CAMPOS: Obama's tough moral choice

By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 21, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Comments

January 21, 2009

12:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

I knew the first half of this column was an illusion as a read it. He started off criticizing the superficiality of Obama. Wow, what an honest assessment, I thought.

Then we find out that Campos is upset with Obama because he thinks Obama will not prosecute the former administration. And, again, I am left with no other option but to think that Paul Campos is a $cumbag.

The so-called torture that Campos talks of saved American lives. If water-boarding is so tortuous, why have I seen at least three different journalist undergo the "torture" to see what it is like? The fact that a journalist would submit himself to the water-boarding process is proof that it is not nearly as brutal as you would have us believe.

Furthermore, to say we should prosecute our own leaders based on international law is sick. When a murderous group maliciously slaughters 3,000 US citizens and proudly proclaims that more slaughter will follow, only a true effeminate coward would hide behind some vague international law instead of rightfully defending his countrymen.
January 21, 2009

6:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Bmac writes:

Ok - but make sure you also prosecute all the Democrats who had direct knowledge of what was going on and who held oversight roles during this time such as Pelosi and Rockefeller, and went along with it until people started complaining.
January 21, 2009

6:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

blacksho89 writes:

Paul, if you knew that Obama was an empty suit, why did you campaign for him? There was more than one Democrat candidate, after all.
January 21, 2009

7:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

NostraDamus writes:

According to all accounts, we subjected three terrorists to waterboarding. I reject the premise that waterboarding is torture. The information we obtained from the act saved uncounted thousands of lives. The act was a reasonable method to obtain vital information helping to maintain the safety and lives of our citizens.

Mr. Campos and his ilk would say that the end doesn't jutisy the means and live in a world where the Marquis of Queensbury rules apply. The problem with this mindset is that your foes don't follow the same rules and are out to win at any cost. The result is anarchy.

And remember, all of the Democrat leadership during the immediate aftermath of 9/11 wanted the President to use more and harsher techniques. If Mr. Campos is serious about "war crimes" every leader, including Nancy Pelosi, Bob Graham, John Rockefeller and Jane Harman should also be in the docket.
January 21, 2009

7:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

mrfxx writes:

blacksho89 writes: "Paul, if you knew that Obama was an empty suit, why did you campaign for him? There was more than one Democrat candidate, after all."

That's true - but we had to be sure a man won, instead of the more experienced and qualified woman.
January 21, 2009

8 a.m.

Suggest removal

bladerunner writes:

I always felt this country would be destroyed from within. According to Campos' bizarre logic, we treat Kalid sheikh muhammed with kid gloves even though he probably knows every future attack against the U.S..

In the past, we would simply send the terrorist to another country and let them torture him on our behalf. Maybe we should go back and find the perpetrators of this policy in prior administrations and prosecute them as well. People like Campos who live in an ideal fantasy world where principals are absolute no matter how many lives they cost are beneath contempt.
January 21, 2009

8:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

flimflam writes:

All of you defending the actions of the Bush administration. If waterboarding is not torture than how do you account for the fact that we have prosecuted others for this crime? As Campos points out we prosecuted our own soldiers during Vietnam and we have prosecuted citizens and soldiers from other countries in the past.

It seems to be that some of you are desiring a country where the leaders are above the law and do not have to abide by the laws of ordinary citizens and soldiers. Not much more Un-american than that ideal.
January 21, 2009

8:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

psu96 writes:

please provide any data, facts something other than your distorted opinion that torture saved lives?????
January 21, 2009

9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Debunkin8tor writes:

Yes, Obama should invest his political capital into prosecuting the Bush administration for the crime of waterboarding three terrorists who took up arms against the United States, to discover information that could lead to saving American lives -- just as the Republicans attempted to prosecute Clinton for the crime of lying under oath. Watch Bush's post-office approval rating rise as it is revealed the lengths his administration went to protect lives. Then watch a corresponding fall in Obama's and the Dems ratings, as their grand plans on health care, unions, and taxes are ditched, and Republicans take over the House and Senate. Brilliant, Campos.
January 21, 2009

9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

RegLib writes:

To those of you who say "I don't believe waterboarding is torture," or the Bush administration who tried to wordsmith it (as they wordsmithed so many things to try to alter reality) as "tough interrogation techniques," those opinions are legally irrelevant. We as a country have defined waterboarding as torture and have prosecuted people for it. Including our own soldiers.
January 21, 2009

10 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

President Obama faces a lot of tough issues, of much greater importance that whether the Bush administration engaged in some criminal activity. This almost, but not quite, as stupid as the Obama birth certificate issue. Arguably, there are plenty of treaties we, as a nation, have violated in recent years.
January 21, 2009

10:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Konyok writes:

Paul Campos again displays that special mixture of solipsism and moral vanity that leads me to sometimes think that he is writing satire.
Because he is a law professor, we can reasonably expect him to actually think about these kinds of issues beyond superficial sentimentality.
Whether waterboarding is *torture* or not, and whether one feels that its use is defensible or not, shrinks in significance next to the issue that Professor Campos raises: should policy differences be criminalized?
We can all agree that this is not a discussion of workaday charges of criminal corruption or malfeasance. The charges that Campos suggests involve actions taken with an entirely plausible premise of protecting the American people - which we can all agree should be our government's priority. We can disagree whether such policies are effective and we can decide whether or not to truly prohibit them. But, surely Campos cannot be blind to the implications of the precedent.
Will show trials now become a feature of changes in administrations? Will judges acquire yet more power?
I believe that this is a Pandora's Box full of mischief for our democracy. Officials will become more timid and paralyzed in times of crisis, talented people will become ever more disinclined to public service, we will become more vulnerable to military coups, and the temptation for sitting office holders to exploit or manufacture emergencies to extend their tenure will eventually outweigh the moral imperative for them to step down and get out of the way.
There is more at stake than just Paul's ever so exquisite moral sensibilities ...
January 21, 2009

10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

vendari01 writes:

Thank you, Anderson, for your comment. I see President Obama's primary mission as one of taking us into the future, not one of delving into the past. Let the Supreme Court decide if criminal acts were carried out, and whether or not those acts can be prosecuted. Our President has more than enough on his plate, and he'll need all of his wisdom (and charisma), along with the collective wisdom of those around him, to solve the many problems he must now face.
January 21, 2009

10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

Somebody please show me in a tangable way how torture has saved lives. Show me some real numbers and stats please, because I don't believe it. To say it has saved thousands of lives is rediculous. How do you know? Prove it to me. It's a hollow argument. Do those of you who like torture. submit to telling the exact truth about anything when under pressure let alone torture? I doubt it. Torture not unlike manipulative police interrogations usually only procures partial truths and the rest are lies. It has been proven time and time again that torture usually does not reveal enough usefull information to be worthy of intelligence to those who need it. Like I hear so many conservatives say, "we are a nation of laws and morals, prosecute those to the fullest extent who break the laws," but when it comes to your boys/girls in the Whitehouse it's ok to break laws in the name of national security. What a double standard you live by. By the way, I do agree with the post above. Democrats who knowingly participated should be prosecuted as well.
I suppose my points are moot though, since the wealthy and powerfull in this country almost never get prosecuted. You can, in most cases, buy your way out of it in this country.
January 21, 2009

10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

adamkadmon writes:

It seems to me that Mr. Campos often goes to great extremes to be provocative.
January 21, 2009

10:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Thank you for your comments, vendari. And I agree. It seems from his speeches, that Obama is clearly looking to the future.

Adamkadmon: you said what I was thinking too. Campos seems to be the other side of the provocative coin from Rosen. Both of them continually stir the pot for the apparent purpose of raising ire.
January 21, 2009

11:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

sstnt writes:

If Obama allows his minions to pursue this path, he will blow to smithereens any possible hope of bi-partisanship, however small, that he may have.
January 21, 2009

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

Paul Campos' column reminds me of the Denver Post's editorial "endorsement" of George Bush in 2004. The editorial "endorsed" Bush by pointing out all the things that, in the Denver Post's opinion, Bush had done wrong.
Campos praises Obama by blasting him to Hell. If Campos thinks Obama is a charismatic empty suit who uses expediency, why on God's good Earth did Campos campaign for the guy? There were several Democratic choices initially. There was a competent alternative all the way until May, 2008. Could mrfxx be on the right track at 7:43?
Can an argument be made that some Bush officials be prosecuted for various crimes, including war crimes? I suppose. But, what will it really accomplish? Obama apparently will define waterboarding as torture. He has indicated he will close Guantanamo. He's already suspending military tribunal proceedings pending further review. In other words, he's looking forward, as others have said, and not looking backward. He's got a boatload of work that needs to be done. If that's political expediency, so be it.
Someone mentioned the Republlican Congress and Clinton. The Republicans tried to impeach Clinton during Clinton's administration. But, once George Bush took office, they didn't prosecute Clinton officials for policy differences. They moved forward. Obama should, likewise, move forward. If someone or some group wants to file a private lawsuit, let the courts hash it out.
January 21, 2009

11:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Faux_Noise writes:

Konyok writes:

should policy differences be criminalized?

