TRUTHOUT– Barack Obama’s
incoming administration is unlikely to bring criminal charges against
government officials who authorized or engaged in harsh interrogations of
suspected terrorists during the George W. Bush presidency. Obama, who has
criticized the use of torture, is being urged by some constitutional scholars
and human rights groups to investigate possible war crimes by the Bush
administration.
Two Obama advisers said there’s little – if any –
chance that the incoming president’s Justice Department will go after anyone
involved in authorizing or carrying out interrogations that provoked worldwide
outrage.
The advisers spoke on condition of anonymity because
the plans are still tentative. A spokesman for Obama’s transition team did not
respond to requests for comment Monday.
Additionally, the question of whether to prosecute
may never become an issue if Bush issues pre-emptive pardons to protect those
involved.
Obama has committed to reviewing interrogations on
al-Qaida and other terror suspects. After he takes office in January, Obama is
expected to create a panel modeled after the 9/11 Commission to study
interrogations, including those using waterboarding and other tactics that
critics call torture. The panel’s findings would be used to ensure that future
interrogations are undisputedly legal.
“I have said repeatedly that America
doesn’t torture, and I’m going to make sure that we don’t torture,” Obama
said Sunday on CBS’ “60 Minutes.” “Those are part and parcel of
an effort to regain America’s
moral stature in the world.”
Obama’s most ardent supporters are split on whether
he should prosecute Bush officials.
Asked this weekend during a Vermont Public Radio
interview if Bush administration officials would face war crimes, Senate
Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy flatly said, “In the United States,
no.”
“These things are not going to happen,”
said Leahy, D-Vt.
Robert Litt, a former top Clinton
administration Justice Department prosecutor, said Obama should focus on moving
forward with anti-torture policy instead of looking back.
“Both for policy and political reasons, it
would not be beneficial to spend a lot of time hauling people up before
Congress or before grand juries and going over what went on,” Litt said at
a Brookings Institution discussion about Obama’s legal policy. “To as
great of an extent we can say, the last eight years are over, now we can move
forward – that would be beneficial both to the country and the president,
politically.”
But Michael Ratner, a professor at Columbia
Law School
and president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said prosecuting Bush
officials is necessary to set future anti-torture policy.
“The only way to prevent this from happening
again is to make sure that those who were responsible for the torture program
pay the price for it,” Ratner said. “I don’t see how we regain our
moral stature by allowing those who were intimately involved in the torture
programs to simply walk off the stage and lead lives where they are not held
accountable.”
In the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the White House authorized
U.S.
interrogators to use harsh tactics on captured al-Qaida and Taliban suspects.
Bush officials relied on a 2002 Justice Department legal memo to assert that
its interrogations did not amount to torture – and therefore did not violate U.S.
or international laws. That memo has since been rescinded.
At least three top al-Qaida operatives – including
9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed – were waterboarded in 2002 and 2003
because of intelligence officials’ belief that more attacks were imminent.
Waterboarding creates the sensation of drowning, and has been traced back
hundreds of years and is condemned by nations worldwide.
Bush could take the issue of criminal charges off
the table with one stroke of his pardons pen. Whether Bush will protect his top aides and
interrogators with a pre-emptive pardon – before they are ever charged – has
become a hot topic of discussion in legal and political circles in the
administration’s waning days. White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto
declined to comment on the issue.
Under the Constitution, the president’s power to
issue pardons is absolute and cannot be overruled.
Pre-emptive pardons would be highly controversial,
but former White House counsel Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr. said it would protect
those who were following orders or otherwise trying to protect the nation.
“I know of no one who acted in reckless
disregard of U.S.
law or international law,” said Culvahouse, who served under President
Ronald Reagan. “It’s just not good for the intelligence community and the
defense community to have people in the field, under exigent circumstances,
being told these are the rules, to be exposed months and years after the fact
to criminal prosecution.”
The Federalist Papers discourage presidents from
pardoning themselves. It took former President Gerald Ford to clear former
President Richard Nixon of wrongdoing in the 1972 Watergate break-in.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by
permission or license.
© TRUTHOUT 2008