The Fate of the Torture Architects

Remove all ads!

Only covering two of them today, starting with the big boy:

#1 Dick Cheney appeared on ABC’s This Week last Sunday, saying “I was a big supporter of waterboarding”. Cheney then went on to explain that Justice Department lawyers had been instructed to write legal opinions to cover the use of this and other torture techniques after the White House had settled on them.

Cheney explained that he used his position within the National Security Council to advocate for the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques. Water boarding was administered only after receiving NSC clearance. Cheney was thus not speaking hypothetically but admitting his involvement in the process that led to decisions to waterboard

Under § 2340A US Code to torture or to conspire to torture is a severe crime. So he essentially taunted Obama, daring him to prosecute him. Sadly, he is probably right in his assessment. I don't see prosecution coming.

#2 And then, there is John Yoo. I just read Michael Isikoff's Newsweek article on the Justice Department's internal Office of Professional Responsibility report on him. Isikoff reports that Yoo was asked by OPR investigators:

That would be collective punishment and a war crime. Yoo thinks the president as commander-in-chief can legally order that. He wasn't asked whether that in his view only applies outside the US or domestically as well. As far as I understand Yoo's views the answer would probably be that that applies domestically as well. The snippet gives an idea on just how extreme the views of John Yoo on presidential authority are, or as Isikoff put it:

It only adds nuance that OPR couldn't access most of Yoo's e-mail records for the investigation, because they had been deleted and were not recoverable.


Now that it is clear that there won't be criminal consequences for the crimes committed by top personnel in the Bush administration, universal jurisdiction kicks in. They can now be prosecuted in every other country on earth, because the US is obviously unwilling to enforce its laws and treaty obligations in this regard.
They are essentially 'vogelfrei', outlaws - as soon as they set foot out of the US they have to expect being arrested and charged with torture and conspiracy to torture. That means for them: No more travelling without consulting a lawyer about extradition treaties and pending prosecutions in their holiday location of choice first.

When I find the time I will add posts on Jay Bybee and the others.

 

Given the obvious political ramifications of a Dick Cheney getting arrested in an EU nation and and being put on trial, how likely do you consider such an event? As much as I'd like to see just this scenario play out, my cynical side tells me that it just isn't that simple.

 

Extremely unlikely, rendered even less likely by Cheney not travelling abroad.

That doesn't mean the hunt is off for less careful lower ranks. They're free game as soon as they leave the US, and there is a fair chance that ongoing prosecutions into torture in other countries will lead to charges being brought against them in countries like Italy, Spain or France. As I said, universal jurisdiction is secondary, and only kicks in after the nation responsible refuses to act. Now that the US demonstrate their unwillingness the other nations are free to act. As for the torture architects, as long as they stay home, the continued unwillingness to prosecute will protect them. But it means they cannot freely travel abroad for the rest of their lives.

 

I wonder. American neo-conservatives would likely pressure any sitting president to put extreme pressure on any nation with the temerity to arrest even a John Yoo or Jay Bybee. The rest of the world knows this, and I wonder how many nations would have the cojones to do it anyway. The USA is hardly the only nation governed by a bunch of pussies...

 

Wasnt there a warrant for Kissinger at one time somewhere where he would be arrested for war crimes if he enterered that country? Some countries are actually no pussies but rather surprisingly crazy. Well, more that judges and lawyers can act without the political government has a say.

 

I seem to remember a Spanish judge calling for the arrest of Cheney. Whether that would happen is another thing entirely... I wouldn't mind - I'd probably find it awesomely ironic that Cheney is arrested in another country after his own is too intimidated to investigate him for what he did - but yeah, I don't see it happening.

 

I don't see it either. As long as Americans are at the top of the food chain that's never going to happen. Joacqin made a point about Kissinger, let me remind you that he got the Nobel Peace Prize (along with Le Duc Tho who didn't accept the award).

 

Unfortunately, the problem is that the US doesn't seem willing to look into the whole deal. If you can't take care of your mess, others probably won't be all that likely to do it for you. Anyway, wasn't Rags' previous signature quote (this world, where reality beats satire) a paraphrase of how one comedian commented Kissinger getting the NPP?

 

How long does Obama have to prosecute? If he starts to straighten the economy and Healthcare out, who's to say the Dems won't start to look into this? Possibly around re-election time.... it would be a rather smart move to sit back and wait as Cheney and others dig their own graves with their big mouths. Bush as always been portrayed as the dumb one of the pair, but when it comes to this subject, he sure seems the smarter of the two these days.

