ACLU: Investigate Bush for Waterboarding Admissions

[ProSense]

Source: CBS

The American Civil Liberties Union today urged the Justice Department to investigate whether President George W. Bush violated anti-torture laws by authorizing the use of waterboarding against detainees in the war on terror -- an admission Mr. Bush makes in his new memoir "Decision Points."

In "Decision Points," Mr. Bush writes that he "approved the use of the (enhanced) interrogation techniques," including waterboarding, on detainee Abu Zubaydah. Additionally, he writes that when the CIA asked whether it could use waterboarding on detainee Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he replied: "Damn right."

"The former President's acknowledgement that he authorized torture is absolutely without parallel in American history," ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero wrote in a letter today to Attorney General Eric Holder.

<...>

Both President Obama and Holder have said waterboarding is an act of torture under international law, and some Republican lawmakers agree. On top of that, Romero pointed out that the United States has historically prosecuted waterboarding as a crime. Romero wrote that Mr. Bush's conduct cannot be ignored.



Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022549-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[Ian David]

1. If Bush thinks that it was legal, then he should submit himself to The Hague to prove it. n/t

[24601]

25. The burden of proof is never on the accused. At least not in our

legal system, nor in international law. I suppose there might be some out there that require a defendant to prove his/ber innocence but can't recall any.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence." http://wapedia.mobi/en/Presumption_of_innocence

[stuckinarut]

49. You would be correct if it was merely an accusation but this

is an outright confession. He blatantly acknowledges that he approved the water boarding. He not only confesses in the book, but also on numerous tv shows since it's publication.

Is there a statute of limitations for war crimes?

[stuckinarut]

50. There is no statute of limitations for international war crimes.

International crimes
By way of custom of international law, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are usually not subject to statute of limitations, nor to prescription. This custom has been codified in a number of multilateral treaties. States that ratify the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity agree to not allow limitations claims for these crimes. Article 29 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court states that genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes "shall not be subject to any statute of limitations".

[bergie321]

61. Ignorance of the law

Is not a defense.

[COLGATE4]

2. The ACLU, DU and everybody else can scream to the high

heavens that Bush essentially has indicted himself and nobody will do anything about it. Holder (and Obama) are way too scared to touch it with a ten foot poll, and Bush knows it. He could walk into the White House and piss on Obama's desk at high noon and nobody would do a thing about it.

[Nite Owl]

5. You got that absolutely

right. No one in this administration or congress is going to touch them and they know it.

[Iowa]

12. Which makes Obama morally complicit and in these war-crimes...

If we ever get a President who isn't a gutless wonder, and Bush is prosecuted, Obama should be prosecuted along with him.

[savalez]

13. WTF? One post says bush is a criminal...

and inserts Obama into the situation. The next poster agrees and implies that Obama is a co-conspirator based on the first post. Then the third post agrees with the second post and says even more outlandish stuff about prosecuting both of them. Each post building on the next for affirmation.

You guys are a regular Fox News!

[ooglymoogly]

18. I just love kindergarten recaps....

they are so entertaining and so devoid of any need to think.

[Iowa]

26. It's not "outlandish" to support the prosecution of war criminals and those who shield them...

And us "guys" aren't like Fox News at all. See... Fox News opposes prosecuting Bush, just like Obama does.

I think you need to do a little more reading on the subject.

[Enthusiast]

43. Fox News would never suggest

that Obama is a co-conspirator for not investigating Bush.

[stuckinarut]

51. Its the same as aiding and

abetting. He is complicit in the crime if he doesn't prosecute it.

How come Holder has to appeal the DADT stay because it's his 'responsibility' but when something like this happens he is oddly quiet.

How can we ever hold other leaders accountable for their crimes...oh yah because the victor makes the rules.

[RaleighNCDUer]

58. Kind of makes you wonder who won the election in 08. nt

[katandmoon]

14. +1

[Ignis]

30. You're WRONG!

He could walk into the White House and piss on Obama's desk at high noon and nobody would do a thing about it.

You're overlooking the fact that this reprehensible action would prompt our (D) leadership to give a rousing series of speeches on the value of bipartisanship.

[BlueMTexpat]

37. Just imagining a "10 foot poll" here ...

and my mind is a little bit boggled. :crazy:

But about that "moving forward" thing-y, I am as upset as anyone and we who are upset are far from being alone.

One way or another, however, I don't believe that the torturers are going to get away with it in the end even though we have too damn many wimpy Dems. Not if the US wants to remain a country that stands for the Rule of Law, where the law is applied equally to wrongdoers on an international stage - even when those wrongdoers are Americans, not simply those we defeat in battle.

[robinlynne]

3. I like this OP!!!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

4. TO THE HAGUE!!

[Creative]

6. Waterboarding Obsessions...

[Enthusiast]

44. Torture is the single greatest crime.

It should be an obsession if it isn't.

