John Nichols / The Nation & The Telegraph – 2009-03-15 00:53:34
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/414049
WASHINGTON (March 4, 2009) — Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, deserves credit for pressing ahead with his modest proposal to establish a truth and reconciliation commission to review the assaults on the Constitution and general lawlessness of the Bush-Cheney administration.
As Leahy said at the opening of Wednesday’s Judiciary Committee hearing on “Getting To The Truth Through A Nonpartisan Commission Of Inquiry”:
Nothing has done more to damage America’s place in the world than the revelation that this Nation stretched the law and the bounds of executive power to authorize torture and cruel treatment.
The Bush administration chose this course, but tried to keep its policies and actions secret, knowing that they could not withstand scrutiny in the light of day. How many times did President Bush go before the world and say that we did not torture and that we acted in accordance with law?
There are some who resist any effort to look back at all, while others are fixated on prosecution, even if it takes all of the next eight years, or more, and further divides this country.
Over the last month, I have suggested a middle ground to get to the truth of what went on during the last several years, in a way that invites cooperation. I believe that that might best be accomplished though a nonpartisan commission of inquiry. I would like to see this done in a manner removed from partisan politics. Such a commission of inquiry would shed light on what mistakes were made so that we can learn from these errors and not repeat them.
That is a reasoned and responsible stance, of the sort we have come to expect from Leahy.
There is no question that the chairman is pushing further into the constitutional thicket than President Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder seem to be willing to go. And there is certainly some merit in borrowing from the wise experiments in accountability initiated by other countries — especially South Africa, which used the truth-and-reconciliation-commission model to get those responsible for Apartheid-era crimes to acknowledge where the bodies were buried in return for the promise of immunity.
Unfortunately, Leahy’s proposal to remove from the table the prospect of prosecution of officials who have committed crimes goes against the fundamental American precept that the rule of law must apply to all of us — even presidents, vice presidents, attorneys general and White House aides.
Justice Anthony Kennedy was correct when he observed in the Supreme Court decision restoring the writ of habeas corpus that was undermined by the Bush administration and its congressional amen corner, that the Constitution is not something an administration is able “to switch… on and off at will.”
Even Leahy admits that: “We must not be afraid to look at what we have done, to hold ourselves accountable as we do other nations who make mistakes. We must understand that national security means protecting our country by advancing our laws and values, not discarding them.”
Unfortunately, the chairman’s proposal for a commission switches off the rule of law by suggesting that the prospect of legal prosecution even in cases of extreme lawlessness — and congressional action to address gross assaults on the Constitution — in favor of “developing a process to reach a mutual understanding of what went wrong and learn from it.”
The chairman of the Constitution subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, suggests that it is unwise to simply give up on the prospect of prosecuting lawbreakers.
While Feingold compliments Leahy’s initiative and says that “getting all the facts out about what happened over the last eight years is a crucial part of restoring the rule of law,” the Senate’s most outspoken defender of the Constitution warned today against going too far in surrendering the essential tools of the accountability process.
“On the question of immunity, I think we should tread carefully,” told Wednesday’s hearing. “There are cases that may require prosecution, and I wouldn’t want a commission of inquiry to preclude that. Those who clearly violated the law and can be prosecuted should be prosecuted.
On the other hand, the country will really benefit from having as complete a telling of this story as possible, so the ability of the commission to seek immunity for lower level participants certainly needs to be considered. How to do this is one of the complex questions that I hope can be explored in this hearing.”
The American Civil Liberties Union agrees with Feingold’s view that prosecutions should not be ruled out. The group is urging Holder and the Department of Justice to appoint a special prosecutor to conduct an investigation and, if warranted by the facts, to bring criminal charges against members of the Bush-Cheney administration who broke the law.
Additionally, the ACLU is calling for the creation of a congressional Select Committee that would work in conjunction with Leahy’s truth and reconciliation commission. “(The)combination of both committees would be an effective format for congressional review of Bush administration policies,” explains an ACLU statement on the issue, which recalls the important work of a committee headed by Idaho Senator Frank Church that investigated executive abuses in the 1970s.
“The Select Committee would have the ability to allocate the necessary time and resources outside of the day-to-day demands of the standing committee structure. It would also bring together members from the relevant committees with jurisdiction over the relevant issues to share their expertise concerning the programs under review.”
Says ACLU Washington Legislative Office director Caroline Fredrickson: “Americans’ faith in government has been deeply. While a truth commission is a valid and admirable suggestion, Congress must go further. Congress’ complacent approach to oversight has done our country irreparable harm and legitimized illegal and counter-productive intelligence programs. It’s time for Congress to step up in a very real way and assert its role of oversight.”
Leahy is not a bad player here.
He understands that there must be a measure of accountability if we are going to renew this country’s commitment to the rule of law and to constitutional governance.
The Vermonter is asking the right questions: “(How) did we get to a point where we were holding a legal U.S. resident for more than five years in a military brig without ever bringing charges against him? How did we get to a point where Abu Ghraib happened? How did we get to a point where the United States Government tried to make Guantanamo Bay a law-free zone, in order to try to deny accountability for our actions?
How did we get to a point where our premier intelligence agency, the CIA, destroyed nearly 100 videotapes with evidence of how detainees were being interrogated? How do we make sure it never happens, again?” But the answer to those questions must, necessarily, be bolder.
It will take a greater measure of accountability than just Leahy’s truth commission to “make sure it never happens again.”
The ACLU’s Fredrickson is right when she says: “The truth commission is a beginning for Congress to reassert its power, but it must go further.”
Copyright © 2008 The Nation
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.
George W Bush ‘Should be Prosecuted for Torture’
The Telegraph
LONDON (January 20, 2009) — A senior United Nations official has called for George W Bush and Donald Rumsfeld to be prosecuted for permitting ‘torture’.
Manfred Nowak, the UN’s special rapporteur on torture, called on the US authorities to pursue the former president and his former defence secretary for the treatment of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba.
“Judicially speaking, the United States has a clear obligation,” he told German television. He said that the US had ratified the UN convention on torture which requires “all means, particularly penal law” to be used to bring proceedings against those violating it.
“We have all these documents that are now publicly available that prove that these methods of interrogation were intentionally ordered by Rumsfeld,” Mr Nowak claimed. “But obviously the highest authorities in the United States were aware of this.”
Mr Bush left office on Tuesday as Barack Obama became the 44th president of the United States at his inauguration ceremony in Washington.
Asked about the prospects of legal action being brought against Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfeld, Mr Nowak said: “In principle yes. I think the evidence is on the table.” At issue, however, is whether “American law will recognise these forms of torture”, he added.
A bipartisan Senate report released last month found Mr Rumsfeld and other senior Bush administration officials responsible for the abuse of Guantanamo detainees. It said that Mr Rumsfeld had authorised harsh interrogation techniques on Dec 2, 2002, although he ruled them out a month later. The coercive measures were based on a document signed by Mr Bush in February 2002.
French, German and US rights groups have said they want to bring legal action against Mr Rumsfeld. CIA officials have admitted using the controversial “water boarding” — or partial drowning — technique during “enhanced interrogation” sessions at Guantanamo. However, they maintain that the method has been abandoned.
Mr Obama has pledged to close the detention centre at the US naval base at Guantanamo early in his presidency.
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.
