Bush torture and the Obama administration.

[EFerrari]

Some of us who have been trying to follow the torture stories were disappointed last week when Panetta backtracked on his statement that torture was Bush policy. Similarly, today lawyers in the Obama DOJ said they were retaining the same argument that BushCo did, that state secrets should be enough to dismiss the Jeppesen Dataplan case, shocking some of us who heard Obama's strong denunciation of torture and extraordinary rendition.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3730525

It's my understanding that, based on Scott Horton's comments on DemocracyNow! last week, once the Obama administration has clear evidence of torture, they are obligated by law to prosecute. We signed on to the Geneva Conventions and the torture convention says you MUST prosecute when there is evidence of torture.

So, saying that Bush tortured (as Panetta did and then withdrew that statement) is evidence of evidence of torture just as allowing the Jeppesen Dataplan case to go forward would/will likely put evidence of torture into the public record.

Imo, the Obama administration is well aware of this situation. Their problem as I see it, anyway, is that once the triggering event, evidence of torture, is on the record they must act.

My preference would be that they get out ahead of this problem, i.e., have an office to deal with the Bush crimes of torture. For now, it looks like they want more time to get their options in line.

They do not have the option to ignore evidence of torture, to "turn the page" or to "move on" once that evidence is on the record, to my knowledge. Fwiw

[JFN1]

1. It is just politics

President Obama knows if he starts prosecuting, he can kiss the stimulus and the era of post partisanship goodbye.

Once the evidence comes out and our legal obligation is to prosecute the torturers, the President can more easily demonstrate it is not partisanship, but responsibility.

Much as I hate it, we have to play politics right now because that is all the Republic Party knows, and, frankly, all it has left.

[EFerrari]

3. I don't know the best way for them to handle this politically, but

what era of "post partisanship"? :)

[ThomWV]

2. Panetta may have backtracked, but Holder didn't - and it is Holder who has to prosecute.

[EFerrari]

4. Did Holder claim that BushCo policy was torture?

I heard him denounce torture but I don't think like Panetta that he claimed it was policy. Making that statement means you know something. When you know that, you have to open a case right away.

[ThomWV]

5. When asked if water-boarding was torture he responded with a clear "Yes"

[EFerrari]

7. I saw that. But it looks like legal types can parse that.

When you say straight up "Torture was Bush policy", you are legally obligated to move on that because you are admitting that you know there is evidence of torture. I think that's why Panetta had to retract his statement.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. They can't use the "Good German" defense of not knowing.

They know that torture was used on the "detainees" and to ignore it in the name of politics is obscene.

[EFerrari]

8. Agreed. But what they can do is try to slow down the process

until they think they're on top of what they need to do. That's my read today, anyway.

[EFerrari]

9. Here is the Scott Horton segment on Amy's show, fyi.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/5/despite_celebrated_orders_closing_gitmo_and

[EFerrari]

10. .