"Barack Obama is not given the right by our Constitution to be the judge and jury for torturers."

[kpete]

On Prosecuting War Crimes
Tuesday 21 April 2009

by: Nick Mottern, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

The following is an excerpt from a talk by Nick Mottern on April 19, 2009, delivered after receiving a Peace and Justice Award from the WESPAC Foundation in White Plains, New York.

I believe that had Nixon and Kissinger been held accountable for their war crimes, we probably would not be in the wars we are in today. That is because in the very divisive process of investigating and prosecuting Nixon and Kissinger and others, we the American people would have learned something life-changing about ourselves as a people and about our acceptance of war.

Barack Obama is not given the right by our Constitution to be the judge and jury for torturers. I include Bush and Cheney in this category although they committed other war crimes. Mr. Obama and our Congress took oaths to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. They must be reminded that they must do this job regardless of whether they think it is divisive or not.

If President Obama and the Congress do their jobs of enforcing the law with respect to torture and other Bush and Cheney war crimes, they will begin unraveling the web of deceit that has supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

We as Americans will learn things that we must learn to save countless lives here and in countries where we are supporting and waging war.

more:
http://www.truthout.org/042109J

[Solly Mack]

1. Damn sure would

"If President Obama and the Congress do their jobs of enforcing the law with respect to torture and other Bush and Cheney war crimes, they will begin unraveling the web of deceit that has supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars."

[walldude]

2. K&R

Are we just going to look the other way? Again?

[KansDem]

4. Yesterday, Peggy Noonan told us to "keep on walking."

Maybe she had a flashback to her college days and really meant "trucking." Anyway, I found her dismissive comment to be inflammatory and in the spirit of another coverup.

[bdamomma]

15. if we do, they will come back again.

[merh]

26. We ignored this same group during watergate, forgave the crimes

and moved forward to "heal the nation and bridge the divide" - what did that get us?

They came back out of the wood work and gave us Iran/Contra and again, we moved on, forgave them their wrongs, looked to the future - turned the nation's other check

And they gave us stolen elections, 9/11, the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Afghanistan war, torture, haliburton, blackwater, the economic hell, politicizing of the DOJ, Katrina, and the list goes on.

We cannot turn the other cheek - we must hold them accountable for if we don't, we will never survive another of their reigns of terror and error.

[Stuart G]

3. K&R nt

[Buzz Clik]

5. This ranks high on the "What the hell are you talking about?" index.

Choosing not to use his political office to use the legal system to pursue his political adversaries can not be equated to being the "judge and jury". Far better avenues of prosecution exist that keep the executive branch out of the business of politicizing the justice system.

[Adelante]

9. Agree nt

[derby378]

10. The justice system has already been politicized

Obama's only recourse in order to undo the damage inflicted on DoJ is to not hinder investigations or prosecutions.

[Echo In Light]

12. "Politicizing the system" is propaganda for dissuading any attempt at actual accountability

[Buzz Clik]

14. No, it is not. Bush has poisoned the well for Dept of Justice. That MUST be changed.

We are not a banana republic, and we cannot act like one any longer.

[Buzz Clik]

13. I agree -- don't hinder the investigations. Just let someone else do it.

[bvar22]

18. Aside from immediately appointing an Independent Prosecutor....

...what are all these other avenues of justice to which you ar3e referring?
Appointing a squeaky clean Independent Prosecutor with a proven ethical track record is the ONLY way to avoid charges of "politicization".

Donald Iglesias would be a good one.
A Republican Bush Appointed Federal Prosecutor who was fired by Rove/Bush for refusing to engage in politically motivated prosecutions.

Obama/Holder absolutely NEED to take this step ASAP to avoid the perception of protecting War Criminals and Torturers.

[glitch]

22. Iglesias would be perfect.

not to mention karmically exquisite.

[Buzz Clik]

23. Appointing a prosecutor who was fired by Bush to investigate Bush would be non-political? LOL!!!

This is exactly the problem.

[bvar22]

24. Please name some of the "far better avenues" ...

As you stated above:

"Far better avenues of prosecution exist".
Please name a few of these avenues that don't involve the DoJ.

And don't EVEN suggest anything that involves Congress like a bi-partisan WhiteWash Commission. We have seen how well those work. Besides, some Bush Friendly "Centrist" Democrats have torture blood on their hands too.

