THE LATEST
« »

Saturday, July 11, 2009

AG Holder not Ruling Out Torture Investigation

I'm getting tired of holding out hope, but any glimmer of justice is worth working for.

Raw Story:

In spite of President Barack Obama’s reluctance, Attorney General Eric Holder may yet appoint a special prosecutor to plumb the depths of the Bush administration’s torture program, according to a published report.

“Four knowledgeable sources” told Newsweek that Holder’s decision could come in a matter of weeks.

“Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama’s domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform,” the magazine reported. “Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. ‘I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president’s agenda,’ he says. ‘But that can’t be a part of my decision.’”


There are some things yuou just can't compromise on and keep your soul. A bona fide human rights abuse and war crime is one of them. In fact -- soul-saving aside -- investigating and prosecuting torture is a requirement. Failing to do so is a violation of international law. Allow me to quote myself:

When Ronald Reagan signed on to the Convention Against Torture, he brought us into the realm of international law. The convention is a treaty and treaties are the be-all and end-all if international law -- torture's illegal because we agreed it should be. That convention reads, "Each State Party [i.e., signatory nation] shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law," and that, if torture is committed, the nation must "submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution."

There aren't any exceptions here. It must happen. If Holder -- or any other would-be Attorney General, for that matter -- believes that we've waterboarded detainees (and no one thinks we haven't), he has to prosecute. His hands are tied.


Holder has an obligation to investigate. If he doesn't, he's in violation of international law. He may have been "wrestling with the question for months," but the answer is absolutely clear -- investigate or commit a crime.

Search Archive:

Custom Search