Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

WTF? Newsweek Says We Should Pardon Officials Who Sanctioned Torture

Posted by Brad , Sadly, No! at 1:04 PM on July 16, 2008.


The pardons recommended in Stuart Taylor Jr.'s Newsweek article are absurd and, you know, illegal.
images1

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get War on Iraq in your
mailbox!

 

So I tried to escape the toxic levels of wingnuttery this evening by flipping through my roommate's copy of Newsweek. Amazingly, I flipped to page 36 and found this:

The Truth About Torture

To get a full accounting of how U.S. interrogation methods were used, the president should give those accused of 'war crimes' a pass.

By Stuart Taylor Jr. | NEWSWEEK

Dark deeds have been conducted in the name of the United States government in recent years: the gruesome, late-night circus at Abu Ghraib, the beating to death of captives in Afghanistan, and the officially sanctioned waterboarding and brutalization of high-value Qaeda prisoners. Now demands are growing for senior administration officials to be held accountable and punished. Congressional liberals, human-rights groups and other activists are urging a criminal investigation into high-level "war crimes," including the Bush administration's approval of interrogation methods considered by many to be torture.

It's a bad idea. In fact, President George W. Bush ought to pardon any official from cabinet secretary on down who might plausibly face prosecution for interrogation methods approved by administration lawyers.

Question: why did we ever develop the Geneva Conventions in the first place? Why does the Constitution ban cruel and unusual punishment? Hell, for that matter, why did we ever sign the goddamn Magna Carta*? Because what Stuart Taylor, Jr. is telling us is that government officials should simply be able to break the fucking law. And not just the laws against lying about blowjobs under oath -- we're talking about laws against goddamn torture. We're talking about laws that for years have prohibited the government from performing cruel and heinous acts on prisoners. This is important shit. But to Stuart Taylor? Pfffffft, yeah it's bad, but so what? We'll only learn the truth about this stuff if we just pardon everyone beforehand. Because fuck it, laws are only meant to be obeyed by the little people.

The reason for pardons is simple: what this country needs most is a full and true accounting of what took place. The incoming president should convene a truth commission, with subpoena power, to explore every possible misdeed and derive lessons from it. But this should not be a criminal investigation, which would only force officials to hire lawyers and batten down the hatches.

Yeah, I'm sure Gonzo, Addington and Yoo will be totally willing to tell you the truth about everything if you just promise them that we'll throw the whole concept of justice down the shitter just to keep them feeling comfortable.

Pardons would further a truth commission's most important goals: to uncover all important facts, identify innocent victims to be compensated, foster a serious conversation about what U.S. interrogation rules should be, recommend legal reforms, pave the way for appropriate apologies and restore America's good name.

If America preemptively pardons people who sanctioned torture, we will never restore our "good name." We will rightly be seen around the world as a lawless torture state.

The goals should not include wrecking the lives of men and women who made grievous mistakes while doing dirty work -- work they had been advised by administration lawyers was legal, and which they believed was necessary to prevent terrorist mass murder.

It's not like people who engaged in torture ever ruined anyone else's life, after all.

A criminal investigation would only hinder efforts to determine the truth, and preclude any apologies. It would spur those who know the most to take the Fifth. Any prosecutions would also touch off years of partisan warfare.

And this, my friends, is the absolute nightmare of the Village Mindset: years of partisan warfare. Why do evil people like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney feel they can simply break the law with reckless abandon? Because they know that modern American political culture simply does not believe in accountability for its political class. They know that in the end, they're part of the same Villager club of Special People who are too powerful and too privileged to ever face any consequences for their actions. Prosecute government officials for state-sanctioned torture?? How uncouth!

The lesson for occupants of the toughest government jobs -- if the next administration could find people willing to fill them -- would be that saving innocent lives is less important than covering their posteriors. Any hope of a civil conversation about lessons we need to learn would be dead.

Ah yes, another great Village trait: the need for civil discussions about supremely uncivil acts! This is what civility looks like:

Ditto this:

And, and, and:

Gee, I'd hate for anyone's lives to be ruined over sanctioning this shit! How uncomfortably partisan that would be! Instead, let's all sit down and have a pow-wow and politely ask administration officials to please, super-super-please tell us what torture methods they sanctioned. With sugar on top and shit.

Pardons would not be favors to criminals. One can argue that officials could have or should have resigned rather than implement questionable legal judgments, but there is no evidence that any high-level official acted with criminal intent.

