Should Bush/Cheney, Others Be Prosecuted If Evidence They Committed War Crimes, Domestic Crimes? Yes! Where Are Christian/Conservative Leaders On This

From http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1224





Should Bush/Cheney, Others Be Prosecuted If Evidence They Committed War Crimes, Domestic Crimes? Yes! Where Are Christian/Conservative Leaders On This Issue?
If there is evidence that Bush Administration officials - including the President and the Vice President - were involved in war crimes, or domestic crimes here at home, should they be prosecuted? The obvious answer is: Of course! Yes! And there does appear to be such evidence. The following interview excerpts touch on this subject. The first excerpt is from Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC “Count Down” program (12/16/08). His guest is Jonathan Turley who teaches Constitutional Law at Georgetown University. The second interview excerpt is from the MSNBC “Rachel Maddow Show” (12/15/08). Her guest is Thomas Tamm, a former Justice Department official and “whistleblower” who revealed the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. It is a shame and a disgrace that prominent Christian/conservative individuals and organizations are silent on this important issue of Bush Administration law-breaking and only those on the Left are focusing attention on this subject. - J.L.
Printer friendly

KEITH OLBERMANN “COUNT DOWN” INTERVIEW
OLBERMANN: There may have been an even greater admission from the vice president in that interview with ABC. He also seems to have confessed to a war crime. Mr. Cheney not only depending the tactics used against terror suspects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, including waterboarding, but also coming close to admitting he authorized them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS: Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

CHENEY: I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, that is, as the agency, in effect, came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn’t do. And they talked to me, as well others, to explain what they wanted to do and I supported it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Of course, Cheney insists, what was done to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was not torture, and of course, that’s not actually the order in which events transpired as the Senate do bipartisan report on the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody at the Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere, makes clear. First, the president and the vice president sign off on the torture of detainees, and then the CIA came looking for legal cover on the torture it had already been ordered to commit.

Let’s turn now to Jonathan Turley, constitutional law professor with George Washington University.

Jon, thanks for your time tonight.

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN: So, as overly dramatic as this question will sound, did Dick Cheney just confess to a war crime?

TURLEY: Yes, it’s an interesting question, isn’t it? It’s like that type of a Zen question. If someone commits a crime and everyone’s around to see it, and does nothing, is it still a crime?

(LAUGHTER)

TURLEY: And I think that’s really the argument of this administration. It can’t be a crime because no one is prosecuted us for it? But most certainly is a crime to participate, to create, to — in many ways — monitor a torture program. And, indeed, it’s one of the crimes that defines a nation committed to the rule of law.

If you have to create a new nation, one of the first things you do is to disavow this form of the illegality. So, you have the vice president sitting there, saying, “Yes, we talked about it, they came to me, I supported it and I helped to put it through.” The only problem is what he is describing is, most certainly and unambiguously, a war crime.

OLBERMANN: Except if, as you suggest, nobody prosecutes him for that, which jumps ahead to the lasting legacy of what happens if the next administration does not press this? Do we let, you know, the International Court at The Hague come in and take over all of our responsibilities for policing our own act here? Or where does this go domestically if he’s made such a statement?

TURLEY: Frankly, Keith, that’s what worries me the most, is that you can’t talk about change without having some moral component to it. It’s not just about creating jobs or lowering the price of gasoline. What occurred in the last eight years was an assault on who we are. And I think that President-elect Obama is going to have to decide whether he wants power without principle or whether he wants to start with the true change, to say that no matter where an investigation will take us, if there are crimes to be found, they will be prosecuted.

Now, right now, many leaders in Congress are trying to create a new commission that is designed to avoid any criminal prosecution, and those leaders happen to be Democratic leaders. But it will ultimately depend on citizens and whether they will remain silent in the face of a crime that’s been committed in plain view.

OLBERMANN: A little less obvious, perhaps, because there’s no confession up front, but, what was in that Senate report, that the person who authorized all of the abuse and torture of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq was President Bush. Could that be a war crime?

TURLEY: Well, it most certainly can. That’s the amazing thing about all of this, is that the fact that this is a war crime is pretty much accepted by most legal experts. In fact, it’s hard to find one who says it’s not.

Waterboarding goes back to the Spanish Inquisition. It wasn’t some invention of Dick Cheney’s mind. It was something we prosecuted Japanese officers for when they did it against our soldiers. The English send people to death for it. We prosecuted people again even earlier in World War II in the Philippines. It is a well-established war crime.

It’s not the law that’s in question here. The question is the politics. And most importantly, whether the citizens of this country will understand that they can’t simply treat Cheney like some Darth Vader who controls their very thoughts and actions, it is equally immoral to stand silent in the face of a war crime and do nothing. And that is what the citizens are doing. There’s this gigantic yawn as we hear about a war crime on national television being discussed matter-of-factly by the vice president.

And by the way, Keith, there was a hearing not that long ago, which was equally shocking with an administration official, sort of casually comparing different types of waterboarding, like the stuff that Pol Pot used as opposed to the Spanish Inquisition. And I sit there in disbelief that in Congress, we were having this rather pleasant conversation about American-style waterboarding.

