Posted By Stephen M. Walt Share

On the torture memos: I’m not a lawyer, but I think I understand the political calculations that led Obama to say that his administration would not be prosecuting individuals for their role in this loathsome episode. He understood that this could reach very far up in the Bush administration, and that beginning a legal process would be divisive and cost him some swing votes he thinks he’ll need on other issues. So the principals in the Bush administration torture regime may end up with a free pass, at least in terms of criminal prosecution. But I have three thoughts:

First, a lot of countries (including the United States) have expended considerable diplomatic effort to hold people like Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic or Liberia’s Charles Taylor accountable for their crimes. Apparently Obama feels that this principle can be jettisoned when it might be politically expedient to do so. At a minimum, we ought to remember this incident the next time we get upset that some other country is declining to prosecute a former leader, turning a blind eye to some other ruler's depredations (think Robert Mugabe), or cutting a deal with some warlord or terrorist leader.  Maybe they were making pragmatic calculations too, and we holier-than-thou Americans ought to be a bit less judgmental. 

Second, does our failure to prosecute open the door to other efforts to do so? A number of states (France, Canada, Belgium, Spain, etc.) have incorporated a principle of “universal jurisdiction” into their own domestic legal systems, when dealing with genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity (including torture). This principle can be invoked when the home country of the alleged perpetrator is "unwilling or unable to prosecute"  Earlier reports suggesting that Spanish officials were going to indict six former Bush administration officials eventually led Spain's attorney general to say that U.S. courts would be the proper venue, but Obama has now made it clear that this isn't going to happen. I don’t know what the practical implications might be, but if I were Dick Cheney or David Addington, I wouldn’t be planning a summer vacation in Spain.

Third, for those of you who think that power is of declining relevance in world politics and that normative and legal standards are becoming increasingly important, I'd just point out that the various officials who sanctioned these abuses would be in a lot more trouble if they came from a  weak and vulnerable state, as opposed to a global power like the United States. Not only does power corrupt, but it allows people who sanction torture to get away with it, albeit at some considerable cost to America's image and reputation. Those reputational costs will be borne by all Americans, who ought to be furious at the crimes that were committed in their name.

 

GRAND SEN-OR

11:53 PM ET

April 20, 2009

administration would not be

administration would not be prosecuting individuals for their role in this loathsome episode

Look what my book reads:

"The legislature must always take precedent over the executive whenever a major dispute between them occurs."

"It's the Rule of Law that's important, not the government of the day."

But, hey, don't get me wrong! I am not complaining you guys save(/undermine) the State, rather you're welcome President Obama to make shadow on this loathsome episode.;->>

Because I know the Axiom 13 of the SATFP reads:

"13. A State can suspend her constitution if the National Interest dictates so. Solely the Leadership decides whether the National Interest dictates that or not and their decision is final, cannot be challenged based on the articles of the Constitution of the State. In such cases the leadership for the sake of the National Interest is not required to disclose the reasons how they reached to a certain decision. When the National Interest of the State requires the constitution of the State becomes just a goddamned piece of paper (as Bush declared)."

(France, Canada, Belgium, Spain, etc.) have incorporated a principle of “universal jurisdiction”

Let them play, they are not aware of Axiom 4 of the SATFP:

"4. There exists no central authority in that arena that can enforce moral or legal constraints."

and they think they can change this axiom by creating such pseudo structures. What a waste and it is amazing to observe how desperate people get to save the State.

Grand Sen~or.

 

BLUE13326

2:37 AM ET

April 21, 2009

Your first point is crucial:

Your first point is crucial: There is no way we can expect to uphold a system of international law if Obama exempts us from it. Perhaps the only area where international law can be said to work is in trade; if one country decides it will ignore a WTO finding, the system eventually falls apart. If someone believes in an international legal system in this area (and I have extreme doubts about the feasibility of such a system), this is a huge blow.

Camus called this type of behavior in individuals 'Christianity for others, and paganism for oneself.' If the people who claim to believe in such a system refuse to participate in it when it might harm them, the system falls apart; if Obama believes in this system of international law, he needs to let the system play out--even if it ends up netting crazy eyes Pelosi.