Nope no criminal intent. Torture has been so clearly legal forever.

The officials involved appear to have approved only interrogation methods found legal by administration lawyers, and in particular by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). According to long tradition, the OLC is considered a sort of Supreme Court of the executive branch.

This is amazing. Taylor is saying that the OLC can simply pick and choose which laws it wants the president and his advisers to obey. Why did we ever overthrow fucking King George again? Shit, at least he had the Magna Carta to sorta keep him in check.

Those who have called for criminal investigations will not be easily persuaded otherwise. They include nearly 60 House Democrats and retired Maj. Gen. Anthony Taguba, who headed the Army's investigation into the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. Retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to the then Secretary of State Colin Powell, has suggested that administration lawyers could be prosecuted in a foreign court (even though his old boss could find himself vulnerable as well). Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan told ABC News that he now thinks the administration has engaged in torture.

So: people who support war crimes prosecutions include several elected officials, plus retired military men and Bush's own fucking ex-spokesman. But really, they all can be dismissed as fringe left-wing wackos.

Of course, if he carries out pardons, Bush will be attacked for cronyism and accused of a cover-up. But one of the main beneficiaries would be the next president. Absent pardons, pressure to go after GOP "war criminals" would make it very hard to unite Americans of all stripes behind solutions to the many economic and social challenges facing the country. No new president -- especially if he turns out to be Barack Obama, who has made such a point of getting beyond partisan bickering -- needs that.

The sad thing is: I know Obama will do exactly as Taylor recommends. Except he won't even bother to set up the fucking bogus-assed truth commission. Just sweep this shit under the rug and enjoy his newfound powers to issue warrantless wiretaps and torture orders. Oh, and be sure to give special immunity to people like Nancy Pelosi and Jay Rockfeller, who should also be tossed in the Hague for being complicit in all this bullshit. This isn't about partisanship, peeps -- it's about restricting the ability of our political class to behave in the most reckless and lawless ways imagineable. If we don't want to degenerate into a damn banana republic, we have to demonstrate that we won't let our most powerful politicians get away with breaking the laws they've sworn to uphold. Stuart Taylor, you can bite me.

*My Anglo-Saxon origins betray me -- I forget that the vast majority of people in this country are not pure-bred WASPs. So when I say "we" in this instance, I'm referring to my inbred English relatives. Does that sassify the nitpick brigade?


Bush's White House Spying on Iraqi Prime Minister
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino wants to make it clear, the White House IS NOT denying spying on Maliki.
Post by Amanda. September 5, 2008.
U.S. Troops Kill Six Iraqi Security Forces
The military says it was a case of "mistaken fire."
Post by Staff. September 4, 2008.
Abu Ghraib's Torture Museum = Pure Propaganda
The Iraqi government's plan to reopen Abu Ghraib, including a museum of crimes committed under Saddam is revisionist history.
Post by Fatih Abdulsalam. September 4, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Torture Is Evil
Posted by: QQOblivion on Jul 16, 2008 1:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know what would happen to any random Very UNimportant Person who kidnapped someone outside the law, then tortured that person? That torturer would be in deep trouble. He might even get the death penalty, especially if the person he tortured ended up dying. (And we should all know by now that some "war on terror" detainees have died as a result of their being tortured.)

Remember when Karl Rove said after 9-11, "while conservatives prepared for war, liberals offered understanding and therapy to our attackers."?
Well, I tell you, if someone tortured ME, I wouldn't do what Newsweek seems to be suggesting. I wouldn't exactly offer understanding and therapy to my attackers.

Torture is evil, VERY evil. It is second only to outright murder as a crime against someone's physical being -- It may even by more evil than murder in some cases because the victim wants so bad to die in order to make the torment stop. Those who engaged in torture are evil monsters, pure and simple. And those who are complicit in the torture by offering amnesty or excuses for the torture are just as monstrous.
Damn them. Literally damn them. And damn us if we let the torturers get away with their most evil of crimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

oldfreedomdude2
Posted by: oldfreedomdude2 on Jul 16, 2008 1:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then why not pardon all the people in Guantanamo? If we did that, they would have the incentive to tell everything they know.

