Amnesty International Presses for Truth Commission to Investigate Bush Detainee Abuse Crimes

[Time for change]

Amnesty International (AI) is one of the world’s premier human rights organizations, whose sole function is to campaign for internationally recognized human rights, as specified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I have been an Amnesty International member for more years than I can remember. I’m not ashamed to say that I admire and trust them more than I do my own country – no matter who is President. Though our country was founded upon the principle that “All men are created equal” and therefore we all have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it has often fallen far short in living up to that principle. No matter who is President of our country, there are great pressures to give in to or at least “compromise” with forces that have little or no respect for our founding principles.

With that in mind, I’d like to discuss the concerns that AI has recently expressed about President Obama’s policies towards our detainees. Of the myriad Bush/Cheney crimes, their detainee policies were the crimes that I abhorred the most. I say that because I truly believe that a society is best judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members. I have posted about that subject on DU probably more times than any other single subject. So, when I receive an e-mail from AI discussing “startling evidence that the Obama administration may continue the failed Bush policies on torture and illegal detention”, I take that very seriously. But I also take it with a grain of salt because AI’s mission is to identify and prevent human rights abuses. They would rather over-react than under-react to what they see as the potential for serious abuse – which is as it should be.


A few words about Amnesty International

Founded in 1961, AI now has about 2.2 million members, supporters, and subscribers in 150 countries. The United States contributes the most members of any country in the world, approximately 350,000. AI’s emphasis on human rights is evident from its mission statement:

Amnesty International's vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.

In pursuit of this vision, AI's mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.

AI is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights.

More specifically, it fights for human rights by exposing egregious human rights abuses and organizing letter writing campaigns of protest against them. It also has an educational function, seeking to integrate human rights education into the school environment. I discuss AI’s priorities in more detail in this post.

During the Bush/Cheney Presidency, AI was quite vocal about the many crimes and abuses committed by our government. One good example of that, which I discuss in this post, is when they asked its members to sign the “America I believe in pledge”:

The America I Believe In doesn't torture people or use cruel, inhumane treatment. . . doesn't hold people without charge, without fair trials, without hope, and without end… doesn't kidnap people off the street and ship them to nations known for their brutality… doesn't condone prisoner abuse and excuse high-ranking government officials from responsibility for that abuse. . .doesn't justify the use of secret prisons. . .and does not rob people of their basic dignity.

I'm joining with Amnesty International USA to restore The America I Believe In. The America I Believe In leads the world on human rights. I'm committing to tell friends and family about the campaign. I'm also committing to contacting my members of Congress and my local media to tell them that the America I Believe In defends human rights and justice for all.

The three year torture ordeal of Binyam Mohamed

One of AI’s current concerns is the use of the most overused government excuse in the book – “national security” – to argue for dismissing a case that a former Bush administration torture victim is bringing against Boeing for its role in his extraordinary rendition:

The Bush administration argued that the case should be dismissed because even discussing it in court could threaten national security and relations with other nations.

During the campaign, Mr. Obama harshly criticized the Bush administration’s treatment of detainees… But a government lawyer, Douglas N. Letter, made the same state-secrets argument on Monday, startling several judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The man bringing the suit is Binyam Mohamed, whose case I discussed previously. My information on Binyam’s case comes from the award-winning journalist for “excellence in human rights reporting”, Stephen Grey, in a chapter from his book, “Ghost Plane – The True Story of the CIA Torture Program”. Binyam was arrested at an airport in Pakistan on April 10, 2002, attempting to board a plane to take him back to his home in London. He was interrogated by the FBI and then transferred to a Moroccan prison, where (he alleges) on August 6, 2002, he began his ordeal of 37 months of intermittent torture.

Apparently the reason for the interest in Binyam was to use his testimony to nail Jose Padilla for plotting to explode a dirty bomb on U.S. soil. According to Binyam:

“They told me the U.S. had a story they wanted from me, and it was their job to get it. They talked about Jose Padilla, and they said I was going to testify against him and big people.” Among those named were … Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Binyam claimed that when in Afghanistan and Pakistan his Arabic was so poor he could not even have had a conversation with such figures…. “They told me that I must plead guilty. I’d have to say I was an al-Qaeda operations man, an idea man. I kept insisting that I had only been in Afghanistan a short while. ‘We don’t care’ is all they’d say”.

