Does the Obama administration reject the Nuremberg Principles?

[Karmadillo]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/apr2009/pers-a11.shtml

The Obama administration and torture
11 April 2009

On Thursday, Leon Panetta, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), issued an internal memo declaring the Obama administration’s opposition to the investigation of intelligence personnel who carried out torture under the Bush administration.

The statement, announcing a blanket amnesty for those who have committed grave violations of international and human rights law, came on the heels of a leaked International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) report that detailed, and defined as torture, the CIA’s horrifying “enhanced interrogation” methods. (See: Red Cross report details CIA war crimes)

The media has largely ignored the ICRC report, instead seizing on parts of Panetta’s memo that indicate the Obama administration will decommission CIA “black site” prisons and cease using private contractors in interrogations.

Panetta claims that CIA personnel cannot be investigated because they were acting under legal findings crafted by Bush administration Justice Department officials—findings the Obama administration has thus far refused to make public. The memo reads, “Officers who act on guidance from the Department of Justice—or acted on such guidance previously—should not be investigated, let alone punished.”

Yet international law, including precedents established in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi military and civilian officials, makes clear that this “just following orders” defense is not applicable to violations of human rights and war crimes such as torture. Nuremberg Principle IV states, “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

More importantly, Panetta’s claim that CIA personnel were only following orders begs the question: Why not prosecute those who gave the orders?

more...

[mmonk]

1. In practice, yes.

[BeFree]

5. Absolute power, and all that

American power today is guided by "Might makes it right".

Bush showed just how it works and you can bet all the power hungry mofos learned the lesson well.

The power hungry mofos' biggest fear is the law and so they set about ignoring the law or re-writing it to suit their agenda.

Congress is supposed to stop this from happening, but congress is full of power hungry mofos. Congress needs to be flooded by common American men and women. A congress like that would stop all this crap dead in its tracks.

[mmonk]

13. Congress was supposed to be made up of citizen legislators.

Today, Congress is made up of party members that have different groups designed to tow the line and the parties are under influence of power brokers from the monied elite and their "think tanks" and foundations. The basic premises that were supposed to hold sway no longer apply.

[BeFree]

15. You got that right

Congress is the problem and the solution. Seems like I saw a thread about that here.

We need to get back to basics if we want to change things.

[Uzybone]

22. Nice to see a few on DU realize that

not place everything on the executives head.

[babylonsister]

2. A socialist website? Grasping, aren't you. nt

[Bandit]

7. The truth can only come from which types of websites?

Don't like the message so destroy the messenger. Somehow that doesn't surprise me here..

[apr09]

10. George W. Bush and Pinochet were capitalists

I believe that the argument should be judged on its merits as opposed to the ideology of the website as a whole.

[Karmadillo]

14. Is there anything in the article that's inaccurate?

nt

[readmoreoften]

18. Well, Orwell and Einstein were socialists. So don't listen to them either. /nt

[leftstreet]

19. I knew there was somethin' hinky about that whole Theory of Relativity thing

:o

[Djinn]

21. why is that grasping

you might have a point if you can actually REFUTE what it says, if something is accurate I don't care if it comes from any source at all.

If you can't refute it (or didn't even bother reading it) you have zero argument.

[Metta]

3. Oh, in theory they'll embrace them. They haven't done squat about enforcing them so they're compli

complicit. Happy karma, one and all.

[ThomWV]

4. Himmler gave immunity to SS Troops too

[Boomerang Diddle]

6. If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.

By violation of the Nuremberg laws I mean the same kind of crimes for which people were hanged in Nuremberg. And Nuremberg means Nuremberg and Tokyo. So first of all you've got to think back as to what people were hanged for at Nuremberg and Tokyo. And once you think back, the question doesn't even require a moment's waste of time. For example, one general at the Tokyo trials, which were the worst, General Yamashita, was hanged on the grounds that troops in the Philippines, which were technically under his command (though it was so late in the war that he had no contact with them -- it was the very end of the war and there were some troops running around the Philippines who he had no contact with), had carried out atrocities, so he was hanged. Well, try that one out and you've already wiped out everybody.
Noam Chomsky
.....
http://www.chomsky.info/talks/1990----.htm

[BeFree]

8. And the world would be?

Better or worse?

[baldguy]

9. America hasn't behaved honorably in that regard.

The rules of conduct we force on the rest of the world don't apply to us. Obama got it right when he said we were arrogant.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. There's too many dirty, and bloody, hands on both sides of the aisle.

Many of the potential "investigators" would have to answer some very embarrassing questions about their own involvement in war crimes.

[Blackhatjack]

12. OK Time for Panetta to go..... he is giving aid and comfort to those who engaged in war crimes...

Sorry Leon, but throwing a wet blanket on all attempts to prosecute those who KNEW they were engaging in conduct that constituted war crimes is unconscionable.

Remember Neuremberg? Remember those Nazis we, the United States, pushed to be prosecuted for the same kind of conduct?

You made a choice here .... IF the Obama Administration gave you that script to read to the public as an official pronouncement then the honorable thing to do would have been to refuse and resign.

But your participation in acts designed to cover up the wrongdoing and the identity of the guilty makes you responsible for obstructing the lawful investigation and possible prosecution of these people.

You have to go....

[DCKit]

16. Yep. No defense for following illegal orders. Even less in covering for war crimes.

If, in fact, Panetta said this, he is no patriot and does not belong in the Obama admin..

FAIL.

[Blackhatjack]

17. There is no doubt he said IT... he has said it before ... the question is what does Obama do now?

These are very clear cut and dried decisions for Obama to make.

Either you hold those responsible for the carrying out of torture liable for their actions, or you provide them with cover. You don't even get to the issue of 'following orders.'

As to those who orchestrated the torture and ordered it carried out, the decision is even more clear -- you prosecute them. Period.

[chill_wind]

20. Leon Panetta's selection by Pres Obama

and his easy breezy Senate confirmation says everything about both Pres Obama's and Congress's hopeful intent:
to have another gatekeeper in place willing to keep the dirt hidden under the rug for as long as possible.

[notesdev]

23. Nuremberg as precedent? Methinks someone didn't think this through

Nuremberg was a classic example of unfettered victor's justice. There was no law under which the Nazis were prosecuted.

Under the "Nuremberg is a good example" theory, whatever the fuck we wanted to do to anyone we captured is fair game since we were the winners; actual laws not required.