If the policy is objectively criminal and in violation of signed and ratified treaties, the question is moot, as established law had criminalized these policies. The question at hand is what is the value of prosecuting those who executed the criminal policies of the previous administration.
January 21, 2009

11:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

flimflam writes:

It is precisely because we are looking forward that so many want the crimes of the Bush administration investigated. We dont want Bush investigated because we dont like him, we want him investigated because there is good evidence he broke the law and we are supposed to be a nation of laws. What precident is set when we allow our leaders to so flagrantly break the law? Are we going to allow "I was trying to protect the American people" as an excuse for any crime, or just for the crimes of politicians we support?
January 21, 2009

11:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

sstnt, that's the problem with this concept. It'll damage the United States, because as it is the Democrat party (namely Pelosi) is vengeful and bitter and full of hate and this will only split any type of bi-partisanship that Obama could use to lead the country. I was at the gym a few nights ago and a news program was on.... not sure what it was, but reading the captions it appears as though the Bush administration as well as many Democrats would be drug through the mud and it's likely we'll never know all the answers. But Pelosi can't get beyond hate and revenge, and how she even became Speaker of the House is beyond me. What a wise choice by the Democrats...... (hint: sarcasm).

I hope Obama puts Pelosi in her place and makes running our country, and fixing the mess it's in, the only priority instead of wasting our time and money chasing ghosts. Obama deserves a better start to his Presidency than what she's promising to deliver.

To answer the question on how waterboarding has saved lives....... it's the exact comments we've heard from our leaders, and in both parties, not just Republicans. To your opinions on it I ask, show us proof how waterboarding has not saved lives. Otherwise, it's an opinion. And therein lies the root of the problem with prosecutions Pelosi is asking for, it'll open the intelligence community up for questions and the answers will only provide enemies of the United States with answers we don't want them to have. That was also mentioned on the news program. For the prosecution of soldiers during Vietnam, it doesn't carry much weight considering the plight of the two border agents prosecuted for shooting a drug smuggler. The prosecution wanted the jury to believe the drug smuggler over federal agents, even after they had evidence that the smuggler brought in 700 more pounds of drugs after he was the prosecution's witness, yet that was never mentioned during their trial. Something else, the United States is a "sovereign nation", meaning our laws take priority over any international law inside the United States.

Both parties need to quit going after each other, and get over being so sensitive. Move on and fix the country, it's what you were voted in for!
January 21, 2009

noon

Suggest removal

Konyok writes:

Faux_Noise,

Can you define "objectively criminal" in this context?

If you mean explicit statutes in the US criminal code, I seriously doubt that any pertain to actions outside of US territory, like Guantanamo, or to actions taken under color of authority. It would be necessary to demonstrate either a violation of orders, or gross dereliction of duty. It is not enough to assert that it isn't nice.
Conflating US law with international treaties doesn't help you very much, either, because treaties bind the US government, not citizens. Violations of treaty are abjudicated by bilateral negotiations are in international venues. To date, no government has pressed any claims.

Investigations and/or prosecutions of Bush administration officials for waterboarding would entail improvising procedures and protocols that would have enormous longterm unintended consequences. Without the traditional ollyoxinfree of adminstration transitions, our politics would become more rancorous and potentially violent.
January 21, 2009

12:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Konyok writes:

flimflam,

I take it, then, that you think that Janet Reno and FBI and AFT officials should be prosecuted for Waco?
January 21, 2009

12:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

dks26dave writes:

Lots of misinformation in comments. Just to clarify some facts for people:

1. waterboarding is torture under US law
2. treaties signed by the US are not "international law" they are binding as a matter of US law unless and until they are repealed.
3. the treaty Mr. Campos refers to has not been repealed.
4. the treaty (i.e. US law) Mr. Campos cites does not contain an exception for anyone who tortures "for a good reason" or "to save lives" or to "protect the country"
5. Every government that has ever tortured has justified itself by claiming it "had a good reason" or "saved lives" or "protected the homeland" or any other good excuse you can think of.
6. even if you beleive torture is sometimes necessary, the law currently prohibits it. if you dont think people should be prosecuted under it, then you have to take the same position for all current laws. (i.e. drug dealers shouldn't be prosecuted right now because even though drug dealing is criminal, drugs aren't that bad for you)

Personally, I think Obama should prosecute the administration as well as Pelosi, Reid, Rockefeller, and anyone else complicit in this.
January 21, 2009

12:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

dks26dave writes:

"I take it, then, that you think that Janet Reno and FBI and AFT officials should be prosecuted for Waco?"

Konyok:

I find it revealing that you even asked this question. I assume it means you think that those in favor of prosecutions are only in favor becuase we are partisan democrats.

To answer your question though: If they broke any laws then yes they should absolutely be prosecuted. What makes the current situation different is that it is 100% confirmed objective truth that this administration violated US law. It is undisputed and indisputable.

To argue against prosecution in this case you have to argue that US officials are above the law. You can argue that if you want, but please at least admit that's what you are doing.
January 21, 2009

12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

rjnova writes:

Leave it to Campos to support leftist lawyers attack for this supposed torture. His earlier condemnations were for war crimes. It must have finally sunk in that these terrorists are not protected by international law. No wonder Campos did not make it as a lawyer; he does not know the law. These are out of uniform terrorists---not regular uniformed military captives.

International law allows them to be shot on the spot as saboteurs, spies or worse. Their specialty is beheading innocents, (real) torture, car bombing market places, schools, churches any public place they can murder innocent men, women and children to spread terror to the public. They are completely outside the protection of the Geneva Convention precisely meeting those proscribed exceptions.

International Courts and their war crimes be damned. Any interrogation methods used by the US are far less than torture and Campos knows that very well. That may be wrong. He has no idea or facts on what methods were used. He is making wild exaggerations on waterboarding strictly for the purpose of smear

Moreover, Congress cannot over ride a president’s authority under the Constitutional separation of powers. That is especially true in time of war. The President has complete authority to waive civil liberties and authorize just about anything he sees necessary to protect this country. Look how FDR imprisoned German and Japanese citizens in WW ll when they were thought to be a threat of sabotage on the West Coast. If the Liberal Democrats in Congress do not like that they can amend the Constitution. Lets see how much of the American public will support that.

Campos chooses to ignore Congress voted overwhelming approval giving President Bush the authority to go to war. Democrats are merely playing politics saying they were misled and their hearings on crimes are show boating and meant to defame. Campos’ main objective is to further the slanderous propaganda of the left on Bush and this administration.
January 21, 2009

12:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Spivis writes:

Well Paul, thats what happens to single issue voters. What were you thinking!?!
January 21, 2009

1:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Faux_Noise writes:

Thanks 26dave.
January 21, 2009

1:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Faux_Noise writes:

p.s. Gitmo is US territory, the SCOTUS has already cleared that up.
January 21, 2009

1:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

dks26dave writes:

rjnova:

Amazingly, in your entire rant, you failed to state a single relevant point. Additionally, the vast majority of your statements are factually false.

I refer you to my earlier post but will (perhaps foolishly) attempt to make a few additional facts clear.

The president does not have "complete authority to override civil liberties." It is true that the Korematsu case to which you refer upheld the right to detain the Japanese and has not been explicitly overturned, it is universally recognized as one of the two or three worst decisions in Supreme Court history and is never cited by lawyers when arguing a case. If the Korematsu case occurred today I would be willing to bet every last penny I own that it would come out differently.

Even if you were right, Korematsu is irrelevent to what we are talking about. In Korematsu, the Executive acted in the absence of law one way or the other. No federal law or treaty was violated. The question in Korematsu was whether the constitution was violated.

