almost like a show, put on for us, and “real principles?” Well, those got lost — if they were ever important — in the vast struggle for more and more power in Washington D.C.
This issue will fade away once Congress calculates there’s no more political points to score without starting to turn the spot light on them. I think we’re close to that point.
You and I really care about the principles surrounding torture. To us, it’s serious and important. If only our representatives in Washington D.C. took them as seriously as we do. It’s starting to get hard to even say the word “representative” without rolling one’s eyes.
Former solicitor general Ted Olson was interviewed by the Washington Examiner. He says that following through with investigations and prosecutions is a can of worms for both Congress and Obama:
+———-
As we talked, Olson ticked off what might lie ahead. If there is a 9/11-style commission, prospective members will have to be found, appointed, vetted, cleared of conflicts of interest, given security clearances — and that’s just for the eminences on the panel. Full-time staff will have to be recruited, and they will go through the same sort of scouring. Then commission will have to find office space and a SCIF. (For those unfamiliar with Washington security culture, that’s a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility — a totally sealed room for the handling of the most highly classified information.) There will be hearings, and subpoenas, and witnesses, and draft reports and final reports.
“And then,” Olson added, “if they do that, many people are going to say you can’t stop with John Yoo or Alberto Gonzales. You’re going to have to investigate every member of Congress who was briefed on this, what their notes were, what records they kept, who they talked to. You’re going to have to investigate leaks that implicate the press, who told what to whom. There’s no foreseeable limit to how far they’re going to have to go.”
And that’s before we get to potential prosecutions, separate investigations by various congressional committees, lawsuits in civil courts, bar association probes, and possible legal tribunals around the world.
And then — well, why stop at the memos? “If it’s prosecutable because we waterboarded somebody or deprived him of sleep, what about sending a drone to blow him up without a trial or a hearing?” Olson asked. “What if the person we blew up was carrying a three-year old child? We know things like that have happened. We know innocent people have been killed. We know this administration has done it. Are they going to be prosecuted for that?”
And finally, when everyone is finished investigating, what’s to stop the next president from holding Obama administration officials “accountable” for some “controversial” action?
+————–
what’s to stop the next president from holding Obama administration officials “accountable” for some “controversial” action?
There is danger of that regardless of whether the Bush administration is prosecuted. If the Republicans would impeach Bill Clinton over a blow job (and perjury which hardly rose to the level of an impeachable offense) they could go after Obama, either if the Republicans somehow manage to take control of Congress or in a future presidency.
We can’t control what they might consider “controversial.” The difference here is that we have violations of law which are both real and are significant.
That said, I don’t disagree with your overall argument that such prosecutions will be difficult. I won’t yet say whether they will or will not occur, but if I had to put money on it I would lean towards not occurring. It is also possible that the mood of the country could change more towards prosecution as more and more comes out.
I’ve said before and will continue to say, if there was a significant bi-partisan base of support for such prosecutions to provide political cover that would prevent them from becoming the entire administration agenda then President Obama would prosecute in a heartbeat. Unless/until that happens, he won’t. For precisely the political reasons being discussed. It is a natural outflow of the president’s claims, as a candidate, that he wanted to change the political game. A purely partisan prosecution would be the old game, not a change. Even if might think such a prosecution justified.