Leon Panetta Absolves CIA Torturers…Why?

Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009 10:35 PM
Category: Allgov Blogs

On Thursday, CIA Director Leon Panetta sent an e-mail to CIA employees reassuring them that no one who engaged in torture would be held accountable as long as they were following orders. In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into law, the U.S. War Crimes Act. The Act, created and promoted by Republicans, made it a federal crime to commit a “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions, meaning the deliberate “killing, torture or inhuman treatment” of detainees. It includes “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” Violations of the War Crimes Act that result in the death of a detainee carry the death penalty and they do not have a statute of limitations. Although it was initiated to prosecute foreigners who mistreat American prisoners, Congress, in an admirable display of bipartisan support for human rights, applied the law as well to American treatment of foreign prisoners of war, reasoning that we should hold ourselves to the same standards we hold others.

In a memo to President Bush dated January 25, 2002, then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales suggested that Bush find a way to avoid the rules of the Geneva Conventions as they relate to prisoners of war because that “substantially reduces the likelihood of prosecution under the War Crimes Act.” A week later, Attorney General John Ashcroft sent a memo to the president also stressing that opting out of the Geneva treaty “would provide the highest assurance that no court would subsequently entertain charges that American military officers, intelligence officials, or law enforcement officials violated Geneva Convention rules relating to field conduct, detention conduct or interrogation of detainees.” Ashcroft reminded Bush, “The War Crimes Act of 1996 makes violation of parts of the Geneva Convention a crime in the United States.”
This led to all sorts of twisted arguments that anyone picked up anywhere during the “War on Terror” wasn’t a prisoner of war and that anyone held at Guantánamo or Bagram was not subject to U.S. law. These arguments were rejected by the Supreme Court in its 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision. Considering that the Pentagon has admitted that at least 35 detainees have been murdered by their guards, the question of bringing torture charges against CIA agents and others is not a theoretical issue.
Not to worry, though, because President Obama and CIA Director Panetta have made it clear that even murderers will not be called to justice as long as they can prove that they were just following orders.
This decision is so damaging to U.S. credibility abroad, that it is worth considering why Obama and Panetta would do such a thing. In a best case scenario, they are granting immunity to the torture perpetrators in order to build a case against those who gave the orders, specifically President Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Major General Geoffrey Miller and Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez  In a middle-ground scenario, Obama and Panetta are too wishy-washy to stand up to the CIA and to former Bush administration members. In a worst case scenario, they want to reserve for themselves the right to ignore U.S. law, just like the Bush team did. If this last scenario turns out to be the true one, it would be a tragedy, because it would send a message to future generations that all laws relating to human rights in the United States are irrelevant if the president says it is alright to ignore them.

Latest News

EPA Waited 7 Months Too Long to Declare Emergency in Flint Water Crisis, Claims Report

The EPA had sufficient authority and information to issue an emergency order to protect residents of Flint, Michigan, from lead-contaminated water as early as June 2015 — seven months before it declared an emergency, the EPA's inspector general said Thursday. The Flint crisis should have generated "a greater sense of urgency" at the agency to "intervene when the safety of drinking water is compromised," said the report.   read more

Debate over Conspiracy as War Crime Casts Shadow across Guantánamo Detainee Conviction

The question is whether the military commissions can prosecute additional terrorism defendants for conspiracy. That charge is useful for trying people suspected of participating in a terrorist group. But while conspiracy is considered a crime under U.S. law, it is not a war crime by international law. “There is still no resolution of this basic constitutional question...” said professor Vladeck. “The court let this one conviction stand, but in the process, it didn’t actually settle the fight.”   read more

Most of Syrian Refugees Arriving in U.S. are Children

The rising number of Syrian refugee students comes amid a heated presidential campaign. Trump called Clinton's plan to expand the refugee program and accept 65,000 Syrian refugees the "great Trojan horse of all time." Nearly 30 states have vowed to deny entry to Syrian refugees. Resettlement agencies worry inflamed rhetoric about refugees will trickle into the classroom. One report found 50% of Muslim students surveyed were subjected to mean comments because of their religion.   read more

Mexican Peso Taken on Wild Ride during U.S. Presidential Campaign

Election day in the U.S. cannot come soon enough for the Mexican peso, especially if Hillary Clinton is the winner. The peso reached its low point for the year shortly after Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia. But it has recovered ground from that low amid the feeling that Clinton outperformed Trump in three presidential debates. Trump has hammered Mexico not only for illegal immigration, but also for U.S. jobs lost. Not to mention Trump's threats to make Mexico pay for the border wall.   read more

Kansas Voter ID Requirement Violates Law, Rules Court

ACLU's Ho argued that Kansas was forcing voters to adhere to stricter registration guidelines than those of surrounding states. Judge Holmes' three-judge panel agreed. "Over 18,000 Kansans stood to lose the right to vote in the coming general elections—elections that are less than one month away. Exceedingly few non-citizens have been shown to have voted compared to the number of Kansans who stand to lose the right to vote in the coming elections," wrote Holmes.   read more
see more...