Treaties are entered into by the Executive branch and ratified by congress. Thus, in the case at bar, the executive branch enacted the law and then flagrantly broke it. The cosntitution has nothing to do with it. The quesiton is simply whether the President is allwoed to break US law if he has a good reason.

I say no, and I continue to be amazed at the number of people who say yes. Of course, many of the people saying yes refuse to admit that thats what they are doing.

It would be nice if we could at least admit that the discussion is about whether the president can ever break the law and under what circumstances, rather than getting sidetracked by arguments about the effectiveness of torture, the definition of torture, and the separation of powers. Such discussions are interesting, but they are completely irrelevant to the current debate.
January 21, 2009

2:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

yaakovwatkins writes:

If Campos believes that violations of the law should be prosecuted, then why isn't he pushing for the prosecution of the Obama's attorney general who is guilty of tax evasion? And why doesn't he support the arrest and trial of the millions of illegal aliens in this country?
January 21, 2009

2:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

rjnova writes:

dks- I would take your bet.

First of all Obama is not going to pursue this. Now that he is president he will ignore the matter. Secondly, if Conyer or other Congressmen can somehow indict Bush, and tells them to stuff it they get him for what---Contempt of Congress? As much as they deserve contempt the Supreme Court will throw it out under the separation of powers. It is all grandstanding and nothing more.

Campos is stroking himself and pontificating because he is impressed with the sound of his voice.
January 21, 2009

2:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Konyok writes:

dks26dave,

Treaties are binding on governments, not citizens. Can you cite me a single case in US history of an individual prosecuted for violating a treaty?

True enough, Guantanamo is a US possession; but, it is leased, not permanent US territory. There is no territorial government, the area is subject to the uniform military code of conduct. The details of federal judicial oversight is being worked out now.

I'm still confused about the use of "objective." It's a mighty sounding word, but doesn't seem to mean anything here except that feelings are strong.

I mention Waco to place the debate into context. A tragedy unfolded on national television, many innocents lost their lives. There was obviously incompetence and possibly malfeasance. What investigation occured was highly partisan and inconclusive. This was a case of one discrete event with an identifiable chain of command. After the pro forma investigation, consciousness of the event was subsumed under the meme of David Koresh's wickedness. (Apparently because he abused the young girls, they deserved to die ... ) After Oklahoma City the entire issue became a right-wing conspiracy talking point best left undiscussed.

This is one of many loose ends in American history. (Ludlow, Wounded Knee, etc., etc.)

Waterboarding would fall into this rubric, except for the small number of times that it was, eh, *objectively* used. Even so, despite Professor Campos' simple exposition, there are good reasons why President Obama would hesitate to pursue public investigations.
January 21, 2009

3:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Civil liberties are denied through the Patriot Act, even Consitutionally guaranteed liberties. You're going out on a slippery slope, dks.

While you make good points dks, the President........ in a time of war, does have extraordinary powers not usually available. I'm amazed at some of the things I've learned this past week, with Obama coming to power, on documentaries on the History Channel discussing the Presidents.

Speaking of FDR, during the Depression, his response was to raise taxes three times their normal amount, unemployment was at 15%, and he created the WPA (I believe the initials are correct) so the federal government could employ citizens on the taxpayer dollar. He did nothing for the private sector and it caused suffering across America.
January 21, 2009

3:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

For those of you who doubt torture is illegal or should not be prosecuted you should know what your beloved messiah Reagan signed in 1988.

http://mobile.salon.com/opinion/green...
January 21, 2009

3:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Yaakov(Glen)Watkins: "If Campos believes that violations of the law should be prosecuted, then why isn't he pushing for the prosecution of the Obama's attorney general who is guilty of tax evasion? And why doesn't he support the arrest and trial of the millions of illegal aliens in this country?"

So, you agree with Campos then, that the Bush administration should be prosecuted? Or are you applying a double standard to law breakers? I think the latter. Wouldn't be the first time. The poorest, and darker than you usually pay the piper, while those who've lived the life of privilege, like Bush, or Nacchio, get every break possible. It is true that money can buy justice?
January 21, 2009

3:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

dks26dave writes:

"Civil liberties are denied through the Patriot Act, even Consitutionally guaranteed liberties."

- If this is true, then the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.

"Treaties are binding on governments, not citizens. Can you cite me a single case in US history of an individual prosecuted for violating a treaty?"

- The treaty I am referring to is the Convention Against Torture. It states in pertinent part:

"Each [party to this treaty] shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture."
and:

"The [party to this treaty] in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall . . . submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution."
and:
"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture"
and:
"An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture"

US laws prohibiting torture are on the books pursuant to this treaty. This treaty REQUIRES that the US investigate and prosecute individuals accused of torturing. This treaty was signed by Reagan and ratified by congress.

The US Constitution, states: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and ALL TREATIES MADE, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land . . ."

The premises here are simple:

1. The Bush administration admits to using torture.
2. Torture is against US law which was enacted pursuant to The Convention Against Torture
3. The Convention provides no exception for following orders or for emergency use of torture
4. The Convention requires that the US government prosecute individuals who torture if they reside in the US.
5. Bush administration officials reside in the US.
6. The Convention against torture is a treaty, which, under the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

There no way to argue that binding law hasn't been broken. Just admit that you think the president is above the law and we can move on.

I would also note that if Obama fails to prosecute torturers, his administration will be in violation of The Convention and hence Federal law and should be subjected to prosecution.
January 21, 2009

3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

cwillytroll: "Civil liberties are denied through the Patriot Act, even Consitutionally guaranteed liberties."

No. You can't take away constitutionally protected rights or liberties.
January 21, 2009

3:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

dks26dave: "The premises here are simple:"

But wrong. Specifically #1

"There no way to argue that binding law hasn't been broken."

Of course there is, not the least starting with Alberto Gonzalez and John Yoo's legal opinions.

Like I suggested earlier (albeit not so clearly), one probably does not need to look very hard to find numerous violations of treaties by our government. Don't act like Bush was the first to try and get around a treaty provision.
January 21, 2009

4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

dks26dave writes:

"If Campos believes that violations of the law should be prosecuted, then why isn't he pushing for the prosecution of the Obama's attorney general who is guilty of tax evasion? And why doesn't he support the arrest and trial of the millions of illegal aliens in this country?"

I don't know the details of the "tax evasion" claim, but my understanding was that it was a routine error people frequently make on their taxes. If not, then I would expect Geitner to be treated exactly like anyone else who did what he did.

As for deporting illegals, if a federal prosecutor has evidence that an individual is an illegal alien I beleive it is his or her duty to prosecute that individual. Frankly, I think most people who you would consider pro-immigration feel as I do. I think immigration law should be changed. Until it is, I support its enforcement. Although I will admit that I don't support any further expenditure of additional federal money to investigate illegal aliens as a believe it to be a waste of money. Similarly though, I wouldn't support a massive investigation into torture either, without compelling evidence that torture occurred. Here, the perpetrators admit to torturing, so the investigation is easy and will not waste resources.

Can the president murder your mother in cold blood if it would prevent terrorism. Can he rape a child to prevent terrorism?

If he can torture then he can do these things (assuming they prevent terrorism).
January 21, 2009

4:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

dks26dave writes:

"But wrong. Specifically #1"

Anderson: I direct you to the following:

"Bush administration officials from Vice President Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned."

"The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved. . . ."

"The administration of US President George W. Bush authorized the CIA to waterboard Al-Qaeda suspects according to two secret memos issued in 2003 and 2004, The Washington Post reported Wednesday."

"we prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam. . . . Waterboarding is torture." - Eric Holder (soon to be AG)

"We tortured [Mohammed al-] Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution."

"Torture is a crime," Attorney General Mukasey said in an interview Friday . . . .
January 21, 2009

4:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Konyok writes:

dks26dave,

This is just an aside from the thread, but you are much, much too generous to Mr. Geithner. As an employee of the IMF, an international organization operating in the US, he was responsible for paying his own taxes in exactly the same manner as though he were self employed. He was required to make estimated tax payments each quarter of his income tax, social security employment tax and his medicare employment tax. He paid his federal income tax on schedule, but not his ss or medicare taxes.
IMF provides an additional payment at the end of the year to its US employees to cover the cost of the ss and medicare tax. In order to receive the check, IMF employees are required to sign a receipt which acknowledges their obligation to pay the taxes. It is simply not reasonable to argue that he was ignorant, or that it was too complicated. This is the procedure that EVERYBODY with their own business MUST follow in this country.
Geithner was caught by the IRS and paid the taxes due for the last two years of his employment. Because the first two years fell outside of the statute of limitations, he did not pay for those years until two years before the announcement of his appointment.