OLBERMANN: But is that — that what you were referring to in there, the collective yawn, is that the legal principle on which Dick Cheney is resting his case that waterboarding is not torture, therefore, it is not illegal, therefore it would not be a war crime?

TURLEY: Well, in my view, there is no plausible legal theory because there is existing legal precedent establishing that this is a war crime. That’s why Attorney General Mukasey refused to answer the question, because he could not answer the question at his confirmation — is waterboarding a crime, a war crime — because he knew that the case is established that it is. And if he answered that question, there would be serious repercussions.

OLBERMANN: All right. $100 to any senator who asks Eric Holder that question next month. Constitutional law professor, Jonathan Turley — as always, Jon, great thanks.

TURLEY: Thanks, Keith.

“RACHEL MADDOW SHOW” INTERVIEW

Joining us now is Thomas Tamm, former prosecutor, former Justice Department official. Mr. Tamm, thank you so much for coming on the show.

THOMAS TAMM, WHISTLEBLOWER AND FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Thank you for having me.

MADDOW: I know you come from a long line of Tamms who served law enforcement. Your father and your uncle are senior FBI officials. Your brother was an FBI agent. You, yourself, a prosecutor, a Department of Justice official. What was the tipping point for you? What made you feel like you needed to tell the press about this secret program?

TAMM: Well, it was a number of things. I had the privilege and honor of meeting with the 9/11 victims families when I was with the capital case unit in the Department of Justice, preparing for the prosecution of Masali(ph), and they were really inspirational.

And I also, as a result of that case, I had the opportunity to review documents - CIA cables at the CIA. And I learned that we were secretly rendering suspects, people to states that would likely torture them. I heard my government say that we were not doing that and that we would never do that.

And I just ended up feeling like I was aware. My entire life really was based on trying to enforce the law - my entire career. I believed that the law was being broken in the place where I was working.

MADDOW: I was struck by the way [“Newsweek” magazine’s] Michael Isikoff wrote about the discussions of the legality in your workplace. He describes a senior counsel in your office telling you that she assumed that some of the activity happening from the NSA was illegal.

The deputy counsel told you that the attorney general might end up getting indicted because of the program. But they didn’t speak up. I imagine that must have been very difficult in the office to have people acknowledging overtly that there was illegal activity happening. But nobody was willing to publicly come out about it.

TAMM: It was very difficult. And I don’t mean to - I mean, they are really fine public servants that work in OIPR where I was. And I do believe that lawfully, they helped keep our country safe from terrorists and from foreign intelligence like Russia that we traditionally surveilled(ph).

But I’m going to just - it struck me. I said, “Wait a second. We assume that what they are doing is illegal? I don’t understand that. Why are we part of that? Are we aiding and abetting the violation of a crime? I was stunned when I heard that something from this special program - they have gotten into a regular FISA warrant and learned that for the first time ever, that a sitting attorney general was going to be indicted.

And when I was told that, I thought, wasn’t John Mitchell indicted when he was sitting? But then, I just stepped back and said, this is crazy. This is not what the Department of Justice is about. This is not what the Constitution is about.

I remember when I was figuring out something was going on extra- judicially, I looked at the NSA Web sites. And they proudly talked about the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, the right of the people to be secure in their persons and their places. And that’s part of the reason that we fought the revolutionary war.

And then they took the Fourth Amendment down from their Web site. And we learned that the only way that we can be kept safe is for the government to break our laws? I just disagree with that. I think we are stronger and better as a nation when we follow the Constitution, when we follow the statutes and when we follow the rule of law.

MADDOW: Mr. Tamm, when we think about trying to make the country whole again, when we think about trying to bring us back to those ideals that you are discussing with such passion, the idea of being a country ruled by law. As far as I understand it, the FISA Act establishes a five-year imprisonment penalty for having done surveillance without getting the appropriate permission from the FISA court.

And that is what the NSA program was designed to do and there were whole other elements that were designed to cover up the fact that that’s what the NSA program was doing. Do you think in order to move forward and to pay tribute to the rule of law that there ought to be prosecutions?

TAMM: I certainly think it ought to be looked at. I mean, I really do. I’ve heard talk about a commission to try and determine the truth. And then I heard the flipside is that what happened is in the past. But when I was a prosecutor, I’m pretty sure that every criminal case that I prosecuted had happened before I walked into that courtroom and stood before the jury and the judge.

It offends me that we feel that we are not strong enough as a country, that our laws are not strong enough, that Congress is not strong enough, that our courts are not strong enough to protect us.

And I personally - I’m a prosecutor, although a defense attorney at the moment. I think it should be looked at very seriously.

MADDOW: Thomas Tamm, I know that this has been professionally and personally very difficult for you since you came out and did this. Thanks for joining us tonight and thanks for what you have done.

TAMM: Thank you.

MADDOW: Thomas Tamm is a former Justice Department official. He is the whistleblower on the warrantless wiretapping program. He came out publicly to “Newsweek’s” Michael Isikoff this weekend. This has been his first television interview. We’re very lucky to have had him.

Discuss this article