Bush administration and torture (click title to entry - thank you)
Posted by Letters editor
Not about blame, but seeking justice
In response to Chris Fruitrich's letter of May 28 ["Blaming Bush: Don't waste time looking back," Opinion, Northwest Voices], I would like an explanation as to how pursuing justice for alleged crimes, whether they be by Dick Cheney or Adolph Eichmann, be considered "ill-conceived"?
The Bush administration authorized torture. It has even admitted to it -- a clear violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions. Not forgetting all the other crimes committed by this administration, too numerous to mention here, but please --torture? Am I missing something? How does a society of conscience put this behind us without seeking justice?
-- Chris Anderson, Seattle
Copyright © 2009 The Seattle Times Company
I could never understand how Colin Powell would make blatant lies to the United Nations. However, when his integrity and the power of that integrity was diluted by false information due to torture, it makes far more sense than it doesn't.
I believe him when he states he didn't know if the information in 'SLAM DUNK' was obtained by torture. At that time, he knew only of the reports being handed him. He was being held accountable by Cheney and Bush to explain away any of the words on the page in front of him.
He may have had 'druthers' otherwise, but, Cheney wanted Iraq Halliburton for the sake of saving himself from a lawsuit with stockholders, something Bush would empathize with due to his own experiences. Bush wanted Saddam in revenge for threats against his father.
Powell did not have the 'methods nor the clout' either through his current authority or his morality to raise questions of Rumsfeld for his actions within the Defense Department to obtain information otherwise. He was stuck. At this point, as before, it was a matter of 'processing' the information and moving to venues that would insure our national security, or so it would APPEAR.
Could he have 'pulled the plug' on Cheney, Bush and the CIA? No. When Former Secretary Powell states, "So." It is because penmanship doesn't count when decisions of national security are on the line and the subordinate hasn't commissioned proof of why the information would be tainted.
Do I believe Former Secretary Powell consciously made the decision to lie? No. Absolutely not. It was not an action of looking the other way as a convenience to carry out torture or invade Iraq. I don't believe that for a minute. He only served one term. I think that speaks for itself.
The truth of the matter is that "SLAM DUNK" was facilitated by Rumsfeld with a battery of lunatic lawyers that SOUGHT 'loopholes' in the law where it would 'AVOID' any illegalities.
Can 'loopholes' be prosecuted? I do believe they can be prosecuted if THE WILL to pursue 'justice' is important enough.
It is no different than the 911 Commission. They were 'allowed to exist' and publically prosecute the Bush Administration including the "Bin Laden DETERMINED to Strike the US" memo and the sequelae of denial by Rice, Cheney even though Senator Feinstein was 'on the job.' Rice and Cheney should have been held accountable, but, they abused power and demanded to be immune from prosecution for the sake of national security. The Fifth Amendment was waived for the sake of the country. Basically.
The same thing goes here. The lawyers involved in 'justifying' the actions of the Bush White House for false impetus; LOOKED for loopholes and justification. THAT is abuse of power. It is not only illegal, dangerous at that level, it is also unethical. They knew better. They should not be practicing.
The Cheney/Bush White House is being given 'a pass' and it is done consciously.
Like.
WOW.
Gerald Ford, I guess.
