Bush Torture on Trial?

Bush Torture on Trial?

The pressure has increased dramatically for Obama to investigate former Bush administration officials for authorizing torture.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

President Barack Obama has until now largely ignored calls to investigate or prosecute former Bush administration officials responsible for authorizing the torture of suspects in the “war on terror.” He has said he prefers “looking forward” to “looking backward”–even though former Vice President Cheney admits he authorized waterboarding, and Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, has testified that waterboarding is torture. But the pressure to launch an investigation increased dramatically on March 28 with news that a Spanish judge had begun a criminal inquiry into high-level Bush administration officials’ complicity in torture.

The investigation targets six lawyers responsible for devising the legal architecture that allowed torture to become official US policy: former Office of Legal Counsel lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee, who wrote the August 1, 2002, memorandum defining torture so narrowly that waterboarding and threats of death were deemed permissible; former White House lawyers Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, who headed the so-called War Council, argued that the Geneva Conventions were “quaint” and “obsolete” and requested the August torture memo; and Defense Department lawyers Douglas Feith and William Haynes, who helped sweep away the Geneva Conventions and authorize torture at Guantánamo.

The complaint that initiated the investigation alleges that these lawyers “participated actively and decisively in the creation, approval and execution of a judicial framework that allowed for the deprivation of fundamental rights of a large number of prisoners, the implementation of new interrogation techniques including torture, the legal cover for the treatment of those prisoners, the protection of the people who participated in illegal tortures and, above all, the establishment of impunity for all the government workers, military personnel, doctors and others who participated in the detention centre at Guantánamo.”

Why Spain? Two reasons. First, Spanish law, like US law, recognizes “universal jurisdiction” for crimes of torture, meaning that torturers can be prosecuted anywhere, regardless of where they committed their crimes. Second, some of those held at Guantánamo were Spanish citizens.

The judge overseeing the investigation is Baltasar Garzón, who made international news in 1998 when he indicted former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet for, among other crimes, the torture of Chileans when he was in power. The indictment, also issued under the principle of universal jurisdiction, ultimately sparked criminal proceedings in Chile against Pinochet.

Given how much is known about the Bush lawyers’ role in authorizing and covering up torture, one of the few ways to respond to the prosecution in Spain would be for the United States to launch its own investigation. The principle of universal jurisdiction recognizes that if a country is making responsible moves to pursue wrongdoers, other nations should not step in. But as long as President Obama plans to “look forward,” Judge Garzón is likely to move forward with his case.

Spain is not the only country conducting a criminal investigation. On March 26 Britain’s attorney general, Patricia Scotland, announced that she was launching a criminal investigation into allegations that British security officials were complicit in the torture of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident captured by US officials in Pakistan and rendered to Morocco and Afghanistan before being taken to Guantánamo. MI5 officials provided information to the Moroccans while he was being interrogated under torture. If such allegations of complicity are sufficient to require a criminal investigation, surely the role of US lawyers in authorizing the direct application of torture merits investigation.

The European investigations are premised on a simple proposition: torture is never justified, and any complicity in it therefore warrants inquiry and, where appropriate, punishment. If we don’t acknowledge that the rule of law demands accountability, others will.

David Cole ([email protected]) is The Nation‘s legal affairs correspondent.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x