Actually, if anyone deserves torture it is not the people that have been held in Guantanamo, especially, when there is no credible evidence against 99% of them, it is the all people who perpetrated those crimes against humanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wonder...
Posted by: shermhead on Jul 16, 2008 2:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if Stuart Taylor, Jr. would be so fired up about pardoning war criminals if he or some male family member or friend had ever had his balls punched while being suspended from the rafters by his arms with electrical wires attached to his genitalia with current running through it. Or if his female family members or friends were raped in order to extract information or false confessions from them. Somehow I don't think the torture apologists like John Yoo, Stuart Taylor, Jr., Adam Dershowitz, et al, would lasted half the time Christopher Hitchens did when he discovered that yes, Virginia, waterboarding is torture.

These people are as bad as the torturers themselves, they just don't have the spine to do the dirty work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let the punishment fit the crime...
Posted by: Crazy H on Jul 16, 2008 2:40 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and apply a little recreational waterboarding to those who think it's acceptable. How could they complain?

Maybe we could even throw in a few questions while we're at it.

"When did you decide to invade Iraq?"

"Why did you invade Iraq?"

"Who was in on Cheney's Energy Task Farce?"

"Who are you working for?"

"If it takes a day and a half for a hen and a half to lay an egg and a half, how many pancakes does it take to shingle a doghouse?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Newsweek
Posted by: Dboy on Jul 16, 2008 9:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wikipedia refers to Stuart Taylor Jr as a "torture apologist", and judging by the rest of the Wiki I'd say whoever wrote it must be an Alternet reader. Well done!

I would not have titled this as "Newsweeks says...". Stuart Taylor is Senior Fellow at Brookings Institution, a fake-left think tank that has been historically friendly towards Bush and his den of thieves.

Likely this article was put out to test the waters for future gambits that may be used to defend various people within the government who are guilty of war-crimes; standard think-tank game of testing the waters.

dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Newsweek Posted by: Quannah
STOP changing the law after the crime!!!
Posted by: CTvoter on Jul 16, 2008 10:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have laws. We live by the laws. If we break the laws, we pay the penalty. They broke the laws; they pay the penalty. Just because THEY don't recognize the International Criminal Court, does not mean that WE do not recognize it. They pay the penalty. 01-20-09. Period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

At least the comments weren't evil
Posted by: Beagle17 on Jul 17, 2008 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No surprise really, but it's worth mentioning that generally all the comments under the piece-of-shit showed some sane reaction to it.

My favorite was this one:

Posted By: spinozista @ 07/16/2008 5:13:48 PM

Comment: You know, you would think that you can find a lot of actually evil things in print all the time and all over the place these days. But it's only when you happen to come across the real thing that you're surprised to learn that that's not so. And then you really see the difference.

This article is actual evil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dr. No
Posted by: graywolf83 on Jul 17, 2008 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pardons for high officials who commit crimes has been the standard procedure of corrupt and some not so corrupt governments throughout history. The quid pro quo of course is that if you pardon your co-criminals and predecessors you can expect the same favor when it's your turn to face the music.

None of the most vile criminals in the Bush administration, including the chief crimminal himself, will ever be charged, much less tried and convicted for their crimes. And in the highly unlikely event one or two of the lower echelon "yes" men be charged, tried and convicted, for show, they know to expect the same consideration given Mr. Libby.

Just say no to pardons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Study history or repeat it
Posted by: oldwoman on Jul 17, 2008 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has Stuart Taylor, Jr.--or any of the bush administration sociopaths and apologists--ever heard of Nuremburg or the internationally accepted dictum arising therefrom that just following orders is not an acceptable plea in arguing lack of responsibility?

Actually, has Congress ever heard of it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Deb
Posted by: debmcd on Jul 17, 2008 10:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't need a truth commission. We already know that the whole damn administration signed off on torture. They should be tried and put away in a nice dark place since they seem to like darkness. And what is this crap about giving them immunity so appologies can be made. Yeah right, I'm sorry for ruining your life and your health and your family. Gee, my bad. That'll make every thing alright. This Taylor guy should be run out of town on a rail. Has he been hired as an appologist for the Administration, because there is absolutely nothing any of them can say to make this better or to make it go away. Too many people's lives were taken by Bush. He has too much blood on his hands to ever wash off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Deb Posted by: Quannah
Karl Rove...
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Jul 17, 2008 1:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...was so worried about the subpoena that Rep. John Conyers, head of the Judiciary Committee, threatened him with if he didn't show up in front of Congress to spill all, that he has left the building.

