Why is the Obama admin. invoking the Nuremberg defense to make excuses for not prosecuting Bush's torturers?
He said that we cannot prosecute them because they were only following orders. So Bush hires psychopaths like David Addington and John Yoo to write some memos saying "suuure torture them it's legal! they're not people they're enemy combatants, and besides it's not on American soil so it's legal!" then EVERYONE TOP TO BOTTOM is off the hook because they took it upon themselves to legalize their own practices!
HEY OBAMA it was LEGAL in Nazi Germany to round up the Jews and execute them. The global community REJECTED the "they were only following orders" defense. Why are we invoking it now?
- justgoodfolkLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
Because Obama is a defender of the same interests as Bush was, the two party dictatorship controlled by the corporocracy and big money. A more charismatic and likable defender who can form a coherent sentence but nevertheless a defender of the same corrupt interests that have nothing to do with the wishes of the American people.
The Bush administration's use of the state secrets privilege, which it invoked dozens of times over the course of its eight-year tenure, was a hallmark of its increasing assumption of extraordinary and at times near-dictatorial powers. The use of this same heavy-handed legal tactic by the Obama administration has unmistakable and far-reaching implications.
While Washington is attempting to use the departure of Bush and the ascension of Obama to refurbish the abysmal image of US government both at home and abroad, the action taken in the San Francisco federal court is only one of a number of recent developments making it clear that the essential contours of US imperialist policy and both the criminal and police-state measures that it has engendered will not be transformed by the change in personnel in the White House.
Highly revealing in this regard was the Senate testimony last Friday by Obama's nominee for CIA director, Leon Panetta.
Asked specifically about extraordinary rendition, Panetta claimed that the administration had forbid by executive order "that kind of extraordinary rendition where we send someone for the purpose of torture or for actions by another country that violate our human values."
He added, however, that the CIA could still abduct suspects and send them to third countries for interrogation, provided it received assurances that they would be treated humanely. Of course, the Bush administration routinely claimed that it had just such assurances from countries like Egypt and Morocco.
Under sharp questioning from Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri, Panetta explicitly repudiated his earlier assertion that detainees had been tortured. "On that particular quote, that people were transferred for the purposes of torture, that was not the policy of the United States," he declared. "To that extent, yes, I would retract that statement."
What is involved here is not merely the formal denial of past crimes that are well known to people all over the world, but a signal that the CIA will continue to carry out such crimes with impunity.
Then there is the report, published in the Washington Post Saturday, that the Obama administration is revamping the National Security Council (NSC), endowing it with sweeping new powers that suggest the formation of something akin to a fourth branch of government.
Heading this agency is national security adviser James L. Jones, a retired Marine general described by the Post as a "proponent of a ‘pro-active military' in noncombat regions," who "has advocated military collaboration with the oil and gas industry."
Directing much of the reconfiguring of the NSC, according to the Post, is John O. Brennan, a former senior CIA official who is both Obama's adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security and Jones's deputy. Obama had reportedly wanted to place him at the head of the CIA, but was forced to withdraw his name for consideration after it became known that Brennan was a vocal advocate of the extraordinary rendition program and a defender of the CIA's "enhanced coercive interrogation techniques," i.e., torture.
Less than three weeks after the inauguration, it is becoming ever more apparent that the new administration has been brought into office to defend the same social and class interests as the previous one, is utilizing similar methods and relying on the same personnel within the national security apparatus responsible for the criminal activities of the past eight years.
- ShaneLv 71 decade ago
The few Americans who waterboarded 3 Islamic Jihadist terrorists were acting in the best interest of our country. These scumbag terrorists were responsible for the death of 3,000 Americans. What do you want to do lib, give them a medal???
Five Minutes Well Spent
Keeping waterboarding as an interrogation technique is not the slippery slope some say it is.
By Jonah Goldberg http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjM2ZDRlOWY4O...
Less than five minutes.
That’s the total amount of time the United States has waterboarded terrorist detainees. How many detainees? Three. Who were these detainees?
One was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, “the principle architect of the 9/11 attacks” according to the 9/11 Report, and the head of al-Qaeda’s “military committee.” Linked to numerous terror plots, he is believed to have financed the first World Trade Center bombing, helped set up the courier system that resulted in the infamous Bali bombing, and cut off Danny Pearl’s head.
A second was Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the head of al-Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf. He allegedly played a role in the 2000 millennium terror plots and was the mastermind behind the USS Cole attack that killed 17 Americans.
The third was Abu Zubaydah, said to be al-Qaeda’s chief logistics operative and Osama bin Laden’s top man after Ayman al Zawahri. It is believed that Zubaydah essentially ran al-Qaeda’s terror camps and recruitment operations. After he was waterboarded, Zubaydah reportedly offered intelligence officers a treasure trove of critical information. He was waterboarded just six months after the 9/11 attacks and while the anthrax scare was still ongoing.
John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who witnessed the interrogation, told ABC’s Brian Ross: “The threat information that he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.”
He divulged, according to Kiriakou, “al-Qaeda’s leadership structure” and identified high-level terrorists the CIA didn’t know much, if anything, about. It’s been suggested that Zubaydah and al-Nashiri’s confessions in turn led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
And that’s it. Less than five minutes, three awful men, five years ago.
- Liberty for AllLv 41 decade ago
I just finished reading a book of short stories written by US special operations forces. These stories go back 40 years to the Viet Nam war. There are stories about executions, kidnapping, torture, even murder. Since these stories were written by the men who did these things, in wartime, under orders, they appear to be an admissions of guilt. Shouldn't we go back and prosecute all of the administrations? This would cover all of the administrations since 1970.
Obviously this was intended as sarcasm. There should be no prosecutions for any of these administrations.
- as.erwinLv 61 decade ago
Well, first of all...
Did you realize, that even though the media taught you it was a big thing, there were only 2 alleged cases of water boarding? (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaida) - and did you know that until recently, it wasn't even considered (legally) as torture?
And, did you also know, no one has suggested that anyone who actually engaged in torture should be prosecuted... They want to prosecute BUSH personally... (even though something like 5 suspected torture victims became detained during Clinton's administration... Why not prosecute him as well?)
Can you say WITCH HUNT!
I mean, what HATE! The dude is gone, (long after you guys claimed he would find a way to stay in office), your savior can't save you, so you turn your hate back to Bush... AMAZING!
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Because Obama and Bush work for the exact same group of globalists.
That was an easy one...
- Anonymous1 decade ago
You are too sadly deluded to differentiate truth from reality.
The Geneva convention doesn't cover them due to the fact that they wear no countries uniform. At best they could be treated as spies under the Geneva convention, which removes most of the protection that they could get.
- davethenayberLv 51 decade ago
The Chewbacca defense was already taken.
- oldmarine08Lv 71 decade ago
Bush was correct in what he did, as these were enemy combatants not Soldiers of which the Geneva Convention Covers....now you have to define torture, clearly there was none! GETMO included! Back to your kool-aide before someone else gets it!
- 1 decade ago
YOU are an IDIOT !! These vermin murder innocent civilians by chopping off their heads and YOU want us to feel sympathy for them ????
Too bad I wasn`t invited to make these murdering butchers "talk" ......... they`d find out the TRUE meaning of torture !!
- Anonymous1 decade ago
If the President does it
then its NOT Illegal ......
We B in Deep Do-Do!