 

RUSSELL SVEDA

3:02 AM ET

April 21, 2009

Obama will not prosecute CIA operatives who used torture

I believe the President's decision not to prosecute CIA operatives who used torture was carefully nuanced: those who oversaw the operatives or approved the policies are not those who conducted the torture, and still may be held responsible. Nothing may happen in the US, but it would be very unwise of W, Cheney, Yoo, and others to travel abroad... to Spain, for example, where Pinochet ran into problems with human rights activists.

 

FNORD

10:24 AM ET

April 21, 2009

Good work

Sir, thank you for this principled stand. As a Norwegian national I would like to point out that in this case, the trust of NATO members is also on the line. If the US does not act to repair its moral problems, but rather sweeps clear offenses against international conventions under the carpet, it sends two signals. One signal goes to Turkey and the East European countries: That they dont have to conform to international law. The other goes to the old NATO members, that the very idea of international law is no longer an issue, and that exceptionalism and force are now the new moral standards. Its a huge leap back from the Nuremberg trials if this is allowed.

 

DAVID DOPPLER

2:53 PM ET

April 21, 2009

It is neither a political nor

It is neither a political nor a policy decision for President Obama or his staff to make whether to prosecute individual members of government accused of committing crimes. Career prosecutors and the grand juries they convene take an oath to enforce the law, and communications between the White House and DOJ concerning pending criminal matters are tightly controlled to protect against politicization of the process.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title1/doj00032.htm

Karl Rove could still go to jail for violating these controls, and for obstructing or perverting justice in various ways. Obama can pardon people, but neither he nor Rahm Emanuel get to decide who should be prosecuted. Obama has chosen not to call for investigation and prosecution of torturers, or torture enablers, and to focus his attention forward, but that does not control the DOJ.

 

CARRINGTON WARD

2:54 PM ET

April 21, 2009

Double Bait

One thing that occurs to me: it is distressing, to say the least, that there are a large number of foreign intelligence organizations who know more about this torture scandal than we do.

As a general rule, it seems, the more an intelligence organization is trying to protect secrets from its own government, the more levers foreign intelligence operatives can use to turn and double agents within the organization.

In short, the stain of involvement with torture is also problematic from the perspective of the integrity and cohesiveness of the CIA. Indeed, given that this scandal is but the last in nearly a decade's worth of catastrophic failures at CIA -- Hanssen, 9/11, Iraqamok, Graibamok, etc. -- one has to wonder whether the intelligence apparatus we currently have can be trusted at all.

 

ANTIAPARTHEID

5:14 PM ET

April 22, 2009

Any accountability It stops with the state.

Watch and see, the Department of Justice isn't going to do anything but the AIPAC trial may proceed ahead anyway.

 

GRAND SEN-OR

6:56 PM ET

April 22, 2009

Obama says it is AG's duty to save the State on that issue.

The question of whether to bring charges against those who devised justification for the methods "is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge that," Obama said.

Now it is the Attorney General's duty to save the State;->
It will be exciting to observe how he is going to fulfil it;->
I am wondering where was the AG sleeping while those loathsome episode were taking place? Who is going to save the poor AG?;->>

Attorny General - the Sleeping Beauty, Obama hes to kiss her to wake up, but Obama refrains kissing her because she stinks, she had too much garlic to go to sleep;->

May Jupiter help you Guys!

Grand Sen~or.

 

SOLID MIND

6:00 PM ET

May 5, 2009

If they open the Pandora Box,

If they open the Pandora Box, Obama and this country will have to prosecute every Political Candidate that has ever held a position in this government.

Interrogation tactics as you call them Torture tactics have been around for many presidential terms and if they start searching all presidents, vice presidents, immigration officials, CIA and all other governmental departments will be hurt.

We have already made enough fools of ourselves in this country. With this term, we might just end up completely destroying America as a Nation. This Nation is the only nation in the world who loves to throw dirt on itself.

God help us all with all these reports and crap we keep throwing at ourselves.

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Read More