No way around it, the man is a weasel.
January 21, 2009

4:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

anderson........ if you don't think Constitutional rights can be taken away, you're wrong. Please explain how, during Hurrican Katrina, several homeowners in possession of firearms that were protecting their property were then forced by the National Guard to turn their weapons over, despite them not violating any law? Isn't that against the 2nd Amendment? I know I'm right....... that it is against the Constitution. It's mentioned quite well in the documentary "America: Freedom to Fascism".

So, try to tell your opinion on it. Calling me a troll isn't working either. You and jay are usually the ones with nothing substantial to add to discussions, you both would rather try to dispute something you don't believe in and if you're called out on it, like my above comments, you'll reply with "blah, blah, blah".

Do you even know anything about the Patriot Act? I'm guessing not.
January 21, 2009

4:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Hey anderson, one more thing, money got Marc Rich pardoned by Bill Clinton before he left office. I'm sure it helped Ted Kennedy avoid prosecution for causing the death of Mary Jo Koepeckne. Both parties have members who've "lived the life of privilege" so have some balance and don't try to deceive people into thinking it's just one party. It's people like you that fail to see both parties on the national level are more like each other than they are like us.

I feel sad for you......... you don't get it.
January 21, 2009

4:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

dksdave, you've obviously concluded that waterboarding is torture, and torture violates U.S. law. But not everyone would agree, and of course, any prosecutory efforts along that line would likely be met with great resistence. That's in part why I question the purpose of "going after Bush". Assuming that Obama will put a stop to the so-called torture, what do you want to get out of the prosecution? How will it benefit the country?
January 21, 2009

4:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

dks, I do believe the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, no doubt. But I, nor any one of us, gets to vote on things like that. We have to deal with the consequences of the decisions our politicians make for us.
January 21, 2009

4:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

cwillytroll: "anderson........ if you don't think Constitutional rights can be taken away, you're wrong".

Whatever, troll. You are free to delude yourself about the issue, or mislead others as you are able. There's no shortage of "lies and liars in the house", as Big Daddy would say.
January 21, 2009

4:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Okay anderson, I might have to take a little back on that. I do agree with you, how will any prosecutions benefit the country? It takes time away from what we hope Congress would resolve (the problems facing our country), and Obama deserves better for his start to the Presidency than to be dragged down by prosecutions that may do nothing, and take away from his ability to preside over bi-partisanship support. We got sick of potential prosecutions when Clinton was in office or leaving office...... not again.
January 21, 2009

4:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Just when I try to throw you a bone, you can't stop barking, can you? Move on dude, because the way I see it, you don't espouse Obama's ideals in action or in words.

My example on the 2nd Amendment is quite accurate. Read the Patriot Act. If you can't, don't bother posting on stuff you know NOTHING about.
January 21, 2009

4:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

You must be kidding . . . .

With all the urgent and important things happening that directly affect each and every citizen of the USA, you are truly recommending that one of Obama's first priorities is to address this issue?

I'm glad you're not in charge, Campos.
January 21, 2009

7:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"I have a friend, a liberal Chicago lawyer, who always gets upset when I talk about the war criminals in the Bush administration. To him, the idea that our government has committed war crimes as a matter of carefully chosen, conscious policy - as opposed to overlooking the rogue acts of a few bad apples - is almost literally inconceivable.

I actually know a lot of people like that. They don't want to consider the possibility that we as a nation could be morally responsible for such things, so they don't.

If Obama were the man his more zealous supporters imagine him to be, he wouldn't tolerate this kind of egregious moral blindness, let alone turn it into official government policy"

agree, campos.

very good point.

very good examples of this above.
January 21, 2009

8:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

E8H52 writes:

First I know I am wasting my time.
I had the honor of meeting a suvivor of the Battan Death March some 23 years ago. Col Thompson was cavalry officer and spent three years under the kind conditons of Japanesee imprisonment as a POW recognized under the Geneva Conventions that Japan did not sign or care about.
That said what is the issue? We are arguing about fringe issues of making a terrorist uncomfortable?????? And trying to make that comparable to what is real torutre.
Just for history the Nuremburg trials resulted in all the accusted as I understand it held accountable. Sadly the ACLU got involved in the war crimes trials of the Japaneese and were able to force some of them to the US Supreme Court. One of those acquitted had caputred American pilots executed, their livers cuts out, cooked and served to his officers and later served in the Japanesse leguslature.
What is the bottom line here, many people have no interest in the welfare of our war fighters, but will strangle the legal system with protections of those who are are defending you and are hell bent on killing our miltiatry.
I have this question for those who push this issue since you are so passionate that we are a torture culture will you also hold accountable frat houses that push pledges to excesses including death by alcohol poisioning while writing slurs on their foreheads as they lie dying on the house floof????????????????????????????? Please explaine to me the difference when 350 million lives of American civilians are at stake.
January 21, 2009

8:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Terrorists don't strike me as remarkably smarter or tougher than previous enemies. By changing all the rules, including giving up many of our civil rights, in the name of keeping us "safe" from them, we've now elevated terrorists to a practically mythical status.

Frankly it's embarrassing and makes us look like wusses. We're Americans, not barbarians. We can win wars and conduct interrogations without reducing ourselves to sadistic creeps. I would hope, anyway.
January 21, 2009

9:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

dks26dave writes: "I don't know the details of the "tax evasion" claim, but my understanding was that it was a routine error people frequently make on their taxes."

Yeah, but he himself is characterizing it as a "careless" mistake, although he claims it was innocent. Even if the latter is true, he's being nominated for a position where carelessness can reap great harm.

And what about his leading role with the financial bailouts? Look how "careless" that initiative is turning out to be.

So far, I've seen no evidence of any successes, but rather, a list of failures. This is an appointment that definitely doesn't have my support and certainly not my confidence.
January 21, 2009

9:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

PaleoConservative writes:

Campos - If you don't believe in torture, why do you keep writing such terrible columns?
January 21, 2009

10:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

InEssence writes:

Man Paul!

I wouldn't list this in the top 100 of Obama's moral choices. Some that would rank above it.

* Killing little babies that are 99% out of their mother.

* Explaining how he took 40 times more cash over the Internet than any other politician. He isn't the only politician that knew the Internet. Remember, Al Gore invented it.

* How about borrowing the money from the banks at interest, and then giving the money back to the banks that it was borrowed from.

* The expansion of the M2 money supply which is obvious theft.

It goes on and on, but I do think that Obama's character fits right in with the Washington crowd.
January 22, 2009

7:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

stntylr writes:

I personally believe waterboarding is wrong but I don't see how a trial could be carried out. It would seem that in order to get a conviction you would need the terroists that were actually waterboarded to testify. I'm sure they would love a chance to do more damage to the U.S. but I think getting any of them in a U. S. courtroom to testify isn't going to happen. Could you imagine the political fallout if it was discovered that any one of them cut a deal in exchange for testimony.
January 22, 2009

7:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

markjabn writes:

Message to all Baby Boomers: Get over it. Mr. Campos I thank god George Washington and the rest of the old European white guys were made of sterner stuff than the likes of you. I could add Franklin Roosevelt to that statement as well. I’ve always wanted to learn German but it would have been the national language if we tried to end World War Two with hugs. Additionally I am ever in awe of the constant references to Vietnam. This war has nothing at all in common with Vietnam. Get a grip, seek help I don’t care what you do, but stop with the Vietnam nonsense. Baby Boomers; pat your selves on the back you ended the Vietnam War, in a miserable fashion I might add. Countless millions of Southeast Asians thank you for endless torture that was inflicted on them by the communist re-education cadre in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. I have never heard of members of those regimes being tried for war crimes, or torture.

