Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
Thu Mar 27, 2014, 02:40 PM Mar 2014

Obama Reluctance on Bush Prosecutions Affirms Culture of Impunity [View all]



Alfred McCoy explained why on Democracy Now, way back on May 1, 2009:



Historian Alfred McCoy: Obama Reluctance on Bush Prosecutions Affirms Culture of Impunity

EXCERPT...

AMY GOODMAN: Well, talk about President Obama’s approach, on the one hand, releasing the torture memos — and I’d like you to respond to specifically what’s in those torture memos —

ALFRED McCOY: Sure.

AMY GOODMAN: — but then saying he will not be holding the interrogators responsible, people involved with it; we have to move forward, not move back.

ALFRED McCOY: Right. That’s exactly how you get impunity. That’s what’s happened every single time in the past. For example, in 1970, the House and Senate of the United States discovered that the Phoenix Program had been engaged in systematic torture, that they had killed through extraditial executions 46,000 South Vietnamese. That’s about the same number of American combat deaths in South Vietnam. Nothing was done. There was no punishment, and the policy of torture continued.

In 1994, for example, the US ratified the Convention Against Torture. There was no investigation of past practice. So, when that ratification went through, it was done in a way that in fact legalized psychological torture, because when we ratified that convention, we also, if you will, passed a reservation, which then got codified into US federal law, Section 2340 of the US Federal Code. In that code, we said that psychological torture, which is actually the main form of torture practiced by the United States since the 1950s, is basically not torture.

And we defined, very cleverly, under that code, what psychological torture is. We simply said it’s four things. It’s extreme physical pain, forced injection of drugs, threats against another, or doing that to a third party. OK? That’s all that psychological torture is. In other words, everything in those torture memos, all those techniques of belly slaps, face slaps, face grabbing, waterboarding, is, under US law, supposedly not torture, because when we — President Clinton ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, he didn’t look into the past, he didn’t discover what the nature of American torture was. And so, we’re now at a moment where if we don’t prosecute or don’t punish or don’t seriously investigate, that this will be repeated again.

Another thing that emerges from the memos is, in fact, that the Bush Justice Department is very well aware. If you read the May 2005 memo by the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Bradbury, he says, “Look, I can’t assure you that waterboarding is not torture. You know, the courts may find that it is torture. But don’t worry about it. Because you know what? The courts aren’t going to rule on this.” So in other words, don’t worry about the law, because the law doesn’t apply to you. The law will not be brought to bear. And that’s the problem of President Obama’s procedure. The men were assured that they could torture, because it wouldn’t come before the courts.

There’s another problem with those memos, as well. Those memos argue again and again that the most extreme of all the authorized CIA techniques, waterboarding, is not torture, because it does not violate that same Section 2340 of US Federal Code. But it does. Waterboarding is the most cruel, the most extremely cruel form of torture known to man, very simply because of this — and people don’t understand, I think, waterboarding. Amy, if you and I were riding in a car, and we went off a bridge in January here in Wisconsin and crashed through the ice and went down to the bottom of the Ohio River, within three minutes you and I would be dead from drowning. If there were an infant in a car seat behind us, that infant could survive for twenty minutes under water. A weak, fragile three-month-old infant could survive twenty minutes under water, be plucked by the rescue crew from the waters and suffer no brain damage, be perfectly fine. Alright? How can this happen? It’s the mammalian diving reflex. The human being is so afraid of death by drowning that we are hardwired into our biology, into our…

JUAN GONZALEZ: I want to —

ALFRED McCOY: — brains with this bizarre mammalian diving reflex. So, therefore, waterboarding, which induces this primal fear of death by drowning, is the most painful form of torture you can concoct. That’s why it’s existed for 500 years.

CONTINUED...

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/1/torture_expert_alfred_mccoy_obama_reluctance



For whatever reason, President Obama has allowed Baby Doc Bush, Sneering Dick Cheney, and their fellow traitors get away with war crimes and who knows what else. McCoy's warned us that it's business-as-usual for Empire and it will happen again -- unless it's punished and those responsible held accountable.

31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Rumy, Condi, Yoo, Bush, and Cheney laughing Supersedeas Mar 2014 #1
Impunity. Octafish Mar 2014 #7
Octafish provides the Coup de gras Puzzledtraveller Mar 2014 #2
Obama Adviser Cass Sunstein Rejects Prosecution of ''Non-Egregious'' Bush Crimes Octafish Mar 2014 #10
A cycle of criminalizing public service? mindwalker_i Mar 2014 #11
You have to be pretty fucking naive to expect an american president to prosecute CBGLuthier Mar 2014 #3
When did a Republican do something nice for a Democratic president? Octafish Mar 2014 #4
Then they are guilty as well.... TheNutcracker Mar 2014 #5
That is what it really is. TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #17
then go on the nearest streetcorner wearing a sandwich board calling Obama a war criminal. dionysus Apr 2014 #26
I didn't write the penalties or the law, if such was a bridge too far then why ratify? TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #31
So presidents aren't really about "liberty and justice for all" - right? polichick Apr 2014 #27
for some reason, a bunch of DUers think the public would get behind trying the bush admin for war dionysus Apr 2014 #28
Hey, wait a minute. (not really relevant, but still...) postulater Mar 2014 #6
Good catch! I noticed that, too, when I heard it on Democracy Now in 2009. Octafish Mar 2014 #13
We're just a bit defensive here in Wisconsin lately. postulater Mar 2014 #14
Feingold was the only one to vote against USA PATRIOT Act. Octafish Mar 2014 #15
du rec. xchrom Mar 2014 #8
The Wall Street settlements and the new aristocracy Octafish Apr 2014 #29
a two party system...where? Supersedeas Apr 2014 #30
"For whatever reason..." Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2014 #9
The reason is simple..it's so HE won't get held to account for the drones etc after HE leaves office truebrit71 Mar 2014 #12
Orwell got it wrong. Octafish Mar 2014 #16
Excellent post. woo me with science Mar 2014 #24
I was told right here on DU, TWICE yesterday, that there is no way a US President can be prosecuted sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #18
As long as there are two of us... Octafish Mar 2014 #19
Octafish, the feeling is mutual! sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #21
k&r, dammit. johnnyreb Mar 2014 #20
K&R woo me with science Mar 2014 #22
Some days it's easy to imagine living in the Wiemar Republic in 1938...k&r n/t bobthedrummer Mar 2014 #23
A zero-tolerance for IMPUNITY kick. n/t bobthedrummer Apr 2014 #25
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama Reluctance on Bush ...