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

Best Efforts Come up Short in America’s Battles against Obesity, Infections and Food Poisoning

While there have been clear successes, other areas have seen little change or even gotten worse. "The data speak for themselves," said CDC chief Dr. Tom Frieden,. "If you look for the goal we set for ourselves, and look at what happened, we didn't achieve it." Despite the mixed grades, some experts applauded CDC efforts, saying the agency had only limited abilities to prevent illness or stop people from doing things that hurt their own health.   read more

Trump’s Controversial Praise of Putin during Campaign May Have Been “Dog Whistle” to White Supremacists

Trump mystified many with his praise for Putin. But what seemed inexplicable when Trump first expressed his admiration for the Russian leader seems, in retrospect, to have been a shrewd dog whistle to a small but highly motivated part of his base. AltRight's Spencer claimed that “an understanding” between Trump and Putin might bring together Slavic and American Caucasians and eventually “foretell a unified white world.”   read more

NYPD Secrecy on Police Disciplinary Records Challenged in Court

The lawsuit is the latest salvo in a continuing dispute led by civil rights groups over transparency in how the NYPD holds officers accountable for misconduct. The lawsuit calls for release of disciplinary actions taken against police officers. “There is no excuse for New York City to be taking steps backwards on police transparency,” said CUPR's Monifa Bandele. “It leaves communities most impacted by police abuses and misconduct at further risk and without accountability from the NYPD.”   read more

Claim of Trump Interest in Taiwan Business Investment Followed Controversial Phone Call with Taiwanese Leader

The multi-billion-dollar project, the biggest in Taiwan's history, is seeking investors. And a representative of Donald Trump took a meeting. “She had authorization documents issued by the Trump company,” confirmed the Taoyuan mayor on Nov. 18. The meeting went largely unnoticed outside Taiwan until Friday, when president-elect Trump received a congratulatory phone call from the Taiwan’s president. Now, the perception of a possible business conflict in Taiwan further complicates the situation.   read more

Science Panel Calls for Food Warning Labels to Clarify Allergy Risks

Food allergies can trigger reactions severe enough to kill. About 12 million Americans may have such allergies. The report said the FDA should replace the "precautionary" label approach with one that's risk-based. The idea is to determine a safety level for different allergens The resulting labeling would give consumers more information in deciding if they'd take a chance on a food or not, said Taylor, who pointed to a similar voluntary system in Australia and New Zealand.   read more
see more...