Incidentally, al-Libi was the man whom the Bush administration tortured into confessing (See section on “Reasons behind the torture” that Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda – one of its primary justifications for war.

On July 29, 2005, George Bush finally signed the order that officially charged Binyam with a crime – more than three years following his arrest. But in the meantime, the Bush administration had given up its plans to pursue charges of the “dirty bomb” conspiracy against the man who was supposedly the mastermind behind the plot, Jose Padilla. Instead, due to persistent legal challenges that thwarted the Bush administration attempts to provide a military commission show trial against Padilla, it had to settle for the much vaguer charges of “involvement in a North American terrorist support cell”.


“National security” as an excuse for dismissing Binyam’s case

One of the most repressive aspects of the United States of America is its frequent use of the “national security” card to prevent information from coming to light that might be embarrassing or incriminating to our government. Obviously I am not privy to the “state secrets” that the Obama administration is trying to guard by attempting to dismiss Binyam’s case. Nevertheless, I find it so preposterous that our national security would be endangered by the public release of information relating to our torture of prisoners that I feel 99% sure that this “national security” claim is bogus.

In every case that I am aware of where later events shed light on the reason for the playing of the “national security” card, the reason turned out to have nothing to do with national security. Rather, the reason always turns out to be merely to prevent information from coming to light that would prove embarrassing or incriminating to our government.

The idea that such information would “threaten relations with other nations” is patently absurd. Every other nation in the world already knows that gross abuse and torture of U.S. detainees was widespread and frequent during the Bush administration. Far from threatening our relations with other nations, the public airing of these crimes would serve to begin the healing process. The crimes are well known. The only remaining question is what we intend to do about them. Making it clear that we take these crimes seriously and intend to hold the perpetrators accountable would be the most important thing we could do to begin to restore our reputation and standing in the world.

So why is the Obama administration playing along with this? The only reasonable conclusion is that they are doing it for domestic consumption. But why? The Obama administration couldn’t have anything to hide. What could possibly embarrass or incriminate them so early in their administration?

Clearly there are many right wing ideologues who would hate to see the Bush administration embarrassed or, even worse, incriminated in serious crimes. Why the Obama administration should care about these people is difficult to fathom. But probably many of these people still wield a lot of power. If the Obama administration were to go far towards letting out information on Bush administration crimes, it would probably be castigated by our corporate news media as “partisan” or “vengeful”. I don’t know what pressure the Obama administration is under to keep this information under wraps and refrain from pressing charges against the Bush administration, but my guess is that it is probably great. To understand the perils of harsh criticism of powerful figures, one only needs to recall the firestorm against Senator Richard Durban for merely repeating the testimony of an FBI agent regarding the torture of our detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Amnesty International sees the situation similarly:

We fear that the Obama administration is feeling intense pressure for its early, bold actions against Guantanamo Bay and torture, and may be compromising to win political allies.

Indefinite detention of detainees without charges

The other issue that AI expressed concern about is that of indefinite detention of our detainees without charges. Elena Kagan is Obama’s nominee for Solicitor General, who would represent the administration before the Supreme Court. Earlier this week she answered a question from Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) by saying that she believed our government could legally detain suspected terrorists indefinitely without charges.

On the one hand, it is legal according to international law to detain prisoners of war indefinitely for the duration of the war. But I have three serious problems with Kagan’s statement.

First, “suspected” is the key word. Prisoners of war are typically picked up on the battlefield, classified as prisoner of war, and then detained for the duration of the war. But a very large portion of our “War on Terror” detainees do not fall into that category. In a study of our Guantanamo Bay detainees during the Bush administration, only 8% were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. A large proportion were turned over to U.S. forces by bounty hunters. 86% were arrested by Pakistan or Northern Alliance forces, and only 5% were captured by U.S. military forces. In other words, the enemy combatant status of a large proportion of our detainees is far from clear.