[Creative]

70. Yawn...

War is also bad for "mankind;" however, like torture, war will be with us forever and a day.

Nevertheless, to your point: Do you not think that Bush received a multitude of legal opinions prior to admitting to this in his book?

Don't obsess--for you are surely wasting your time.

[Gamey]

7. Nothing is going to happen

[Swede Atlanta]

8. Doubled over laughing.........

Obama has no interest in investigating or prosecuting Bush for war crimes because he loves doing it himself. It is interesting to watch how a candidate with so-called "morals" becomes the same power-wielding tyrant as his or her predecessor.

Obama still sends people offshore to be tortured. Maybe they don't use waterboarding, only sleep deprivation, pulling out of fingernails, torches to the testicles, who knows what.

He is no different from the last tyrant in the White House when it comes to this.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

[alanquatermass]

38. But Swede -- did you vote for Barack Obama?

I did and I suspect most of us on here did as well. If you're one of the ones who did... when, exactly, did you become disenchanted?

[Independent_Liberal]

9. I'd say don't wait for the Obama administration to act...

You should go this route that the CCR and ECCHR are taking: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9535868

People can keep saying, "Prosecution is never going to happen," BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH, but they could possibly end up being the ones who are delusional, not those calling for prosecution.

[pocoloco]

22. Evidently you don't realize who the fuck is in charge?

[Independent_Liberal]

24. I don't realize who the fuck is in charge?

What are you suggesting? I know who is in charge in the US, so I was suggesting it's better that people not wait for action here and they should follow the lead of CCR and go the routes like the Spanish court is taking. That's all I'm saying.

[Frank Cannon]

47. I'm sure Little Boots trembles in fear nightly...

at the thought of what's going to happen in the Spanish court.

[pmorlan1]

10. Kudos to the ACLU

I'm glad that at least the ACLU isn't throwing in the towel like so many others. Throwing up your hands saying nothing will happen helps to guarantee that nothing will happen. We all need to get a spine and stop giving up the fight just because it's a hard fight. If you are not already donating to the ACLU now is a good time to begin.

[pocoloco]

23. Fuck the god damned aclu!

They threw up their hands long ago when they claimed
that impeachment was a bad idea!

ass wipes! How many have died since then?

Been tortured?

[Ignis]

31. That was then, when it would require evidence to prove the crime.

This is now, when we have a clear (even proud :puke:) admission of guilt from Shrub.

[LAGC]

11. Goddamn Bush... here he is BRAGGING about it...

MAKING MONEY off of it with his book... and no one in this Administration is willing to DO anything about it? For shame!

[Jefferson23]

15. Good on the ACLU, they speak for me. n/t

[Honeycombe8]

16. But if the lawyers told him it was legal....

doesn't that absolve him of liability, if the lawyers were wrong? If I go to a lawyer and he gives me incorrect legal advice, he's on the hook, not me. We rely on lawyers to tell us the law.

How is that incorrect?

[tclambert]

19. If you commit a crime, you go to jail. The lawyer could be disbarred,

censured, and maybe you could sue him, but he's not going to jail for a crime you committed. Bad legal advice does NOT absolve you of guilt.

[Honeycombe8]

21. That doesn't make sense. Otherwise, no govt official would ever do anything.

I'm guessing, and it's just a guess, that there is some sort of legal protection for government officials who, acting in their official capacity, rely on legal advice to do or not do certain things. If that weren't the case, no government official would ever, say, raise taxes, allow the gays to serve in the military, strike down certain laws, declare war, etc., etc. In all those cases, they rely on legal advice to tell them that they have the right to do those things.

It just doesn't make sense otherwise. Everyone would be too afraid to take any action, if they weren't protected by legal advice interpreting the laws that tell them they have the right to do certain things.

Worth checking into, anyway.

[tclambert]

45. If that were the case, murder would be legal, as long as some shyster gave you the go-ahead.

Raising taxes or cutting taxes, etc. are clearly within the authority of government. A government official can do what's legal. And they can't do what's illegal, unless your name is Bush or Cheney . . . or Ollie North, . . . or Richard Nixon . . . damn, obviously they can.

The principle involved is "Ignorance of the law is no defense."

[Honeycombe8]

65. I looked it up. What you are talking about doesn't apply.

What govt officials do in their official capacity is different from INTENTIONAL WRONGFUL ACTS (murder is not part of someone's official duties).

Yes, they are protected from the "ignorance is no defense" rule, as long as it's not an obvious point of law that everyone knows is illegal.

The Office of Legal Counsel is usually only asked for an opinion when the answer is unclear or murky, so there is no "clear" illegality at work.