That's right. Rove skipped out on or about the 10th of July. Of course, Rupert Murdoch's MSM couldn't be bothered to tell us anything so im-portant--what with the REAL news of the day, some starlet's increase in tit size and the Brangelina twins' baptism...the Architect's criminal flouting of a Congressional subpoena, and skipping out on same, is so much LESS interesting than all that, right?

But that doesn't mean that he's home free. We--unlike Nazi Germany right after WWII--DO have extradition treaties with most South American countries. And barring that, the World Court (which is now asking us to release two Mexican murderers of our young girls) could maybe show some good faith and join with InterPol to get this slob back in front of Conyer's Committee.

Otherwise the rest of the world can go whistle. If the rest of the planet doesn't understand that most of us have been a captive nation for the past 8 years, and we're only asking them to help us find the ArchCriminal who helped craft it all--well, that's their loss.

Thanks, AlterNet, for posting that bit of REAL News a couple days ago. How the hell you found out, I'll never know, LOL!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Speaking as a non-American
Posted by: Seranvali on Jul 17, 2008 5:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm speaking as non-American here. If you want to restore America's reputation on the world stage then prosecute everyone associated with the ordering of war crimes from Bush down. You'll win no resect for pardoning them so they'll feel free to confess because there are no consequences. That's simply sanctioning their actions.

The Bush administration must not get away with this scott free if America wishes to restore our trust.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pardon Me
Posted by: Nukie on Jul 19, 2008 3:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While the presidential "Power of Pardon" is constitutionally unlimited, it seems that even when abused, it has involved people who HAVE "paid a price" for their crime(s). The Gubenatorial power in the fifty states is guided by, and in most states, somewhat more limited than the national executives' power.

The clear intent of this power is that bizarre thing - justice. That there is available someone who can, with a stroke of the pen, set right a judicial consequence that offends Justice.

At the very core of this is that it doesn't apply where there has not ALREADY been a judicial outcome that is disproportionate to an offense charged and proven, to mitigate that outcome.

There is nothing in this power that includes pardoning some or all of an executive's co-conspirators, or that works to obstruct Justice, rather than further it.

"Scooter" Libby's pardon, granted for the sole purpose of protecting the as-yet untried and unconvicted beneficiaries of his obstruction of Justice is, on its face, void and null.

When the executive asserts a "War powers" basis for a Pardon (Or undifferentiated immunity) it IS a valid use of power, but not one granted to the legistative entity. It can only be consumated by the executive, and only to set aside a judical outcome, "offensive to Justice".

While I would disagree with any interpretation of the "Pardon Power" that extends to a "corporate person" as utterly without a basis in any governmental power since "corporate Persons" exist ONLY at the discretion of the "incorporating authority" and may be disolved, all assets siezed, and disposed of, by what is an adminstrative power by issuance of a "writ of Quo Warranto" so long as the due process of appropriate judical trying of facts is fullfilled.

In other words, there is no basis for pretending that these acts being contemplated in the referenced editorial are lawful; rather they are further crimes in furtherence of prior crimes - many of which are not just felonies, but capitol felonies.

At some point in the future a process seeking the same end as the reconcilliation laws in South Africa would clearly be an appropriate measure; too many brave and basically decent Americans have been swept into the convolutions of vile treachery and madness that WE have allowed to be unleashed.

But Justice demands the trial and the outcome before the forgiveness, and it also, I think, requires what the lawyers call "elucution", a clear and accurate description and enumeration of the wrongful deeds, or crimes, or crimes against humanity, or whatever the facts reveal.

No matter how horrible the acts we may believe, or know, to have been. There is a countervailing principle we must also, I think, keep firmly in mind. Duty.

The conduct of war, whether by the individual soldier or the Chief of State, will ALWAYS involve horrible acts. It is the nature of war itself that authors these "evils" not the individuals who engage in war. In our hearts most of us realize this.

There is, I think, an important lesson in the idea - the simple truth - that no one hates war more than those who have fought in them, those who are the warriors. But they have brought forward this other thing, this thing called duty. It is unjust, unfair, and cowardly to punish those who have served us by their fullfilling their duty to do so.

But I deny that "we can't handle the truth!" Not only can we "handle it" we demand it; that is the very essence of how the farmers and factory workers, and clerks, and housewives, and, well, you know - "We the People" CAN govern this great nation.

Whoever the next President will be, it is my earnest hope that they will come to the aid of the very first victim of this war; the truth. Let us all set a good example for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]