Secondly, the “War on Terror” is an ill defined entity with no clear goals and, most important, no end in sight. The “duration of the war” could be forever. There have been few if any times in history in which the most powerful nation in the world did not have enemies that wished or planned to do it harm. The mere existence of enemies does not mean that a nation is “at war” – that is, not until George Bush’s “War on Terror”.

Thirdly, our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not legitimate. Our Congress did not declare war on either country. So-called “illegal enemy combatants” (when actually found fighting against U.S. forces) are merely men who defended their country against a U.S. invasion. And with regard to the excuse that the Taliban was harboring Osama bin Laden, the Taliban agreed to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan to stand trial. They also agreed to negotiate with George W. Bush, but Bush turned down all Taliban offers, saying “We know he’s guilty”.

And fourthly, there is no purpose in continuing either war. An editorial in The Nation provided several reasons for ending the Afghanistan war, including among other reasons: The presence of our troops in Afghanistan are deeply resented by the Afghan people and therefore are a destabilizing force; we are propping up a corrupt and unpopular regime there; no imperial force has ever successfully occupied Afghanistan, though many have tried; and, our presence there risks destabilizing Pakistan.

What we are left with is the excuse that Afghanistan is a “safe haven” for terrorists. That idea is so absurd that it would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic. Al Qaeda is scattered all over the world, not in any defined place. Most of the planning for the 9/11 attacks on our country was done in Germany and Florida. If we destroy one area of the world in an attempt to get rid of al Qaeda, they’ll just go somewhere else. They are an organization (or a loose network of organizations), not a country. We have killed many orders of magnitude more innocent civilians in our “War on Terror” than we have killed terrorists. And many more terrorists have been recruited to the anti-American cause as a result.


Conclusion – The issue of accountability

Withholding information about potential government crimes by using the “national security” card as an excuse, or by detaining people in our prisons indefinitely without charges, shows contempt for the rule of law. It serves primarily to reduce or abolish our government’s accountability to the people whom it is supposed to represent. The information in question is information that the American people have a right to see.

Thank you to Senator Leahy for recognizing that and publicly stating it. Senator Leahy recently said in a discussion with the White House Chief Counsel, in recommending a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate potential crimes of the Bush administration:

I’m not wedded to any part of the plan so long as we get all the facts out. I would hate to see us take the attitude that that was then and this is now, let's not worry about any of the mistakes or the abuse of the law and give it a pass ... because it is my experience that you continue to make mistakes until somebody calls you on it.

Leahy also made it clear that he would proceed with his plan whether or not the Obama administration agrees. Of course, the difficult part will be in getting the U.S. Senate to agree. To this end, AI has provided a simple link to obtaining our Senators’ phone numbers, as well as talking points to use to “give Senator Leahy the support he needs to follow through on setting up an independent investigation”:

As your constituent, I am calling to ask you to press for a non-partisan commission to review the treatment of detainees following September 11.

If the United States wants to be a beacon of justice and the rule of law abroad the U.S. needs to practice it at home.

Numerous interrogators, generals, and admirals have stated that abuses committed during interrogations are not only illegal, but also counter-productive and hurt our government's ability to collect accurate and timely intelligence.

Senate hearings have found that abuse at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib was not the work of a few rogue actors but the direct result of policies and practices sanctioned by the highest levels of the US government.

Please let me know how you intend to address this issue of accountability for detainee abuse.

One could argue that a Justice Department investigation or an independent prosecutor would be a better approach to holding the Bush/Cheney administration accountable for their many crimes than a truth commission. I won’t argue against that. But a truth commission is a whole lot better than nothing, and that’s what is on the table now. It could be a major step towards getting the truth out to the American people.

[biopowertoday]

1. glad to see this. thanks for posting.

[biopowertoday]

2. k and r

[jtrockville]

3. I would argue a "truth commission" is NOT better than nothing.

What did the Church Commission get us? FISA? We see how easily that was circumvented during the Bush administration.

