Muscatine

Obama, Bush and Cheney arrest warrants issued.

Posted in: Muscatine
  • Avatar
  • mobaydave
  • Respected Neighbor
  • muskateen
  • 3907 Posts
  • Respect-O-Meter: Respected Neighbor

 

 

Obama, Bush and Cheney arrest warrants issued. Make viral

 

Obama, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and other mass murdering scumbags were found guilty of torture and mass murder.

These convictions by the International War Crimes Court are recognized by most nations worldwide. However the USA only supports convictions against enemy nations. If these criminals set foot outside the USA they will be arrested and likely hung for their crimes against humanity. Obama is exempt from arrest until he leaves office which hopefully is before his term is up.

Americans must support the International War Crimes Court and demand those convicted be arrested and turned over for punishment.

The US Justice Department is too corrupt to prosecute criminals within our government. This leaves international courts as our only source for true justice. These criminals must pay for their crimes and this doesn't even touch on the false flag attack of 9/11/2001.


  • Avatar
  • mobaydave
  • Respected Neighbor
  • muskateen
  • 3907 Posts
  • Respect-O-Meter: Respected Neighbor

Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/prosecute-torturers-and-their-bosses.html?_r=0

 

Since the day President Obama took office, he has failed to bring to justice anyone responsible for the torture of terrorism suspects — an official government program conceived and carried out in the years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

He did allow his Justice Department to investigate the C.I.A.'s destruction of videotapes of torture sessions and those who may have gone beyond the torture techniques authorized by President George W. Bush. But the investigation did not lead to any charges being filed, or even any accounting of why they were not filed.

Mr. Obama has said multiple times that “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards,” as though the two were incompatible. They are not. The nation cannot move forward in any meaningful way without coming to terms, legally and morally, with the abhorrent acts that were authorized, given a false patina of legality, and committed by American men and women from the highest levels of government on down.

Americans have known about many of these acts for years, but the 524-page executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report erases any lingering doubt about their depravity and illegality: In addition to new revelations of sadistic tactics like “rectal feeding,” scores of detainees were waterboarded, hung by their wrists, confined in coffins, sleep-deprived, threatened with death or brutally beaten. In November 2002, one detainee who was chained to a concrete floor died of “suspected hypothermia.”

These are, simply, crimes. They are prohibited by federal law, which defines torture as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” They are also banned by the Convention Against Torture, the international treaty that the United States ratified in 1994 and that requires prosecution of any acts of torture.

So it is no wonder that today’s blinkered apologists are desperate to call these acts anything but torture, which they clearly were. As the report reveals, these claims fail for a simple reason: C.I.A. officials admitted at the time that what they intended to do was illegal.

In July 2002, C.I.A. lawyers told the Justice Department that the agency needed to use “more aggressive methods” of interrogation that would “otherwise be prohibited by the torture statute.” They asked the department to promise not to prosecute those who used these methods. When the department refused, they shopped around for the answer they wanted. They got it from the ideologically driven lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel, who wrote memos fabricating a legal foundation for the methods. Government officials now rely on the memos as proof that they sought and received legal clearance for their actions. But the report changes the game: We now know that this reliance was not made in good faith.

No amount of legal pretzel logic can justify the behavior detailed in the report. Indeed, it is impossible to read it and conclude that no one can be held accountable. At the very least, Mr. Obama needs to authorize a full and independent criminal investigation.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch are to give Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. a letter Monday calling for appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate what appears increasingly to be “a vast criminal conspiracy, under color of law, to commit torture and other serious crimes.”

 

The question everyone will want answered, of course, is: Who should be held accountable? That will depend on what an investigation finds, and as hard as it is to imagine Mr. Obama having the political courage to order a new investigation, it is harder to imagine a criminal probe of the actions of a former president.

But any credible investigation should include former Vice President Dick Cheney; Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, David Addington; the former C.I.A. director George Tenet; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the Office of Legal Counsel lawyers who drafted what became known as the torture memos. There are many more names that could be considered, including Jose Rodriguez Jr., the C.I.A. official who ordered the destruction of the videotapes; the psychologists who devised the torture regimen; and the C.I.A. employees who carried out that regimen.

One would expect Republicans who have gone hoarse braying about Mr. Obama’s executive overreach to be the first to demand accountability, but with one notable exception, Senator John McCain, they have either fallen silent or actively defended the indefensible. They cannot even point to any results: Contrary to repeated claims by the C.I.A., the report concluded that “at no time” did any of these techniques yield intelligence that averted a terror attack. And at least 26 detainees were later determined to have been “wrongfully held.”

Starting a criminal investigation is not about payback; it is about ensuring that this never happens again and regaining the moral credibility to rebuke torture by other governments. Because of the Senate’s report, we now know the distance officials in the executive branch went to rationalize, and conceal, the crimes they wanted to commit. The question is whether the nation will stand by and allow the perpetrators of torture to have perpetual immunity for their actions.

  • Avatar
  • budman
  • Respected Neighbor
  • Muscatine, IA
  • 82 Posts
  • Respect-O-Meter: Respected Neighbor

lol post like that is why you are the only one that ever responds to your post. 

  • Avatar
  • hiroad
  • Respected Neighbor
  • The Hilltop
  • 5055 Posts
  • Respect-O-Meter: Respected Neighbor

In case you missed it, waterboarding worked

 

So reported the Washington Post the other day. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s attitude changed remarkably, the paper reports, “after Mohammed was subjected to simulated drowning and prolonged sleep deprivation, among other harsh interrogation techniques.

“ ‘KSM, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete,’ according to newly unclassified portions of a 2004 report by the CIA's then-inspector general released Monday by the Justice Department.”

Whereas afterward, KSM sang like a bird. Discoursed for hours. Used a chalkboard to make things clearer.

And do recall that this was because of treatment that did not physically harm, much less maim or in any way permanently damage the guy. It terrified him but put him in no actual danger. It is harsh, to the extent we wouldn’t, of course, subject anyone under our criminal laws to it nor even POWs or anyone coverable by the Geneva Conventions. Which terrorists, being on no country’s side, are not. But it is not torture as customarily understood.

And it worked.

Rich Lowry points out the conundrum this presents to the anti-waterboarding forces:

“This demolishes a key argument of the opponents of the program, who have long insisted coercive interrogations can never work and must necessarily backfire. I always thought it was foolish of them to invest so much in this argument since it was so implausible. It showed a key insecurity behind their moral absolutism. The opponents knew that if they admitted that the toughest of these techniques were applied only to a few top operatives who coughed up intelligence that led to the arrest of other terrorists and the discovery of other plots, they could never get much traction with the public. So they had to insist the interrogations didn't work.”

So it turns out it does work. The equation, then, is this: Once we grant that torture as commonly and traditionally understood is banned, is it out of bounds for a foreign terrorist not under the protection of our laws to be frightened -- though not physically hurt or permanently harmed -- even if barring such techniques probably permits the success of  a plot that will surely result in the actual deaths of many innocents? Must those innocents die for this particular scruple?

Advertise Here!

Promote Your Business or Product for $10/mo

istockphoto_1682638-attention.jpg

For just $10/mo you can promote your business or product directly to nearby residents. Buy 12 months and save 50%!

Buynow