In the past, there has been talk of prosecuting Bush Administration officials for “harsh torture techniques,” but President Barack Obama didn’t seem to give the notion much attention.
Nevertheless, after reading this article, I began to wonder if the current Administration would actually begin prosecuting certain individuals in the Bush Administration for the “torture memos.”
From The Daily Mail:
U.S. President Barack Obama has left the door open to prosecution of Bush administration officials who devised harsh terrorism-era interrogation tactics, he said today.
And he said memos detailing gruesome torture under George Bush reflect the U.S. ‘losing our moral bearings’.
The president refused to define in black and white his stance on Bush administration lawyers who approved tactics such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation.
‘There are a host of very complicated issues involved,’ he said.
Instead he left the ball firmly in the attorney general’s court, saying any possible prosecution ‘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.’
Speaking at the White House today, Mr Obama also said he worries about the impact of high-intensity hearings on how detainees were treated under former Bush.
But he added that he could support a congressional investigation – so long as it was conducted in a balanced manner.
I have strong opinions on this subject, but I’m sure that most already know what they are. I would like to hear from our contributors/listeners, about whether or not they would like to see Bush Administration officials prosecuted for the torture memos, and why.
- Marc
If in fact we going to restore the rule of law, then it is impossible for President Obama to offer immunity to torturers and torture conspirators. Only the politicization of the Department of Justice during the Bush administration prevented the appointment of a special prosecutor to enforce the laws regarding torture.
If a given Bush administration official (or any other official) violated a law, then yes, they should absolutely be prosecuted. If prosecution is going to be used as a political statement only and not as a means to deliver justice for a violation of the law, then no, we should not prosecute.
Im glad to see rmwarnick and Tyler get to the important point here. We need only to determine if laws in which this country agreed to uphold and operate by, were violated. If they were, then WHOMEVER the violator(s) is, prosecution is needed.
For anyone to claim that it somehow doesn’t matter if those laws were broken, or it’s somehow justified…they are basically throwing out all laws of the land.
Any violators of the law should be prosecuted. It’s ridiculous that there’s even the thought of prosecution being taken off the table for gross wrongdoing by the former administration. While I think that the state of the economy is more pressing at the moment, these things absolutely need to be looked into.
I am no fan of President Bush.
However, we should only be prosecuting the officials of any former administration where the violation of the law is absolutely clear. That means we need to accept that what is careless, negligent, sloppy, incompetent and even downright unethical might not be illegal.
When we start prosecuting former officials without restraint, we will effect how future administrations and their people behave. While we want to give them the lattitude to perform their jobs effectively and with autonomy, we also don’t want them breaking the law.
Torture? What torture?
Radical Muslim Extremists laugh at what we call “torture”:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31669
Debate? What debate…