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

Americans are Unhappy with the Direction of the Country…What’s New?

It has been more than 20 years since a majority of Americans said they were satisfied with the direction of their country, a period that covers the presidencies of two Republicans and two Democrats. The last time a majority of Americans had a favorable view of the Democratic Party was in August 2009. The Republicans? Except for one poll in January 2020, no majority favorable since April 2005.   read more

Can Biden Murder Trump and Get Away With it?

Rumors are spreading that the U.S. Supreme Court will vote 5-4 to rule that a U.S. president cannot be prosecuted for anything he does while he is president. Some Democrats are suggesting that Joe Biden bring a gun to his first debate with Donald Trump. If he shoots Trump, he would be immune, but if Trump shoots Biden he would be prosecuted because he is not a sitting president.   read more

Electoral Advice for the Democratic and Republican Parties

The Republicans have a surefire secret weapon. It’s called the Democratic Party. Given the chance to be in charge, the Democrats, because of corruption and incompetence, will eventually screw up. Since there is only one other major party, if the Republicans can just shut up, disgusted swing voters will turn to them to get rid of the Democrats.   read more

U.S. Ambassador to Greece: Who is George Tsunis?

The first time George Tsunis was nominated to be a U.S ambassador, it did not go well. But Tsunis had learned his lesson. He waited until another Democrat occupied the White House, and he tried again. Playing it safe, Tsunis, in addition to donating to Democratic candidates, chipped in to help Republicans as well, including Rand Paul, John Barrasso and Jim Risch, all of them members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.   read more

Henry Kissinger: A Pre-Obituary

Henry Kissinger turned 100, I don’t wish death on anyone, but I know that all the major media have already written his obituary in advance. As soon as he dies, they will add a line about his death, push a button and these obituaries, gushing with praise from Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Ted Koppel, Xi Jinping and other famous people, will appear online. But Kissinger doesn’t deserve such praise. Here’s why.   read more
see more...