It should seem simple and straight forward. Do we, the people of the United States sanction the torture of other human beings or do we not? There seem, somehow, to be two answers depending on to whom you are speaking. Some answer an unequivocal no; they say that using force to coerce another human being is simply immoral and utterly irreconcilable with our principles. Other say that any act undertaken with the purpose of saving American lives (why do they always make that stipulation?) is perfectly acceptable.
Further complicating the matter is the point raised by Mr. Llewellyn King. The prospect of Congressional hearings, frankly does smack of attainder which is both unethical and unconstitutional. Additionally the implications of executive retribution would, at absolute best, serve to destabilize the authority of the Presidency; while accountability is vital to the proper functioning of our government, we cannot allow ourselves to start criminalizing the politics of outgoing administrations. A tangled web indeed.
The only decision we can make at this point is what to do going forward. First we need to determine if the law was broken. Frankly I can't see how anyone could argue otherwise. Part 1, Article 3, Section 1, Subsection A of the Geneva Convention (of which this nation is a primary signatory) states plainly that torture is proscribed. So, yes, the law was broken. Words fail to communicate my feelings to my own satisfaction. The person(s) responsible for this, simply put, are not safe in my presence.
Moving on, we have to address the issue of what the proper course is to resolve this. Its tempting to jump on the idea of a bipartisan commission of the legislature. Sounds democratic and post-partisan, etc. but the fact of it is, while such a commission might (I cannot sufficiently stress that word, might) be useful in generating investigative results, using the legislature to punish the players in this drama would be patently illegal under the constitution and set a very dangerous precedent for criminalizing the policies of political rivals after the fact.
What is it with me and drawn out sentences lately?
The proper place for any prosecution is, as Fearless Leader has stated, with Justice. That said the DoJ doesn't exactly have a pristine reputation at the moment and furthermore, Sec. Holder is a personal friend of Fearless Leader. I don't want to question either man's integrity but only the king of all fools would pretend that the supporters of the previous administration won't. There is also the little matter of the recent scandal regarding the mishandling of the Steven's prosecution. A favorite defence tactic of many attorneys is to attack the prosecution, undermining their credibility.
Assuming a successful prosecution, what the hell do we do with the guilty parties? I'm not certain they fall under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ and I'm unaware of any civilian conviction precedents. So then what?
Personally, I advocate stripping of all assets and the imposition of damnatio memoriae. Then again, I've made my position known.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As you correctly state, the first thing that MUST be done is to determine if and where the law was broken. Congressional investigation might be useful in that process, if only by providing a public forum for discovery of evidence. (The political horse-apples will simply have to fall where they will.) There is ample precedent in the Watergate hearings (showing my age again.)
ReplyDeleteProsecution does, indeed, rightly belong with DoJ. As to civilian precedents, one need look no further than Nuremburg, or our own prosecutions of the Japanese post-WWII for the treatment of prisoners.
What I find most deeply disturbing is the lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel. If we are to have rule of law, then those whose profession it is to read law must be committed to the highest standards of upholding not only its letter, but its spirit. Yet it appears, at this point, that the OLC took the position that the law would be whatever the Administration at the time wanted it to be. At that point, there is no rule of law.