I'll try to find that pdf again and post the link. A 14 page or so paper that discusses this point exactly. It says there isn't a clear legal protection, but as a practical matter, there is protection for the President, when he relies on the advice of legal counsel.

The paper goes on to state that even if people want the President prosecuted, the prosecutor has to consider the likelihood of getting a conviction. Getting a conviction where the law is not clearcut, against a President, where certain defenses apply (like, for example, no INTENT to break the law), and the natural reluctance by a jury to convict....all these things would have to be considered by a prosecutor.

Prosecutors don't bring charges in a vacuum, just because. They bring charges in cases where they think they can PROVE the charges, and where there is at least a decent chance of getting a conviction. PROOF would be very difficult, since they would be seeking proof from members of the President's administration.

So, you see....almost impossible to bring charges against a President, when he relied on the OLC's legal opinion.

[stuckinarut]

53. Thats like Hitler saying that he believed he was

pursuing good science because Goebbels told him so.

[Honeycombe8]

66. Hitler didn't have a democracy, and the law was not king in Germany then.

You have an example from a democracy, where law is above everyone?

(Besides, you didn't mention the "acts" of Hitler that you are referring to. Remember, we are talking about acts of a government official, performed in his official capacity, in an area where the law is not clearcut, where the official asked for the legal opinion of the official legal counsel, and where the official then relied on that legal opinion.)

Read my above post. I explain it more thoroughly in that longer post.

[stuckinarut]

52. Thats not true at all...

If my lawyer told me murder war legal, and I went and killed someone, I'm pretty sure I would get locked up and not my lawyer.

[Honeycombe8]

67. Murder of an innocent person is not part of an official's duties...

in an area where the law is not clearcut (remember...the official has to get a legal opinion on it because that area of the law isn't clear), and then the official asks for a legal opinion, and then relies on that opinion.

And BTW....people quite often get legal opinions after the fact of murder to find out if the murder was "justified." It sometimes is. But the murderer didn't rely on that advice beforehand...he just wants to find out if he's protected afterward. You can "murder" someone if it's necessary for you to do to protect yourself or someone else, for example. It's not called murder in that instance, though.

[lynne]

56. There has to be a reason he was told it was permissable -

- I'm guessing there is no definitive list of what defines "torture" written into law by the U. S. Government. Without a specific definition of "torture" and it being spelled out - including a list of acts, such as "waterboarding", defined within the law - then the law is too open ended.

Let's face it - if Bush or his attorney was going to be in hot water for waterboarding, it would have been done long ago. He admitted to it before the book and no action was taken by anyone.

Afraid we're chasing our tails on this one.

[Honeycombe8]

68. I think you're right on that. If it were spelled out that clearly....

he wouldn't have had to get a legal opinion (or FAKE getting a legal opinion, whichever is the case).

Even if there were a list, and waterboarding wasn't on that list, he would've had a hard time saying he relied on legal advice that waterboarding is legal...and the counsel would've had a harder time giving that opinion.

But I doubt there's a list.

But let's say the prosecutor chooses to go after him, anyway. Where is the prosecutor going to get proof of wrongdoing? He'll get a copy of the legal opinion (Congress has it already, I'd guess). What witnesses? Cheney? Other members of Bush's administration? The guys in Guantanamo, or set free from Guantanamo? Impossible. Add to that the fact that most people think Bush isn't too terribly bright, then you can see the problem.

And let's say the prosecutor gets it to trial. Where would you find a jury willing to convict a former President who relied on legal counsel's advice to tell him something was legal?

They couldn't even get anyone higher than Scooter, in the Plame affair, which I think was a more obvious illegal, traitorous act.

[BlueStater]

17. Grow a spine, Obama, and uphold the fucking law.

Otherwise, you're guilty of aiding and abetting a war criminal. Is that what you want your place in history to be?

[Honeycombe8]

69. Bush has not been convicted of any wrongdoing, and therefore, is not a criminal.

The flaming is getting so out of control. It just makes arguments seem silly when things are stated that are just not true.

Read my above posts.

There will be no prosecution of Bush for this, for good legal and practical reasons.

If you think waterboarding was against the law, post your proof. What law can you point to that indicates that waterboarding is illegal?

You'll also have to name witnesses with the CIA and Bush's administration. You think they'll talk to you and be forthcoming and honest?

I think you see the problem. Legal actions are rarely black and white. They are gray.

[midnight]

20. Thank you ACLU.......

[budkin]

27. Yeah right... this Administration wants nothing to do with anything approaching this

[BlueStater]

29. Then Obama is protecting a war criminal, which is itself a crime. N/T

[UTUSN]

28. Since he confessed, what's to investigate?!1 PROSECUTE!1 n/t

[ZombieHorde]

32. Recommended. nt

[syberlion]

33. This is the son of the past Leader of the CIA

Nothing will happen to him because his daddy, remember him? King Bush the first knows where all the bodies are buried, he knows where all the incriminating audio and videos are kept of every mover and shaker in Washington DC as well as CEO's, etc. He knows what tortures were used and where and for how long and under which presidents they were sanctioned.

