I am disappointed in the Obama administration for this reason:
The president has refused to abide by treaty obligations:
In 1988 President Ronald Reagan signed a treaty called The Convention Against Torture. It was ratified by Congress in 1994. According to the US Constitution, this is now the law of the land. It requires all signatories in cases where parties have committed or been complicit in committing torture to: "submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution" (Art. 7(1)) and, in anticipation of just the sort of thing the Obama Administration is doing, it also states: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." And, further anticipating the arguments of the Obama Administration: "an order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture" (Art. 2 (2-3)).
The UN's top torture investigator reminded us of this.
You might remember Spain instituting criminal actions against Bush officials. It may sound petty, but under the treaty - they are legally obligated to do so- and have stated that if the US investigated (as they are required to do) then they would drop their proceedings.
Obama also argued against habeas corpus.
In pushing Bush to provide due process to Guantanamo prisoners, Obama spoke eloquently about habeas corpus and the rule of law:
"Current procedures under the CSRT [military commissions act kangaroo trials] are such that a perfectly innocent individual could be held and could not rebut the Government's case and has no way of proving his innocence.
I would like somebody in this Chamber, somebody in this Government, to tell me why this is necessary. I do not want to hear that this is a new world and we face a new kind of enemy. I know that. . . . But as a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence....
Most of us have been willing to make some sacrifices because we know that, in the end, it helps to make us safer. But restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe.
...This is not just unhelpful in our fight against terror, it is unnecessary. We don't need to imprison innocent people to win this war. For people who are guilty, we have the procedures in place to lock them up. That is who we are as a people. We do things right, and we do things fair."
So Obama agreed (a) that everyone should have at least one chance to challenge their accusers and (b) arguing that, just because they are off shore, in a place like Guantanamo, doesn't free the US from that obligation.
Until now.
Sure, Guantanamo is closing (eventually) but Obama still has prisons, like in Bagram, Afghanistan. When those prisoners tried to obtain access to the courts like the Guantanamo prisons, Obama supported the Bush defense. The court rightly ruled against the Obama administration on the same grounds as Gitmo - so what did Obama do? He appealed.
The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.
In a court filing, the Justice Department also asked District Judge John D. Bates not to proceed with the habeas-corpus cases of three detainees at Bagram Air Base outside Kabul, Afghanistan. Judge Bates ruled last week that the three — each of whom says he was seized outside of Afghanistan — could challenge their detention in court.
Tina Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, which is representing the detainees, condemned the decision in a statement.
“Though he has made many promises regarding the need for our country to rejoin the world community of nations, by filing this appeal, President Obama has taken on the defense of one of the Bush administration’s unlawful policies founded on nothing more than the idea that might makes right,” she said.
On the subject of keeping "dangerous" people locked up:
Indeed, Obama said he would close Guantanamo. But he wasn't going to let everyone go. He said he would try many in US courts - others he would continue with the kangaroo courts he argued against when he was running for President, and still others who were "too dangerous" to be released, but couldn't be tried (mostly because evidence against them, if any, was obtained through illegal torture) he would create a "specialized" tribunal to deal with them.
Translation: I'll try people I know we can prosecute, and if I think we can't, I'll do something else with them.
How is that different than what Bush did?
Then instructing the DOJ.
In fact, all Obama "backpeddled" on was trying higher up officials - Obama continues to say that those who "acted in good faith" in following orders shouldn't be prosecuted. This in itself is what we all got mad at Bush for doing - hiring political cronies in the DOJ to carry out what he wanted. Now, hopefully Holder is more independent, but the Pres still shouldn't be making it known to his appointee who he thinks should or shouldn't be prosecuted.
Moreover, the thought that those who were just following orders shouldn't be prosecuted is repugnant. Aside from being against the Convention Against Torture (above) - it's how we've prosecuted (rightly) since Nuremberg. Here is Principal IV of International Law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal:
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
In the closing argument of the chief prosecutor at Nuremberg:
"One of the chief reasons the defendants say there was no conspiracy is the argument that conspiracy was impossible with a dictator. The argument runs that they all had to obey Hitler's orders, which had the force of law in the German State, and hence obedience could not be made the basis of an original charge. In this way it is explained that while there have been wholesale killings, there have been no murderers.
This argument is an effort to evade Article 8 of the Charter, which provides that the order of the Government or of a superior shall not free a defendant from responsibility but can only be considered in mitigation."
And remember - these people would have been disobeying a direct order from Hitler with the SS looking on. Do you suppose the CIA had the same pressure?