2,688 Days have elapsed since the last terrorist attack occurred on American soil. This is the case because men and women with courage and integrity did what was right, not what was popular. I hope President Obama has the courage and integrity to do the things necessary to keep that tally running.
January 22, 2009

8:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

usa_guy writes:

"We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things." -President Barack Obama 1/20/09

Those who are critical of Mr. Campos must relax and realize that as with most hardcore partisans, he is simply hearing what he wants from our new President (indeed HIS President). Any part of the message which runs contrary to his vindictive spirit, he will simply ignore.
January 22, 2009

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

lwayne writes:

If we allow this type of petty political idiocy we will never again have a president not prosecuted. You libs have a hard time accepting you are not always right. You know how to file while others know how to lock and load. That may be what it comes to.
January 22, 2009

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

youngman writes:

"I did far more for the Obama campaign than I've ever done for any other presidential candidate. This, I should hasten to add, isn't saying much. Nevertheless I was a precinct captain for him during the Colorado caucus; I made phone calls in his behalf; I gave him some money; and I wrote a dozen columns pointing out in various ways why he would be a better president than John McCain."

This is why the Rocky and the Post are going broke....propagandists is all they are..can you say Goebels....
January 22, 2009

9:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

rjnova writes:

Many excellent points markjaban and E8H52. It is tiresome to hear this drivel and attempt at high minded intellectualism. Especially since they have the luxury of basking in the warmth of safety bought for them by others who lay their life on the line day in and day out fighting terrorists and terrorism. I suppose their response is they did not ask for it , especially if their protectors use any means that makes these terrorist captives uncomfortable. It is torture.

Nothing I heard including waterboarding rises to torture as is done to our military or civilian captives. There is no intellectual equivalency there. And that is how the majority of Americans feel about it and Obama is smart enough not to go there. He is back pedaling on Gitmo and also on withdrawal from Iraq because he now sees this buys him only favor with his leftist supporters and he can now afford to ignore them.
January 22, 2009

9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

bobcatbuzz writes:

Breaking the law in this country seems to be according to whose ox is being gored. Tim Geithner knowingly failed to pay income taxes, but the Libs/Dems now spout "honest mistake" and are fully prepared to confirm him as head of the IRS. Excuse me but haven't plenty of people been jailed for "income tax evasion"? Campos would be screaming from the Rocky Mtn tops if this were a Repub. in this position.But Timmy gets the "get out of jail" free card because he is going to "save" the economy. But Bush on the other hand is to be jailed for doing something as insignificant as "saving" thousand of US lives. Seems just slightly hypocritical to me, doesn't it. Has Campos lobbied for prosecuting Clinton for his "illegal" war against Bosnia. If memory serves me correctly Clinton went to war without Congressional approval (violation of the Constitution anyone?),no UN approval and Bosnia posed no "immediate" threat to the US, and had no WMD. Why are we still there by the way. Shouldn't Obama bring those troops home first and start the immediate legal procedings against Clinton for his "illegal war crimes". This seems to me an easier place to start since lots of the Clinton's admin. that would have been complicit to this clear "violation" on US and International laws are in Obama's administration now and he wouldn't have to look far to find them. And really shouldn't Obama be recommending ol Tim the Taxman for a prison sentence instead of Secretary of the Treasury if upholding the "rule of Law" is of such primary importance to the Libs/Dems like Campos? Just wondering!
January 22, 2009

10 a.m.

Suggest removal

wkeller writes:

Does prosecution for water boarding also extend to our military trainers that subject our pilots, SEALS, Rangers and other covert operatives to this process?? Should this policy of training our soldiers to resist this treatment at the hands of our enemies also be banned?

Does prosecution of administration war crimes extend to the Clinton administration and our new CIA director who first enacted the policy of rendition?

How about prosecution of the new administration who has evidently signed a secret memo allowing for coercive interrogation techniques under certain circumstances? What are these circumstances?? In the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who had operational intelligence that we gleaned after 45 SECONDS of water boarding which saved American lives, and those of our allies as well, should those lives have been sacrificed to save him from those 45 seconds?

I am sure many will sleep easier knowing Obama will set aside this horrendous process – especially those in high risk target areas: NYC, Chicago, LA, Atlanta, Boston, DC. Just because Khalid knew of these attacks, times, places, personnel – never again shall we stoop to their level just to protect our citizens. Yes, I feel much more American now.

The same can be said for closing GITMO, moving these terrorists to our stateside federal prisons, and trying them in our federal courts. Of course the whole process of evidence will then come into play. They will no longer be captured on the battle field but a crime scene. Soldiers will then need to double as CSI investigators gathering evidence, talking with witnesses, taking statements, providing transportation for their testimony during the federal trials. Of course there is then the whole issue of trial by jury, protecting the jury and their families from people that play by 7th century rules, not those of civilized countries. Will you be willing to serve, or have your wife or children serve? Tell me, did you notice how well these policies worked for the husband of our new SOS?? Six years after the attack on the World Trade Center – on his watch – we had a smoking hole filled with the bodies of 2,700 Americans. The WTC’s second attack will look like a drop in the bucket when compared to future attacks.

Obama will kill tens of thousands of Americans with these foolish policies. 2,688 days, that is the number Obama must match. I have every confidence he will fail.
January 22, 2009

10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

ack_ack1 writes:

According to the Mr. Campos, the logic of prosecuting Bush is as follows: Torture is illegal under treaty, 3 people were waterboarded, we have defined waterboarding as torture, we have prosecuted people for waterboarding in Vietnam; therefore, we should prosecute Bush. The lynchpin to this argument is that we have defined waterboarding to be torture. What prevents a nation from redifining waterboarding as not being torture because of urgent national security interests? It seems to me that if the treaty says, "no torture" but doesn't define torture, then each country is free to define it as it likes and that can change over time according to the circumstances one finds oneself in including the need of protecting the homeland from further attack. The analogy is to what is cruel and unusual punishment for the purposes of the 8th amendment? In 1900, hanging was just fine. In the 1950s, gas was just fine. Now, lethal injections seems to be the preferred method. We do not prosecute people for crimes under such fuzzy circumstances. Mr. Campos' argument fails for that reason alone.
January 22, 2009

10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Independent4ever writes:

SideshowBob writes:

"true traitors to their country."

Uhh....Bush stunk as a president, but there was nothing he did to warrant prosecution. Everything he did was with the Democrats blessing. But....Al Qaeda wants us to treat their prisoners like American criminals....and so does Sideshowbob and Campos. Al Qaeda hates Bush and so does Sideshowbob and Campos. Al Qaeda wants Gitmo closed and so does Sideshowbob and Campos. Al qaeda wants to keep cutting of heads and burning and dismembering bodies...but wants us to stop legal forms of coercion - which have already SAVED lives - and so does Sideshowbob and Campos.

Al Qaeda appreciates the new representation they have in the US government. Obama, Sideshowbob and Campos have shown their true loyalties....so tell me once again, you anti-American, Al Qaeda-loving, terrorist sympathizing piece of garbage... who are the "true traitors to their country."

Only ones who give aid and comfort to the enemy. You can start prosecution by turning yourself in to authorities. Or, just give yourselves the "Ethel and Julius" penalty for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
January 22, 2009

10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

stepheng writes:

If history has taught us anything it is the huge national drain associated with endless Whitewater style “investigations” of administration figures.

As a nation, we simply have more important things to focus on right now (like an economy hemorrhaging jobs at the rate of $500,000 a month) than some far left vendetta to criminally prosecute George W. Bush—which, lets be honest—is ultimately not going to be successful.

We won back the White House and the congress. Let’s leave it at that and move forward with the urgent business of fixing things.
January 22, 2009

10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Gunner_Bob writes:

Mr. Campos, I don’t suppose you were ever in the Military? I know that torture is a very barbaric tactic to use in trying to extract information from an enemy. I am a Christian and I abhor war, but unfortunately, it is a necessary mechanism to prevent injustice to our country as well as others. If we must fight an enemy and terrorism, I would prefer that it be done on somebody else’s shore. The really sad part of our enemy however, is they do not believe in the Geneva Convention. Do you think for one minute that our enemy would not resort to whatever techniques it would take to extract tactical information from one of our military personnel?

Consider using a standard tool such as pliers. Think of slipping and accidentally pinching your finger. It hurts and you would probably murmur some expletives that you wouldn’t use in every day conversation. Now put that pair of pliers in the hand of an enemy and have him purposefully pinch the ends of each or your fingers in an effort to get you to tell some secret. That is called torture! However, if I thought that was the only way that I was going to get an answer to a secret that may says hundreds of my comrade’s lives, I would do it in a heartbeat. Put yourself in that position that getting results from torture would save your spouse or your children from certain death. Now you make a decision!
January 22, 2009

10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

Obama will do the "politically expedient" thing all right - that's work towards getting re-elected and avoid future prosecution for his own "war crimes" once his term in office is through.