I suspect prince george's presidency was a bet between two insanely wealthy people, to see if one of them could get America to elect an absolute moron. Instead of collecting on the bet, I think the elite rich are doubling down with Sarah Palin. It is bad enough we have to endure the next 2 years with a Republican house.

I think daddy Bush allowed his son to be used in this way so he wouldn't end up a financial burden as the do-nothing cad prince george has always been. Laura would have dumped him long ago, but as a former first lady, she's stuck with him. This puts daddy Bush's mind at ease knowing there will be someone left behind to push the prince's wheelchair and help keep his lips zipped.

As for Obama's involvement, daddy Bush knows where all the skeletons are and nothing will happen as long as daddy Bush is alive. So, depending on who is in power at the time of Bush Sr.'s demise, you may see something happen then. Until then, as someone earlier pointed out, prince george probably could walk into the White House and pee on the oval office and like it or not, nothing will happen to prince george.

The ACLU has to do what it does because they are the ACLU, they are there to defend the Constitution even when those sworn to do so have abdicated their responsibilities. I would expect no less from the ACLU. However, it is up to each of us to communicate to our elected members our disgust about how the government failed Americans, failed in protecting the Constitutional rule of law, just plain failed. As long as the "leaders" of our government hear from the rich, hear from the paid lobbyist and we stay out of their way, well they see no problem with the way things are. Fear wins, again.

[smiley]

59. You hit the nail on the head!!

+1000

poppy Bush has been pulling the strings for a long long long long time.

[de novo]

34. The question is whether the Obama Administration will do anything about it.

I doubt they will.

[bitchkitty]

35. Oh sure, that'll happen. n/t

[orleans]

36. "Bush's conduct cannot be ignored"

oh yeah?
watch everyfuckingbody ignore it.

as usual.

(k&r)

[BrownieGman]

39. WaterWater...oooo,,!

This character lied bald faced to the UN , US Congress and you so he could kill Sadam H.

Premeditated WAR = MURDER

[ScottLand]

40. K&R. I'd be glad to pay his way to the Hague.

[LawnKorn]

41. George W. Bush is a flight risk. He should be jailed and held without bond awaiting trial

After Bush is safely behind bars, then we can conduct a through and lengthy investigation. It should be an investigation that could take years, even the rest of Bush's life.

[Frank Cannon]

48. Flight risk? Good luck even getting this guy off the couch in his rumpus room...

let alone hauling his ass into a courtroom somewhere.

[LawnKorn]

62. Bush is an admitted criminal and needs to be in prison

I would be overjoyed if he were to be held in jail without bond awaiting trial.

After Bush is given a fair trail and convicted here in the United States, he needs to be sent to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes.

[LawnKorn]

42. K&R

[Loge23]

46. Pigs will fly...

before we see any accountability at all for Iraq, Afghanistan, or Wall Street.

[progressoid]

54. No body cares.

At least no one with any power to do anything about it.

[Uncle Joe]

55. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, ProSense.

[quakerboy]

57. Didn't they also push for

Retention of our various constitutional civil liberties? Since that worked out so well, I see about a similar chance of anything meaningfull coming from this

[Duval]

60. So, where do we go from here?

With "every thing off the table" where does that leave our Democracy? It seems, no matter how hard I push, sign petitions, etc, not to mention giving to progressive candidates/websites/ etc....there is still this reluctance from the Dems and Obamaand to just ignore us. It's past time for us to begin actively demonstratting en mass,, as we have done in the past and with good results. As for me, during the Bush "I am the Decider" years, I was really afraid to do so, because the Bush Administration knew no bounds and would have incarcerated the lot of us in holding pens bult by Halliburton in every state. I still held the banner in Chapel Hill, NC, when Rumsfeld came to pay a visit, that said "Where are our Civil Rights?". Way back in the 2002 era, a veterans website, with whom I was corresponding, told me that WE THE PEOPLE NEED TO RISE UP AND MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD. Seems we didn't do it enough. So, what is the plan for us who see our country going down the tubes?:argh: :hurts: :nuke: :shrug: :rant:

[sulphurdunn]

63. C'mon!

Even if Chimpy was indicted he could get off by pleading diminished capacity due to low intelligence or to alcohol induced dementia or some legalese equivalent, and it would be true. Justice would be better served by getting the sociopaths who put the little princeling puppet in power to begin with and then kept him there for eight years.

[texshelters]

64. Great post

Great comments.

Out!

Peace,
Tex Shelters
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/