What will come of Leahy's "Truth Commission"? Stricter surveillance laws which will be just as easily circumvented the next time? Or maybe this commission will result in re-iterating that torture is illegal? Don't we know that already?

No thanks. We need prosecutions. Anything else is a waste of our time and effort.

[Time for change]

4. Four points

First of all, a truth commission doesn't rule out prosecutions, nor does it necessarily make them less likely. Ask yourself what would make prosecutions more likely. The first thing that comes to my mind is educating the American people about the crimes that have been committed. Certainly the work of a truth commission will serve to educate a lot of Americans about what went on during the Bush administration. Coverage of these things by our corporate media was woefully deficient. Educating the American people on these things can only serve to increase political pressure for prosecutions.

Second, I don't see how you can blame the violations of FISA on the Church Commission. The fact that a law is violated is not the fault of the law. It's the fault of those who are responsible for violating the law. With respect to the violations of FISA, the fault belongs not just to the Bush administration but to Congress for not holding him accountable. But how can you blame FISA for the fact that it was violated?

Thirdly, Amnesty International has been a primary force in the world for protecting human rights for many decades. They know what they are doing, and it is inconceivable to me that they would advocate for something that would hurt the cause of human rights.

And fourthly, at this point in time we don't have anything else. It is paramount that the truth of what went on during the Bush administration become widely known. This is a first step in that process. If there were more aggressive steps being taken, then that would be great. But there aren't. I don't see how anyone could argue that this isn't a lot better than nothing.

[jtrockville]

17. Good points for sure, but

The public could just as well be educated if prosecutions were broadcast 24/7.

I'm not blaming FISA violations on the Church Commission, but the Church Commission's fruit was FISA, which turned out to be pretty worthless. I don't blame Congress as much as I do the Justice Department for not holding anyone accountable. But that's the rub - without PROSECUTION there is no point in having laws, or making more laws, or being educated about who broke them.

Ensuring everyone "knows the truth" and leaving it at that, is worse than doing nothing. It emboldens the next cabal. And you can bet your life there will be another criminal cabal, sooner than later.

Sorry, but even with AI backing Leahy's "Truth Commission", I just can't get behind it.

[Time for change]

18. I agree

Prosecutions are much more important than getting the truth out -- though they're both important.

But many of us think of getting the truth out as the means -- i.e. a stepping stone -- to prosecutions. I certainly didn't mean to give the impression that I thought that getting the truth out to the American people was enough. It's a means to an end. And it's possible that it might be a necessary first step.

But if prosecutions will occur without it, that would be terrific.

[jtrockville]

23. If past is prologue, a commission won't lead to prosecutions.

If this "Truth Commission" is formed, it's practically a guarantee there won't be prosecutions, which is why I think the commission is worse than nothing. Let's keep the hope of prosecution alive.

[EFerrari]

5. I don't support a "truth" commission because such a commission

is yet another deflection of our system of justice.

The American people know the truth and continuing to say that we don't is obfuscation. Bush lied us into war, he spied on us illegally and torture was his policy. That's the truth.

[Time for change]

6. Why is it a deflection of justice?

In what way is a truth commission inconsistent with the simultaneous prosecution of those who committed crimes? While the truth commission is proceeding with its work, the Justice Department can proceed with its prosecutions or it can appoint a special prosecutor to do so.

Do you think that with the woeful coverage given the Bush crimes over the past 8 years that most Americans are adequately informed on the subject? I doubt that very much. Some are, but I feel quite sure that tens of millions aren't. Why wouldn't the additional exposure gained by a truth commission increase the political pressure for prosecutions?

[EFerrari]

7. Because the attention would turn to the commission and away from

the prosecutions that should be going forward and they would stall. I think we can count on that. I don't know if the public can exert enough pressure to make those prosecutions happen. A truth commission would take the remaining air out of that room, imho.

We all saw where the 9/11 Commission got us.