It is the Executive Branch's JOB to enforce the law.
There is NO DOUBT that serious Laws and Treaties have been broken.
Obama did the smart thing yesterday by passing the buck to Holder (where it belongs).
He should have done this sooner.

NOW, Holder need to do the RIGHT thing, and pass this buck to an Independent Prosecutor.
Please find an Independent Prosecutor who wasn't appointed by a Democrat or a Republican.

The longer the Obama White House keeps this issue on their plate, the longer this issue will be politicized.
The longer the Obama White House dawdles on appointing an Independent Prosecutor, the more valid the perception of the White House protecting War Criminals and Torturers becomes.



So, Buzz, please name some of the other better avenues that you pontificated above.

[Buzz Clik]

27. I can see why you're so pumped about the independent prosecutor approach. Such a glorious past.

Kenneth Starr was a beacon of objectivity.

I'd consider an independent prosecutor maybe -- if Congress appointed one or maybe if Holder chose someone with a hint of non-partisanship. Iglesias? Remarkable.

And, despite your orders to the contrary, I will suggest a Congressional investigation. That's exactly where it belongs.

[bvar22]

28. and Congress has a better track record? Ha!

Truth is, BOTH parties have too much culpability to have an honest invesigation.
Conress has NO power to prosecute.
They can only refer it to the AG, and we are back to square one.


There is NO DOUBT that crimes have been committed.
Obama himself has admitted that Waterboarding is TORTURE.
Going through Congress at this stage is a pure waste of time.

[democrank]

6. Prosecute

[jberryhill]

7. So you disagree with the DoJ's position on marijuana in CA?

Holder said they wouldn't go after marijuana shops in CA that were in line with CA marijuana laws, even though MJ remains illegal federally.

You disagree with that, I take it.

[lies and propaganda]

8. yeah but they were LYING about that..

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/21/BA1V175SB9.DTL&tsp=1

[jberryhill]

11. Uh, no....

Not meaning to thread-jack, but the allegation is that the store in question is not complying with California law either.

But the point remains - do you have a problem with the principle involved, i.e. the DoJ specifying under what conditions it is going to prosecute violations of federal law.

Whether they follow through on that is not relevant to the point.

[ieoeja]

16. The author left out "or prosecutor".

The author should have written, "the President is not given the right by our Constitution to be the judge, jury or prosecutor for torturers."

[dem mba]

17. what was the web of deceit leading up to the invasion of Afghanistan?

I get the lies about Iraq. I mean, that is beyond doubt at this point. But what deceit was used to get us into Tora Bora?

I never get why some feel Afghanistan was illegal or wrong or whatever, so someone please set me straight. Maybe we shouldn't be there now, maybe we should alter our strategy or something, ok. But as far as invading and destabilizing the Taliban, that seemed to me like a moral imperative after 9/11.

[bvar22]

20. Because Afghanistan did not attack us.

Neither did the Taliban.

A Tribal Warlord rented some space to a handful of Saudi financed foreign criminals (Al Qaeda) to set up a training base out in desert.

This was a matter for a very limited, very targeted application of International Law Enforcement.
NOT the wholesale invasion and occupation of a country who did not and could not attack the US.

SEE: How the Israelis handled small bands of international criminals pre-Bush era.

[dem mba]

29. your definitions of "handful"

"criminal", and "a training base" differ greatly from mine. The Taliban are about 7-11,000 deep as of 2008, according to trusty old wikipedia. The Taliban fought and won a nation-wide war and were in control of Afghanistan around the time of 9/11. Now they are trying to overthrow the government in nuclear-power Pakistan. Do you deny this?

Have you seen this yet?

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/pakistan802/

These guys aren't bootleggers on the run from johnny law. They are a regional force that quite literally terrorize everyone in their paths. I think you greatly downplay their significance.

[mmonk]

19. Very true. There is no "decider" in the executive branch.

[bertman]

21. Recommend.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. "The Buck stops here" is no longer applicable. What's politically convenient is now the standard.

[Optical.Catalyst]

30. And President Obama should not be judge and jury by giving Bush a 'Get out of Jail Free' card either

If Bush and his cohorts are guilty of war crimes and illegal torture, then it should be the obligation of the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute. The President should not direct the prosecution of anyone, and by the same token the President should not give them a pass by saying those events are in the past and we are not going there.