He would do well to remember that "what goeth around, cometh around". He'll have plenty of questionable decisions once his time in office is over.

Bring it on!
January 22, 2009

11:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Kate3145 writes:

It took courage for me to read this column.

A new president takes office, one the author likes, and what is his first response?

Prosecute G.W. Bush for "war crimes."

Obama is going to find that dealing with conservatives and Republicans is nothing. Placating the rabid partisans on the Left is going to keep him busy!
January 22, 2009

11:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

dks26dave writes:

"It seems to me that if the treaty says, "no torture" but doesn't define torture, then each country is free to define it as it likes and that can change over time according to the circumstances one finds oneself in including the need of protecting the homeland from further attack."

The treaty defines torture as follows:

". . . any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

By prosecuting people for waterboarding in the past, the government has taken the position that waterboarding meets this definition. The government has never repudiated this position.

If you want to legalize waterboarding going forward then feel free to pass a law. You cannot, however, retroactively legalize illegal conduct. That is why it is indisputable that the administration broke the law.

Further, if you read my prior citations upthread you would know that the treaty specifically prohibits any exceptions based on "the circumstances one finds oneself in including the need of protecting the homeland from further attack"

Also, for people bringing up frat houses and such, you all need to look up the definition of consent. Also, if you look in the definition I just cited, the treaty only applies to individuals acting on behalf of the government. I doubt the boys of Delta Upsilon were working for the feds when they whipped pledges with wet towels.
January 22, 2009

11:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

boyydz writes:

What I once thought unbelievable is now simply mundane. Rather than congratulate GWB on his seven attack-free years and thank him for them, chowderheads like this author actually suggest that it would be an appropriate use of the US judiciary to prosecute him and members of his administration for being too aggressive in prosecuting the War on Terror. I don't believe Obama can show us that the choice between torture and terrorism is a false one as he suggested, much less provide an alternative that would have worked in the time span necessary. This is outlandish. President Bush had numerous hard choices to make after 9/11. He didn't have time to think long and hard about how to extract critical information from high-value subjects. He needed to get the intel quickly so the government could act quickly.

Obama's decision today to unconditionally end severe interrogation (call it torture if you like - it is clearly debatable despite the "conclusive" pronouncement of possible AG Holder), unless replaced by something else equally expedient and effective, has high potential to cost American lives.

The American judiciary is intended to use its common sense as well as the letter of the law in dealing with issues. Cases are plea bargained every day. Violations are overlooked regularly because they are violations in letter only and not in spirit. The prosecution of Bush administration members for allowing waterboarding would be overzealous law enforcement in my opinion, and would ultimately hamper the ability of future presidents to protect our nation effectively.
January 22, 2009

11:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

billyc123 writes:

Dear psu96, This is from today's Washington Post Opinions page:
Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, refused to talk -- until Bush authorized the CIA to use enhanced interrogation techniques. Information gained using those techniques is responsible for stopping a number of planned attacks -- including plots to blow up the American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan; to fly airplanes into the towers of Canary Wharf in London; and to fly a hijacked airplane into the Library Tower in Los Angeles.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
January 22, 2009

11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

dks26dave writes:

Gunner Bob:

You are free to torture if you think it will save peoples lives. However, when you do so you will be unambiguously violating US law and should and will be subject to prosecution. If you think this law is unjust, then do what Civil Rights protesters did and willingly subject yourself to imprisonment.

I'd love it if the torture supporters will tell me what laws I am free to break if I have "a good reason." It would be really helpful to me.
January 22, 2009

11:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

dks26dave writes:

"Everything he did was with the Democrats blessing."

Whoever knew about torture and authorized it acted in violation of US law and must be prosecuted. I am a registered Democrat, but criminal lawbreaking must be punished, especially when both parties are guilty.

The law clearly states that you can't torture FOR ANY REASON. No exceptions. This is a case where the letter AND spirit of the law were violated.
January 22, 2009

11:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

PTParks writes:

Oh how things must look in academia, Professor Campos. What color is the sky in your liberal, misguided little world? We sir, are at war and have been for the last few years, or did you happen to miss 9-11? President Obama made some pretty drastic promises during the campaign, but I don't remember prosecuting the sitting President as part of his agenda. Obama is now is receiving the same intelligence briefings that President Bush received while he was in office, and I'm pretty sure he is coming to the same conclusions, based on that intelligence, that President Bush did. What we are doing is producing results, and saving countless lives.

Tough times call for tough measures. I have no sympathy for some piece of trash “enemy combatant” that thinks he is going to drown and spills his guts. That is not torture. Dying in a crumbling building or a hijacked airplane is. We succeeded in avoiding another 9-11 terrorist attack in America for over 2000 consecutive days under President Bush, and we’ve added a couple of more days to that total under President Obama, thanks to intelligence gleaned from enhanced interrogation techniques. If President Obama wishes to extend that total while he is president, he would be well advised not to mess with success.
January 22, 2009

11:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

smellthecoffee writes:

President Obama is not going to allow President Bush et al to be prosecuted for waterboarding. He reserves for himself the right to do exactly the same thing in the event that we should be attacked again. He understands that he is now responsible for the security of the American people. Since he signed the executive orders closing Gitmo and the "black sites," he now fully "owns" this responsibility, and can no longer blame what happens going forward on Bush's security policies. That is why his executive orders closing Gitmo and the "black sites" have an out clause--he can start right back in doing what he is now proscribing at his discretion, based on the security needs of this nation. He wants the symbolism provided by the EO's, but when push comes to shove, he wants the option to flout them. If he prosecuted Bush for waterboarding, it would make it a lot harder to backtrack on that issue. President Obama is very image conscious, but while woefully inexperienced, he appears to be no fool.

Btw, isn't it interesting that no matter how many back-seat drivers there are, when the car comes to a fork in the road, only one person HAS to make a decision--the one who is driving? The backseat drivers are eternally free to then retract, rationalize, re-define, or conveniently forget whatever advice they gave, no matter how erroneous.
January 22, 2009

noon

Suggest removal

JulesB writes:

What is it about modern newspapers? They hire op-ed types like Campos whose thinking is.. well.. silly and unserious. He is an intellectual lightweight. Now he wants to prosecute people in the Bush administration. Lets try FDR for incarcerating citizens of Japanese decent. Arguably a much better case there. It happened on U.S. soil, and a very high percentage of them were innocent of treasonous activities, and the number of incarcerations are much higher. Campos is more suited to give advice on organic products. His thinking is as consistantly as silly as his picture and his bumper sticker laden car.
January 22, 2009

12:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

themagarian writes:

Ohhh bro-ther....
January 22, 2009

12:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

themagarian writes:

....Campos!
January 22, 2009

12:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Oh_Wise_One writes:

There is a storm coming. Keep your ammo dry. Liberalism is a thin veneer for a fascist mindset that want to control others.
January 22, 2009

12:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

rorschach writes:

I tried a variant of this earlier, and it never appeared. Sorry if this ends up as a duplicate.

My brother, niece, and two of my nephews either are or have been members of US Special Forces groups. As such, during training, they have all been waterboarded. This is a long-standing practice in training special forces personnel. I note that Mr. Campos and others of his ilk have never had a problem with the waterboarding of US servicemen and women; only with the use of waterboarding on three known and self-confessed mass murderers.

Moreover, if the logic espoused in these comments is correct, we must not only prosecute people in the Bush administration, we must prosecute every special services trainer, and their command chain, going back perhaps decades. That would, of course, include every still-living ex-occupant of the Oval Office, since the president is ultimately responsible for the actions of the military.

Or, we can accept the notion that our military has long viewed the practice that waterboarding, while nasty, doesn't rise to the level of torture. Of course, that probably makes too much sense ...