 

Given the modern political climate, I honestly don't think Obama would do anything if one of them were arrested. He may not be willing to initiate the process himself, since that would set a precedent that reduces the power of his office, but I don't think he'd stir up any trouble if a foreign nation did anything. Hell, I'm not even sure he'd do anything if Cheyney were arrested.

That could seriously backfire if it instead reminds the voters that he waited all those years. I think many Dems were expecting an investigation, arrests, and trials right of the bat.

 

This may be one of the silliest threads I've ever seen here in the BoM. It would be an international embarrassment if countries started to arrest other nations politicians and bureaucrats. It would cause major disruptions in trade, nevermind the tit for tat retaliations. I think it is a safe bet that any nation that did such a thing would end up on a "no go" list from the U.S. State Department and that would pretty much end tourism from the U.S. I'm sure customs would end up taxing the living hell out of their products also.

This is nothing more than a fantasy of the Anti-Bush, Anti-Neo-Con crowd.

EDIT: Can you imagine what would happen next when the military got involved in a rescue?

 

Indeed, what an embarrassment, where would we get?

Torture is a crime. Crimes are crimes, even when committed by heads of states or top officials.

 

Silly? Why sure. Just a couple of good ole' boys havin' some fun, ya know, havin' a good time and all, right Snook? And rescue? You mean JAIL BREAK! Sounds more excitin,' and macho, Amercan' like - bustin' Cheney and the boys out of some pansy Euro prison and all. Just for havin' some fun.



Ragusa - Don't be such a square. The Law ain't all that hip ya know.

 

I think Ragusa's point is well made. If we've done it to others, we should expect others to do it to us.

By the way, Chandos, was there supposed to be something in that white square, or was that just some visualization for the 'don't be such a square' bit? If there's an image there, I don't want to miss anything.

 

NOG - It's a video of Elvis singing "Jailhouse Rock." It seems to work OK. Maybe it just needs a few minutes to load for you, NOG. Some of my text is lifted from Elvis' little spoken intro, which helps to frame the post.

 

What you call torture, we prefer to call "enhanced interrogation". Wake me up when we cross the line to "real torture" and by that I mean raping the family of the victim, mutilating people, killing their children, etc. and I'll join you in calling for the prosecution and execution of the parties involved.

Until then, I don't see anything other than the typical complaining and whining I expect to hear from people who politically don't like the players involved. I like to call it the "Code Pink" or "Sheehan" Syndrome. You remember them don't you? They were all the rage and the darlings of the left when Bush was President. Now that Obama is the President, they don't seem to protest as much, and they certainly don't get anywhere near the amount of attention, yet oddly we are still fighting the same wars. Makes you think doesn't it?

 

I call it the "tea party" syndrome.

 

Isn't mutilating someone's genitals real enough? I think that is only part of the "treatment" by the way.

 

This is partisan nonsense and a mere assertion.

There is no basis in law or legal precedent for what you say, and using a euphemism doesn't change that.

For perspective, it is useful to keep in mind that the Gestapo called their way of 'enhanced interrogation' 'Verschärfte Vernehmung', which is an almost literal translation.

At Nuremberg and in the other post-WW-II trials people were sentenced to death for such things. In the Tokyo Trials a Japanese officer was sentenced for iirc thirty years for water boarding one of the Doolitle Raiders. In 1983 the Reagan Justice Department prosecuted a Texas sheriff named Parker for torture; he got sentenced for ten years, his deputies, who pleaded they only followed orders, for four years each. I could go on.


* I keep getting reminded of the famous quote by renowned Wall Street giant Crook J. Graft: "What you call fraud, I call redistribution of wealth!", he quipped at the prosecutor during his trial, adding that he had acted ethically by only ripping off people who, even though not necessarily rich, at least richly deserved it. He was at a loss why he was sentenced to that 113 years term. Aah, nostalgia!

 

Sorry, snook, that's not crossing the line in my book. That's taking a stroll several miles beyond it. The whole "we could do worse / they do worse" argument is fallacious - just because it's less ruthless than mutilation or killing someone's family in front of them doesn't mean it's not torture. After all, while beating someone's limbs to a bloody pulp certainly qualifies as an assault, does it mean that "just" punching their teeth in is not?

So I guess the big question is, where exactly does the line lie? I do remember reading about that case where essentially waterboarding was considered torture after WWII; it was certainly considered "beyond" the line then, and it wasn't for lack of worse examples. I think some of the other "interrogation techniques" used in such settings would probably be beyond it too, no matter how innocently they are named.