[Time for change]

8. The 9/11 Commission was "independent" in name only

In fact, it made up its mind from the very beginning that looking into any potential crimes was not even an option. A central tenet of that commission was that they would not "point fingers". Its composition was largely controlled by the Bush adminisration. And when Max Cleland wouldn't play ball he was eased off of the commission. Obviously, a commission is only as good as its leaders and members are.

It would also be possible to choose a crooked independent prosecutor. But that doesn't mean that we should give up the idea of having an independent prosecution.

Anyhow, I fully agree that it is of great importance to prosecute the Bush administration for the crimes they've committed. The idea of a truth commission is not to take the place of prosecutions. I don't now of anyone who has advocated it as a substitute for prosecutions. Their purposes aren't even the same. The purpose of a truth commission is to inform a nation of what happened. The purpose of prosecutions is to punish the guilty (although it would also have important educational functions).

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

14. additional exposure?

where?

The complicit media doesn't want its dirty laundry exposed. Exposure usually means you are allowed several minutes of actual Hearings on the MSM, then it's censored by the talking heads.

During the Holder confirmation, when he began to be asked his ideas on torture, rendition, and prosecutions, the MSM - MSNBC, had Matthews talking with his panel about nearly irrelevant topics. As if the policy was to keep this criminal activity hidden from the general population so that We the People wouldn't know that prosecutable crimes had taken place under the Bush Administration. I use this as an example, it happens all the time though.

Oh, that's kind of what you said.
Sorry Time for change. I am getting madder every passing day.
It's very hard to listen to Obama giving his speeches talking about Our American Values and The American Dream without being overcome with the same nauseating and sickening response had when Bush spoke. hyp·o·crite.


This Truth Commission suggested by Senator Leahy is nothing but a steaming pile of crap. Leahy knows crimes have been committed, they all do. It's as obvious as planes flying into buildings, and as ludicrous as saying who'd have thought they'd turn planes into missiles.

Truth Commission? Volunteer your Journal, in fact there are several Journals at DU that would save a lot of taxpayer money and expedite The Truth so we can get on with the prosecutions.

Give them their Trials already.

[Time for change]

16. I'd love for them to have trials

And I'd love for them to use my journal if it would help. That's one of the main reasons I write it -- Thank you for suggesting that.

Of course Leahy knows that crimes have been committed. But the point is to get that information out the the American public. Already a lot of them want to see prosecutions. But the publicity generated by truth commission hearings might increase that number to the point where prosecutions political pressure would force the prosecutions to occur.

It's not the best solution. It's an interum solution -- useful only if the more definitive solution -- prosecutions -- isn't occuring.

[mmonk]

9. As long as it isn't a hide the truth commission.

We're expecting a government that has violated the rule of law and the Constitution and gone to great lengths lying and covering it up to give us the truth in a commission run by them? BTW, I'm a member of Amnesty International as well but my mind is totally logic based.

[Time for change]

10. I don't know what you mean

"We're expecting a government that has violated the rule of law and the Constitution and gone to great lengths lying and covering it up to give us the truth in a commission run by them?"

We have a different government now than the one that did all that.

Are you referring to Congress? Congress wasn't the one that violated the law and the Constitution -- although they enabled the law to be broken by not taking aggressive action to hold the Bush administration accountable.

And the idea is not to appoint a truth commission run by Congress. AI is recommending that an independent truth commission be appointed -- one that has no obligations to Congress.

[mmonk]

11. As in "independent and bipartisan"?

[Time for change]

20. There are few people who dislike the term "bipartisan" more than I do

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4504285

I don't think that independent has anything to do with bipartisan.

Anyhow, I agree that it is imperative to prosecute the Bush administration, and I have talked about that many times. But since that's no Congress's job at this point, anything they can do to get more information out there and more publicity for the Bush crimes I'm happy with.

[mmonk]

21. It is better than nothing which seems our current track.

That being said, I prefer a return to Constitutional government and checks and balances.

[VP505]

12. I am totally against a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission"

NO, I don't believe its better than nothing. We know what crimes were committed, we know who perpetrated them, what we need are indictments and trials. A truth commission may require giving immunity, that IMO puts people above the law. There is more than enough probable cause for an indictment and the search for truth known as a trial ought to be adequate.