As to Mr. Geithner, my wife worked for the IRS for 20 years. As an ordinary employee, his actions - whether deliberate or not - would result in in summary termination of employment, and would prevent a person from working there. The IRS official policy is to have zero tolerance for even the appearance of wrongdoing. But they apparently don't stop Geithner from being in charge of Treasury, of which the IRS is a part. An interesting double standard, no?
January 22, 2009

12:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

ahhh..the ol' special forces excuse.

we kind of debunked this talking point more than a month ago, ror.

this issue is pretty simple.

if folks broke the law they should be punished.

period.

nothing "partisan" about that.
January 22, 2009

1:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

smellthecoffee writes:

Would the Special Forces deliberately debilitate the personnel they are training by applying electric shocks to their genitals, for example, just so they could learn to resist the procedure? Of course not. They wouldn't torture their own personnel, nor would their personnel go along with it. A veritable parade of journalists volunteered to be waterboarded just for the experience and to get a good story. They knew, a priori, that it is not the same as being tortured. Would they voluntarily have had electric shocks applied to their genitals, or voluntarily submitted to violent shaking, or being burned? Of course not. That is torture, and no one volunteers to be tortured, however it is done. Waterboarding is not torture. QED.

Waterboarding is a God-send for those involved in gathering intelligence. It is highly effective--and because it doesn't scar the subject either physically or mentally (tell us rorschach how many hours, or fractions of an hour it took your Special Forces relatives to recover), it doesn't damage the humanity of either the subject or the one applying it. And you morally superior beings want to kick it away, all for the purpose of your narcissistic preening. Start a club and preen away, but leave the security of my family and my country out of it.
January 22, 2009

1:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

mcartri writes:

"The only good Indian is a dead Indian." "Slavery is good for the black man." "Children belong in the mines, not schools." "White, property owning males are the only Americans who should vote." "So, Iraq didn't hit us on 9/11. Bomb them anyway." "Torture those ______ terrorists. They aren't even human." If you agree with any of these statements, you have plenty of company. Ignorance and bigotry are the fertilizer for hatred. What do you wish to spread?
January 22, 2009

2:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

beancounter43 writes:

The presidential oath of office is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I want my president to take that oath seriously. We won our independence by killing our enemies. We were able to establish this country and the constitution through killing and maiming those who would stop us from establishing our country and our constitution. We must be prepared to kill our enemies to defend our constitution. I must say, in general, I am internally conflicted about whether a non-us citizen is covered by our laws and our bill of rights. I am not-so-conflicted when a non-us citizen has engaged in acts of war against our country. We must be prepared to KILL our enemies to protect our freedoms as our enemies are certainly prepared to KILL us to take them.

When a law conflicts with that oath, should the president follow the law or the oath? That question is not intended to be rhetorical.

OK....HACK AWAY!
January 22, 2009

3:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

dks26dave writes:

For the love of god, will any of you look up the definition of "consent?" This is grade school stuff folks. Dominatrixes are not guilty of assault and battery.

I can't beleive you people are this dumb. You must be deliberately pretending not to understand this stuff.

There was a story awhile back about some German dude who volunteered to be eaten alive by another guy. According to you idiots, this means that being eaten alive isn't torture.

I though for a moment this thread had a chance for a decent discussion. Now its degenerated into a contest to see who can be the least knowledgeable defender of torture.
January 22, 2009

3:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

dks26dave writes:

beancounter:

1. we are not discussing whether non citizens are covered by the constitution. It is irrelevant to the topic.

2. To answer your question: if a lawfully enacted law conflicts with the oath, the president must follow the law, becuase under such a circumstances (not that such circumstances have ever and will ever exist) he cannot uphold the oath no matter which course he chooses: if he violates the law he violates the oath and if he upholds the law he violates the oath. Also - the constitution is the supreme law of the land and it trumps any oath, even the oath swearing to preserve and protect it.

3. who decides when the law conflicts with his oath? The president? doesn't that invite pure lawlessness? Can Obama imprison republicans if he deems it necessary to preserve protect and defend the constitution? Can he rape a child to do so?

If you concede that the president does not decide what laws can be broken to uphold the oath, then you must tell me who should? The people? Polls show 50% want torture investigated. The justice department? Congress? You?
January 22, 2009

6:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

beancounter43 writes:

dks26dave:

If you are saying that any law that is enacted via our Constitutional form of government is Constitutional, I think I understand that argument. However, where there may well be a conflict is in the very basic idea behind the Constitution and some of the laws that have been enacted. The Preamble to the Constitution reads:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

If a law that precludes an act necessary to "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves our Posterity" I can understand that a President could be conflicted.

I agree with your last paragraph and don't have a good answer. The Constitution starts with "We the People." So, if the polls you cite are scientific and unbiased, and it is truly 50% that want torture investigated, does that means that 50% do not? If so, I don't see a mandate there?
January 22, 2009

7:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

ssnco writes:

You have to love these law professors. The problem is that they really do believe the ridiculous stories that they spin. Let me tell you that we water boarded our own pilots voluntarily to prepare them for the torture that they will receive at the hands of these vicious scumbags that you defend. The presidents job is to defend this country against a band of ruthless thugs that would just as soon cut your head off professor than sit there and let you ramble on with your righteous indignation. Let me give you a little quiz. What does the number 2,687 mean to you..... Well it is the number of days that President Bush kept us safe from another terrorist attack. These heinous individuals have not quit. They will come after us again, and I sure hope that I am wrong, but the Chosen One has just increased the chances of another attack by telling these terrorists that they can expect to be treated like NYPD Blues, and invoke their Miranda rights to avoid divulging the next attack. As a Legal Professor why don't you research and right an article on the Law of War. Guess what. You will find that unlawful combatants are not protected under our, or anyone's, Constitution and do not enjoy the rights bestowed upon our Citizens.
January 22, 2009

7:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

a majority of Americans believe that the Obama administration should investigate whether the Bush administration's treatment of detainees was illegal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/...
January 22, 2009

8:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

beancounter43 writes:

jay:

If I read the survey right, only 50% agreed, 47% disagreed and 2% had no opinion. The survey had a margin of error of + or - 3%. So, the results are within the margin of error so there is no clear majority on that score. Not that it really matters in the end anyway.
January 22, 2009

11:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Openminded1 writes:

We as a country have defined waterboarding as torture and have prosecuted people for it. Including our own soldiers. Duh sometimes it amazes me the lack of common sense...
January 22, 2009

11:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

rich_c writes:

II did a little research on the topic after reading the opinion piece and the following posts and came across a small article by Mr. Tom Rich posted at about.com. This link is (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/tort...)

Mr. Rich makes the point that it is not enough to determine whether or not Water boarding is Torture in order for that those who authorized it and those who practiced it to have committed unlawful acts. In order for the practice to be unlawful it must 1) fit the legal definition of torture by an applicable law, 2) be committed by persons in a jurisdiction covered by an applicable law and 3) be performed on people covered by an applicable law.
This is quite different than the issue whether water boarding is right or wrong. That is not a question of law. I hope a quick example will suffice to illustrate this point. Prostitution is unlawful in many states, but legal in Nevada. The fact the practice is legal in Nevada does not make it “right” just as it being illegal in Texas make the practice in of itself “wrong”. My conscience leads me to the judgment that water boarding is wrong. My judgment is also that to console my conscience with the argument that since it saved lives it was okay in those specific instances is also wrong. That, in my opinion is quite a slippery slope that we can use to justify many wrong (i.e. immoral) actions.
Mr. Rich in his article points to two possibly applicable laws in this matter: 1) US law under 18 USC Section 2340 which applies to US persons committing acts of torture in the US and 2) the War Crimes Act of 1966 (18 USC Section 2441) which covers “grave breaches” of the Geneva convention. He rightly points out that item 1 does not apply because of jurisdictional issues and also it could be effectively argued that water boarding does not meet the statues definition of torture. Conversely by any reading of the Geneva Convention water boarding is torture (this wording is why military code of conduct expressing prohibits almost any coercive interrogation methods on prisoners of war). There is also no question of jurisdiction (Actions US nationals anywhere in the world are covered).
The gray area is whether or not the people who are being water boarded covered under the War crimes act of 1996. They would be if there were 1) civilian prisoners or 2) prisoners of war. If they were unlawful combatants and not either 1 or 2 above then they are in a kind of “limbo” and are not covered as thus the war crimes act is not applicable either. By the way, others such as the Vietnam vets who were prosecuted under the war crimes act for water boarding did so to people who the US government classified as prisoner of war and thus are not valid precedents. In my opinion, the “unlawfulness” of the known instances is ambiguous enough that no attempted prosecution would ultimately be successful.
January 23, 2009

12:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

RareSanePerson writes:

dks26dave:

You aren't going insane. It is downright unfortunate that there are so many people out there who miss your clear, reasonable, well thought out, concise point.

