The egregious Chris Matthews is a real "tough guy" in interviewing "guests" until they begin to compare American actions to those of various unclean regimes in recent history. His childlike belief in the uniqueness of the United States and its status as the "city on the hill" causes him to break out in a skin rash at the thought that we might have done some really base things in "moments" of unguarded and banal ordinariness.
He is not alone in this reaction. Recently one Jeffrey Smith, General Counsel of the CIA in the Clinton era defended career CIA "officers" on the Newshour on the basis that they were following orders and defending the national interest and therefore should be held blameless for anything they did under orders (waterboarding, walling, nakeding, hosing down with fire hoses, etc.) There have been various repetitions of this basic message in the media recently.
I don't have a quarrel with the Obamanian decision to avoid prosecuting people from the Bush Administration for war crimes connected with Iraq. I understand the evident decision. Politically, such prosecutions would sharply divide the country and probably hurt the Democratic Party in the mid-term elections in 2010 or the genral in 2012. More importantly, a precedent of prosecution of members of a previous administration is likely to lead to retaliation on an unending basis. I understand the decision but I don't like it.
"I was ordered to..." has been a a discredited and unacceptable basis for a defense in war crimes trial since the trials of the Nazis at Nuremberg. "Things were tough..." is an equally discredited defense.
What are we saying? Is it our position that international law applies to eveyone but us and that it does not apply to us because we are "special?"
Are we that childish? pl
Colonel,
[continuation]....Cheney has made himself one heck of a paper trail for himself, that......that will snag both and his henchmen.
Prez Obama has shown great skill. First, he condemns torture in the campaign. Then, as a new prez, he bans the use of it. Then he releases the Bush-Cheney administration's damning memos in the face of combined efforts on the part of top CIA wonks to stop it. Obama then goes to CIA HQ and tells a cheering crowd of 'their people' that there will be no prosecutions. Meanwhile back at the ranch, the public, fanned by a concerted media campaign, is outraged as his refusal to prosecute [CIA wonks]. Then Prez Obama says that he is not sure what he will do and follows this with the statement that people who break the law must expect to be punished.
I look forward to seeing a perp walk in the works for Tenet, Laughlin, Black, Brennen, and all those who were hand-n-hand involved in the Bush-Cheney administration's cruelty of torture. It's time the 'decision makers' were held accountable for their actions.
Posted by: J | 26 April 2009 at 08:55 AM
"Bush tortured. Bush was a moron. Unless you think you can put Bush behind bars, move on."
Ah, but thats the endgame sir, 8 years down the road. (evil laughter).
Seriously, I hope that the Obama administration doesnt fall to the ploy of going directly up against Cheney right now, but instead continues to go after Yoo and the weaker links, on the pretexts of professional disbarrment. That will make a lot of evidence surface...
Posted by: fnord | 27 April 2009 at 11:04 AM
Clifford Kiracofe wrote:
I am reminded of the chilling story of Alyssa Peterson, who, when ordered to take part in interrogations that, no doubt, involved what we would call torture, she refused, then killed herself a few days later, in September 2003. A cover-up, naturally, followed.
She killed herself, or she "killed herself"?
Posted by: ads | 30 April 2009 at 06:38 PM
Colonel,
Take a gander at this one
-- the CIA's torture architects --
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7471217&page=1
The CIA's $1,000 a Day Specialists on Waterboarding, Interrogations - ABC News
Posted by: J | 30 April 2009 at 08:34 PM