[davidswanson]

13. not so sure

Investigations substituted for impeachment for two full years. A "truth and reconciliation" commission as a substitute for prosecution would be counterproductive, as argued by Jonathan Turley, Peter Dyer, David Swanson, and Bob Fertik. The Justice Department itself has argued for "state secrets" blocks on prosecutions on the grounds that commissions can substitute for enforcing laws. The American public prefers criminal prosecutions to commission investigations.

[Time for change]

15. AI is not proposing a commission as a substitute for prosecution

They have in the past called for the prosecution of Bush and his cohorts, and they have never retracted that.

Says Amnesty U.S.A. Director Larry Cox "Closing Guantanamo, as President-elect Obama has pledged, is just the first step. For real change, the incoming administration and Congress must work together to fully expose the Bush administration policies as a step toward ensuring that the same abuses committed in the name of national security are not repeated.” ...

Amnesty says the transition team should consider a task force in the Attorney General’s office or a special prosecutor. If not, the investigating commission could give recommendations on how to proceed following its report.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/surveillance-big-brother/amnesty-closing-guantanamo-isn%E2%80%99t-enough/5035/

I would be absolutely opposed to a truth commission as a substitute for prosecution. But I can't see at all how they're mutually exclusive. They would be for different purposes and performed by different bodies. The purpose of the truth commission is to better educate the American people of the crimes that occurred during the Bush administration. The purpose of prosecution is punishment for crimes that have been committed.

Sure, I would love for prosecutions to start up right now. But as long as they're not happening at the moment, maybe a truth commission could be the first step that educates the American public to the point where prosecution becomes more feasible.

[Piewhacket]

19. Truth commissions are death to prosecutions. (n/t)

Different objectives.
Tainting of evidence.
Immunity.
Subject to significant political interference with competing objectives.
Undermines political (public) resolve for accountability.

Better than nothing? Not necessarily.

Thanks for the well written article. Good work, as usual.
I Just disagree with the AI position on this point.

[Time for change]

24. I want to see the criminals prosecuted as much as anyone

I think that the primary disagreement between me and those who disagree with a truth commission goes to your statement that it "undermines political (public) resolve for accountability". I believe it is just the opposite. The Bush/Cheney crimes were very much ignored by our corporate news media for 8 years. Publicity of those crimes has the potential to educate the public about them to the point where they demand accountability through prosecution. In the absence of more political pressure for prosecutions it looks like it probably isn't going to happen. How does one build up political pressure except by educating the public?

As you say, there are different objectives between the two. One is primarily to educate the public, and the other is to punish the guilty and uphold the rule of law. The different objectives is exactly why the one shouldn't preclude the other.

With regard to immunity, that doesn't have to be offered. But if offering immunity to lower level operatives is needed in order to get information on the highest levels of the Bush administration, that may be worth while. That happens in prosecutions too.

I agree that it may not be better than nothing. But I just want to see as many avenues pursued as possible.

[Piewhacket]

29. I understand, and offer no objection to the advocasy of truth commissions...

regarding human rights abuses, especially where rule of law has collapsed.
Yet it is my conviction that you cannot have both. If you empower a truth
commission, prosecutions are out. On this point we apparently disagree.

Of course I respect and support your and AI worldwide advocacy on behalf of human
rights. Hear hear, and please do not deter in the slightest. Yet I might
still disagree with a given battle plan.

A truth commission is a body vested with the trappings of a court of
special prosecution, but without the authority to pursue or impose
criminal penalties. Its inquiry and findings become a matter of
historical fact, imprinted with the dignity of the convening authority.
Sometimes this can be very important, even all important.

Yet the work of such a body, if it is fully empowered, can and ACTUALLY
does interfere with and obstruct criminal investigations and other
functions of government. For that reason these activities are not
legal and not permissible without the government's authorization.

Therefore special legislation would have to be introduced in
the US authorizing such a body. This legislation would be vigorously opposed.
http://www.sacbee.com/838/story/1633122.html

It not presently possible to predict what delegation of authority would be
included. Anything that passed would be expected to be rife with the usual
political compromises.

Of course truth commissions can still have value where rule of law is inadequate,
where political will is absent or the conduct, while serious, is not technically
a crime, or the technical case for prosecution has been seriously undermined
or compromised, or that other purposes may be advanced by investigation which are
more important than prosecution.

But here I must deny that the US is a third world country where rule of law is absent,
where criminals have fled beyond reach of law, where the victims are all dead,
where the government is tottering, free speech has been suppressed,
the people are exhausted and focused on survival. In such a place a
truth commission is not just an alternative, it is the most that is possible.
Alas there are many such places, too damn many such places, even one is too damn
many. But MY country, though gravely injured, has not YET become one of these.

There are yet existing and lawful alternatives: Congressional inquiry.
Grand Jury inquiry. Criminal investigation and prosecution.
Investigative Journalism. Public Outcry and Advocacy.

I support congressional inquiry and national and international criminal
investigation and prosecution, even a special prosecutor perhaps, but
do not presently support the truth commission proposal.

[leveymg]

22. We already know the truth, and some will never be reconciled to it. So, just prosecute thebastards.

Accountability will only come through the courts. Investigate, Indict, Convict, Incarcerate. Nothing more, nothing less.

The alternatives just mean more of the same. Stop the endless cycle of crimes of state.

[Duval]

25. Thank you. I am donating

right now. This is a wealth of info, and well worth the read.

[Time for change]

26. Thank you

That's great to hear.

[bobbolink]

27. I've been hoping for International Action on this. It would certainly SHAME this country

into recognizing what we have become.

And that includes the spineless Dems.

Thank you for supporting this.

[Time for change]

28. Those are my thoughts on the issue

When I called my Senators to urge them to support this, I considered also expressing my desire to proceed with prosecutions. But that isn't their responsibility. It's our President's responsibility. So I didn't get into that.

[clear eye]

30. The other nations whose relations with us would be threatened by this type of disclosure

are those most viciously brutal regimes that we sent prisoners to under extraordinary rendition. Some of these nations have natural resources that our government feels are important to us or are located in hotspots where allies are important, like Egypt.

I find such priorities repulsive, but never offending anyone by disclosing or investigating criminal behavior, whether it be gross human rights violations, unconstitutional abuse of office, or blatant corruption is fast becoming the hallmark of this administration. I don't know whether Pres. Obama is terrified of retaliation, up to and including assassination, from these nasties or just wants a free pass for possible misdeeds of his own, but as the categories of evildoers whom he seems to favor over more principled people with just as strong credentials mount, so does my alienation. From mega-bank officers who okayed fraudulent derivatives, to former economics advisors who used influence to gut SEC regulations about bank risk, to the most corrupt of the Congressional Republicans, to officials who facilitated the unconstitutional politicization of the Justice Dept., even to choosing to favor the most corrupt among the leaders of large unions, Andy Stern, accepting his recommendation to head labor (Rep. Hilda Solis), and having him to the White House dozens of times for every one time he's invited mainstream officials of the AFL-CIO, the pattern builds. Even Raum and Axelrod, pretty shrewd players themselves, seem to be starting to find his fixation on catering to the totally unscrupulous disturbing, but have been unable to redirect him. Perhaps this is where he's redirected the rebellious impulses he said he overcame in college. He did, after all, have an "idealistic" mother who dumped him, though ostensibly for his own good.

One incident that in hindsight seems particularly revealing was what he said during the interview he did with Rachel Maddow a couple of weeks after he was elected. She was asking whether a few remarks he'd made in the last month before the election that seemed to undercut earlier promises (I forget the issue, may have been Iraq withdrawal) meant that he was weakening his position, and he answered testily, "Hey, I got elected, didn't I?" Perhaps he feels that all idealists are as demanding, impractical and ultimately unable to be pleased as his mother was, and that he's safer and better served by allying with dirtier players. Oddly, I don't think he's particularly interested in financial gain, so the peculiar result is that the ruthless power players get what they want from him for a relative bargain or even free.