Why wouldn't terrorists hold W's enhanced interrogation crimes against common US citizens if we are obstructing justice in the prosecution of these crimes against humanity? If our populace demonstrated against W's crimes, then Congress would prosecute W for crimes he has openly admitted. For partisan GOP gain, W, and his mentor, Cheney, declared that they were willing to do anything possible to protect the U.S., unlike the Democrats, who were labeled as being weak on defending our country.
The Democrats are not terrorist facilitators. The Democrats are not going to make false choice hypocrisies for the US populace about being required to use Jack Bauer techniques against enemy combatants, and Obama's inaugural address dealt with this as he stated, "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... our found fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more."
The Democrats are unlike W and Cheney and wouldn't cause our citizenry to be in a situation in which we learned of the enhanced interrogation crimes after they had been committed and being forced to either help the criminals to conceal immoral acts---being a nation of "accessories after the fact," or prosecute the former regime, therefore alienating the GOP portion of the country. Thanks so very much W for putting us in this terrible situation.
He noted Washington had ratified the UN convention on torture, which required "all means, particularly penal law" to be used to bring proceedings against those violating it.
"We have all these documents that are now publicly available that prove that these methods of interrogation were intentionally ordered by Rumsfeld," against detainees at the US prison facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Nowak said.
We have the same findings as the United Nations because a bipartisan Senate report released last month found that Rumsfeld bore major responsibility for abuses committed at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and other military detention centers. Just last week, a Bush administration official overseeing Gitmo trials said Rumsfeld approved the torture of one particular detainee. Bush himself said last year that he was aware of his advisers' discussions on torture and recently admitted that he personally authorized waterboarding Kalid Sheik Muhammad.
This is not a new finding by the United Nations. The May 8, 2004 article "UN Committee Could Investigate US, Britain" at click here states "The UN Committee Against Torture is currently meeting in Geneva to discuss whether member states have abided by the Geneva Convention. Experts say the Iraq torture charges could become an issue at the meeting.
The string of photos released by the media last week shocked the world. They showed pictures of naked Iraqi prisoners forced into degrading poses, sometimes simulating explicit sexual positions and sometimes being forced to wear women's underwear. In one photo, a man is held on a dog leash by a female prison guard. The images have damaged the credibility of the United States around the world and forced both President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to publicly apologize, with the latter going so far as to describe the incidents as a "catastrophe" for the United States."
But Mark Thomsen, the president of the Geneva Association for Torture Prevention, says the U.S. would be well advised to cooperate with the UN organizations in an effort to demonstrate its true desire to resolve the cases. "Any act of torture should be condemned and those that commit it should be punished," he says. "We therefore hope that that is what will now happen that there will be a thorough investigation and that the people who have committed these acts will be appropriately punished."
Thomsen has a naivete that Herr Karl will take advantage of, as Rove knew his common US masses' apathetic nature. Rove banked on the US main stream media's inability to generate the required hatred of W's criminal ways. Rove estimated that we'd all forget about words by a week after they were revealed, and pictures would take longer to excise from our red staters' memories, but that they tended towards being oblivious to all aspects of life other than struggling for survival.
Herr Karl has minions willing to confuse the red staters, such as GOP acolyte Senator Kit Bond, former vice-chair of the Senate intelligence overlook committee saying, "There are different ways of doing it. It's like swimming, freestyle, backstroke. The waterboarding could be used almost to define some of the techniques that our trainees are put through, but that's beside the point. It's not being used."
"Waterboarding is torture," said President Obama to George Stephanopoulos. Torture is a crime. Obama added, twice, that no one is "above the law," although also citing his "belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backward."
Obama's nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, called waterboarding "torture" and his pick to take over the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta, wrote in The Washington Monthly at
"According to the latest polls, two-thirds of the American public believes that torturing suspected terrorists to gain important information is justified in some circumstances. How did we transform from champions of human dignity and individual rights into a nation of armchair torturers? One word: fear.
Fear is blinding, hateful, and vengeful. It makes the end justify the means. And why not? If torture can stop the next terrorist attack, the next suicide bomber, then what's wrong with a little waterboarding or electric shock?
The simple answer is the rule of law....
Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don't. There is no middle ground.
We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances."
Holder and Panetta are good picks for those who want the US to do the right thing and prosecute W for crimes against defenseless detainees.
Maybe Obama's administration won't prosecute W for torture, but if we don't, will the UN? Will the US vote against the UN prosecuting W for torture?
If we don't prosecute W then we are accessories after the fact - therefore culpable for the crimes. Why wouldn't terrorists hold these crimes against us?