Think for a moment, about the calibre of mind you are arguing with as I quote ssnco (who didn't graduate grade school english):
"As a Legal Professor why don't you research and right an article on the Law of War."

Or perhaps this sage piece of wisdom O-wise-one crafted in equal parts from Ronald Reagen and Sarah Connor:
"There is a storm coming. Keep your ammo dry. Liberalism is a thin veneer for a fascist mindset that want to control others."

Don't bother arguing. These people are guided by an inner force most educated people understand to be an inner farce.

Cheers,
Lee from Australia.
January 23, 2009

12:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Felix335 writes:

I write this from the perspective of a 30 year veteran Army Intelligence Officer. A technique is not torture unless there is permanent physical or mental damage. As a former interrogator,
I underwent waterboarding during training. I lasted all of 14 seconds and was scared.....but no permanent physical or mental damage. Several of you "civilians" say that torture is never effective. That is not true. Once the word gets out that you're willing to be tough, many other prisoners will talk. Also those prisoners who are psychologically unprepared to endure tough tactics, many of them will break, too. I am not advocating torture or widespread waterboarding. I believe that the Bush administration was correct when they ordered military interrogators not to use waterboarding and that waterboarding could only be approved by the President under extreme circumstances. Like it or not, the U.S. is a (maybe "the") global power and many individuals and groups wish us harm. We need tough people out there for us to counter these bad actors before they cause great damage to us. I suspect that nearly 100% of Campos' adherents on this blog have never and would never even consider volunteering to be "in harm's way", "sunshine patriots", as it were. Lucky for you there are citizens better than you that are protecting your right to be shallow and misguided.

As Justice Arthur Goldberg (a bona fide liberal) of the U.S. Supreme Court said in a national security case, "the constitution is not a suicide pact." I hope our new President figures that out before our country gets attacked again.
January 23, 2009

1:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

freemarketworks writes:

"Openminded1 writes: We as a country have defined waterboarding as torture and have prosecuted people for it. Including our own soldiers. Duh sometimes it amazes me the lack of common sense..."

What amazes me is how weak you people are. Waterboarding is torture? Really, have you been waterboarded? I personally find waterboarding a refreshing test of fortitude; no one dies and it beats having you're private parts hooked up to a car battery. I've experienced both; waterboarding in training and the car battery by your Islamic terrorist friends. This isn't a fairy tale or a rational world; the Bush Administration was simply trying to protect our country.
January 23, 2009

8:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

beancounter43 writes:

RareSanePerson:

Typical of the "educated" elite who pride themselves on open-mindedness, you have picked out miss-spellings and improper grammar to belittle someone who thinks differently and excuse your lack of open-mindedness and arrogance. If you are truly open-minded and educated, you would argue your case on its merits and argue with those with a different view on their merits.

Oh...I better edit my post to make sure I used perfect grammar and no miss-spellings.... screw that!

There is not a single one of you who are against water-boarding that would hesitate to use it if your own family was in eminent danger. If you would, and if our country takes that tack, then I submit you might as well start learning Sharia law!
January 23, 2009

9:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

Felix,

Your experienced, logical opinion is of no value to the liberals who view this issue from a totally emotional basis.

I, too, underwent water boarding during my military training (Vietnam Advisor - SERE training). Was it unpleasant? You bet! Would I volunteer for it again? No way! But that's exactly why it's effective.

Don't forget -- these are the same people who question the value of most forms of punishment for convicted criminals. The ultra-liberals always question the motivation of the prosecution, lay as much blame as they can on the victim, and enhance the stature of the accused.

This is merely an extension of that "thought" process -- these terrorists have "rights" (from somewhere) so regardless of what they have done, we should seek to understand them -- not punish them. They feel the USA is in the wrong, because our "oil footprint" in the middle east has been so oppressive we deserve to be punished ... even though the money we spend there has helped build up countries who otherwise would have absolutely nothing. Simply breeding over oil reserves would not have led them into having the rich economies they now enjoy. Their own governments are the ones who oppress their people -- not us. But the ultra-libs don't agree.

So, thanks again for your testimony. Too bad it won't persuade those "open thinkers".
January 23, 2009

11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

dks26dave writes:

To all the military personnel who have posted:

I thank you all for your service. You have my unending gratitude for the work you do.

However, you guys keep missing the point on this issue.

Your experiences being waterboarded are not at all relevant to the discussion. If we were discussing whether we should legalize waterbaording, then they would be. However, that is not the discussion.

The discussion is whether members of the US government who authorized waterboarding, ordered it, acquiesced to it, or actually did it, should be investigated and possibly prosecuted for breaking US law.

The fact that you don't think waterboarding isn't all that bad doesn't enter into it, just as the fact that I don't think marijuana is that bad doesn't prevent the prosecution of marijuana users and dealers.

Now - if you the government should be allowed to violate federal law whenever it believes it has a good reason to do so, then thats fine, although I strongly disagree.

I just want you to admit that you beleive this, so that we can have a productive discussion rather than talking past each other about completely separate issues.
January 23, 2009

12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

Dave

Thank you for your polite response.

I won't presume to speak for the rest of the ex-military guys, but for myself, the question is: even if it's illegal, should it be prosecuted?

My answer is No.

Just as with your marijuana example: we choose not to prosecute any but the most flagrant violations of the pot laws, typically only those who deal drugs or push them at children are singled out.

That's the standard I would suggest we apply here. Was a US criminal law broken? Possibly. Were the rights of US citizens directly affected? Not that I can see. Were the detainees even technically "prisoners of war"? Maybe, maybe not. Technically, they could have been classified as out-of-uniform spies. By rights, they could have been shot on sight. I think - for the most part - they have been treated better than that.

So, back to my original post -- is this really what you want the new administration to focus on during its first 100 days? I believe there are higher priorities.

Should the situation be examined, evaluated, and better - clearer - standards be put in place to prevent a "next time"? You bet.

My suggestion: as with minor drug offenses - let this one go. Save your ire and vengance for more important matters.
January 23, 2009

1:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

rich_c writes:

Dave

You seem so sure that you are right. You quote parts of laws that would prove your point if the law was fully on point. Please read my earlier post.

".. it is not enough to determine whether or not Water boarding is Torture in order for that those who authorized it and those who practiced it to have committed unlawful acts. In order for the practice to be unlawful it must 1) fit the legal definition of torture by an applicable law, 2) be committed by persons in a jurisdiction covered by an applicable law and 3) be performed on people covered by an applicable law."

Both laws you quote from are not fully on point.

"... two possibly applicable laws in this matter: 1) US law under 18 USC Section 2340 which applies to US persons committing acts of torture in the US and 2) the War Crimes Act of 1966 (18 USC Section 2441) which covers “grave breaches” of the Geneva convention. Item 1 does not apply because of jurisdictional issues and also it could be effectively argued that water boarding does not meet the statues definition of torture. Conversely by any reading of the Geneva Convention water boarding is torture (this wording is why the military code of conduct expressly prohibits almost any coercive interrogation methods on prisoners of war). There is also no question of jurisdiction (Actions US nationals anywhere in the world are covered).

The gray area is whether or not the people who were water boarded are covered under the War crimes act of 1996. They would be if there were 1) civilian prisoners or 2) prisoners of war. If they were unlawful combatants as classified by the DoD and not either 1 or 2 above then they are in a kind of “limbo” and are not covered and thus the war crimes act is not applicable either. By the way, others such as the Vietnam vets who were prosecuted under the war crimes act for water boarding did so to people who the US government classified as prisoner of war and thus are not valid precedents. In my opinion, the “unlawfulness” of the known instances is ambiguous enough that no attempted prosecution would ultimately be successful."

Please see the following link for more info. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/tort...
January 23, 2009

7:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

GunnyBob writes:

Speaking of war criminals, by Campos' own standard, Obama is a war criminal and baby killer, given his orders just killed several innocent Pakistani children in an illegal attack on a sovereign nation at peace with all its fellow states.
January 24, 2009

10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Gunner_Bob writes:

To dks26dave
Sorry Dave, but you don't have a clue. BTW, I appreciate your thanks for my 20 years of military service.

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

CAMPOS: Obama's tough moral choice

By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 21, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs