It is official: Obama lied about his torture investigations

[Thanas]

Source, with further links.

Spain is home to the running of the bulls, of course, but in 2009 it was also home to the running of the bull----, courtesy of our president, Barack Obama. And this time, it's personal. Presidents lie all the time, unfortunately, but in this case candidate Barack Obama lied to my face in April 2008, when he came to 400 North Broad Street here in Philadelphia and I had a chance to ask him directly how he would handle allegations of torture and related crimes by the Bush administration.

Here's part of how he responded:

"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve."

On Jan. 20, 2009, Obama became the 44th president of the United States, and in the 22 months since then there's no reason to believe there's what he promised -- any serious Justice Department review of torture or any other likely war crimes that were ordered up and carried out during Bush's presidency. So what he said up on the 12th floor of the building where I now sit was, in essence, a lie. But tonight, thanks to some on-the-ball reporting from David Corn at Mother Jones, we learn that it's even worse than that, that the Obama administration actively protected Bush's minions from any accountability, anywhere in the world:

In its first months in office, the Obama administration sought to protect Bush administration officials facing criminal investigation overseas for their involvement in establishing policies the that governed interrogations of detained terrorist suspects. An April 17, 2009, cable sent from the US embassy in Madrid to the State Department—one of the 251,287 cables obtained by WikiLeaks—details how the Obama administration, working with Republicans, leaned on Spain to derail this potential prosecution.

For example:

On April 15, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), who'd recently been chairman of the Republican Party, and the US embassy's charge d'affaires met with the acting Spanish foreign minister, Angel Lossada. The Americans, according to this cable, "underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the US and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship" between Spain and the United States. Here was a former head of the GOP and a representative of a new Democratic administration (headed by a president who had decried the Bush-Cheney administration's use of torture) jointly applying pressure on Spain to kill the investigation of the former Bush officials.

[...]You know, there's been all this talk recently -- including on this blog -- about "American exceptionalism." Does anyone remember what Obama said when he was asked about this back in 2009:

I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.

Pretty words -- but meaningless if working in the White House means you're above "our body of law." The breakdown of justice in this county is far from exceptional. In fact, it's contemptible. And the lie that Barack Obama told in this building in Philadelphia is a big part of that.

It is now official - Obama colluded with the Bush Administration and the Republican Party to systematically hide evidence of torture and to keep it from becoming official. Of all the lies and disappointments, this is IMO the biggest one yet. You can't be the CHANGE president when you have the exact same policies as the previous administration. And this is far from being the only case - see Khalid el Masri and Khalid Al Masri for further clues to this pattern.

[Gandalf]

Why would he do such a thing? Is it some of that usual political bullshit about how a populations shouldn't see its leaders charged with crimes?

It's so very baffling.

[Thanas]

Probably thought the stuff was so outrageous that it would cause less damage to the reputation of the USA if it was swept under the rug.

[Elfdart]

Scott Horton has been all over this:

December 1, 3:51 PM
The Madrid Cables

In Spain, the WikiLeaks disclosures have dominated the news for three days now. The reporting has been led by the level-headed El País, with its nationwide competitor, Público, lagging only a bit behind. Attention has focused on three separate matters, each pending in the Spanish national security court, the Audiencia Nacional: the investigation into the 2003 death of a Spanish cameraman, José Cuoso, as a result of the mistaken shelling of Baghdad’s Palestine Hotel by a U.S. tank; an investigation into the torture of Spanish subjects held at Guantánamo; and a probe into the use of Spanish bases and airfields for extraordinary renditions flights, including the one which took Khaled El-Masri to Baghdad and then on to Afghanistan in 2003.

These cables reveal a large-scale, closely coordinated effort by the State Department to obstruct these criminal investigations. High-ranking U.S. visitors such as former Republican Party Chair Mel Martinez, Senator Judd Gregg, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano were corralled into this effort, warning Spanish political leaders that the criminal investigations would “be misunderstood” and would harm bilateral relations. The U.S. diplomats also sought out and communicated directly with judges and prosecutors, attempting to steer the cases into the hands of judges of their choosing. The cables also reflect an absolutely extraordinary rapport between the Madrid embassy and Spanish prosecutors, who repeatedly appear to be doing the embassy’s bidding. Here’s how El País summarizes the situation (my translation):

Over the last several years, the Embassy of the United States in Madrid wielded powerful resources in an extraordinary effort to impede or terminate pending criminal investigations in Spain which involved American political and military figures assumed to have been involved in incidents of torture in Guantánamo, violations of the laws of war in Iraq or kidnappings in connection with the CIA’s extraordinary renditions program. The American diplomatic legation documented these activities in a number of its thousands of secret documents, both formally classified or marked as confidential, to which El País had access. The American ambassador between 2005 and 2009, Eduardo Aguirre, an appointee of the Bush Administration, personally directed most of these efforts targeting the Spanish Government or the Spanish judicial authorities, and the secret cables note that he reckoned with and secured the support of powerful figures in Spain in the process. Prominent among these is the Spanish attorney general, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, together with several prosecutors attached to the Audiencia Nacional, in particular the chief prosecutor, Javier Zaragoza.

The cables show that the embassy was briefed in detail about the pending cases, receiving information that was not publicly accessible and would have been known only to the prosecutors and the magistrates handling the cases. The embassy engaged Spanish authorities in detailed discussions about the specific judges handling these cases and on at least one occasion extracted a promise from prosecutors to seek to have one sensitive case—in which former U.S. attorney general Alberto Gonzales, former vice presidential chief of staff David Addington, John Yoo, Jay Baybee, Douglas Feith, and William J. Haynes figured as potential defendants—reassigned to a judge they considered friendlier to the United States. In fact, around the time of the cables in question the prosecutors acted just as the cable suggests they would.

The cables also reflect a high level of concern at the prospect that Spanish and German prosecutors—both looking at aspects of the kidnapping and torture of Khaled El-Masri—would share notes and begin taking action. In fact exactly this sort of cooperation occurred (as it has occurred between Spanish, German, and Italian prosecutors in several other cases involving the CIA extraordinary rendition program), and U.S. concerns that it would block their efforts were proven correct. After political pressure was applied to Germany to withdraw the arrest warrants, they were simply reissued by the Spanish magistrates, who were better shielded against political manipulation.

Diplomats routinely monitor and report on legal cases that affect national interests. These cables show that the U.S. embassy in Madrid had far exceeded this mandate, however, and was actually successfully steering the course of criminal investigations, the selection of judges, and the conduct of prosecutors. Their disclosure has created deep concern about the independence of judges in Spain and the manipulation of the entire criminal justice system by a foreign power.

I discuss the developments from Madrid this morning in a conversation with DemocracyNow’s Amy Goodman:

Obama is now just as responsible for the state-sponsored sadism as Dubya's Willing Executioners. Last year I likened Obama and Holder's refusal to prosecute the Crawford Caligula's henchmen (who bragged about torturing people) to a Jim Crow-era Southern sheriff's refusal to arrest members of a lynch mob. That was grossly unfair to redneck sheriffs and prosecutors, who at least made a token effort to bring the likes of Byron DeLaBeckwith to trial. Even that is too much to ask from Obama and Holder.

[The Romulan Republic]

That or he was stuck in his usual bipartisan mode and didn't want to stir up a shit storm politically by revealing what his predecessor was up to.

[Flagg]

This is why I get furious when people argue that the Obama administration "had" to appeal the DADT ruling. They already ignore the highest of crimes, why not ignore a ruling that benefits America?

[Ritterin Sophia]

This surprises anyone? It should be clear to anyone by now that Obama is a Clinton-era Republican, not a Democrat or any shade of liberal.

[Darth Yan]

I wouldn't go that far. He's certainly not liberal but I wouldn't call him a conservative either. What about the demobilization in Iraq

[Edi]

No matter. He's now an accomplice to the Bush era crimes and nearly as good as a war criminal himself.

[Darth Yan]

I get that much, and I ain't disputing it. saying that he's a conservative was the only thing i took issue with. that much he isn't. on all other accounts i agree.

[SCRawl]

I get that much, and I ain't disputing it. saying that he's a conservative was the only thing i took issue with. that much he isn't. on all other accounts i agree.

He's a conservative by all standards but those in the US. The number of actual liberals in American politics is vanishingly small, and Obama is not among them.

[Patrick Degan]

I'm afraid shit like this is going to continue for so long as the United States views itself as THE Superpower and insists on relating to the rest of the world in what are de-facto imperial terms. And it does not seem to matter who is in office. It seems that about the only remaining difference between the Obama foreign policy and what we would have gotten under McCain is that the latter would be eagerly ramping us up to war against Iran right now. But this... I expected better of the man than this.

[Zaune]

That or he was stuck in his usual bipartisan mode and didn't want to stir up a shit storm politically by revealing what his predecessor was up to.

In all fairness to the man, would you do anything differently in his place, with his enemies?

[Chaotic Neutral]

Yeah, cover the Republicans in shit. How is that supposed to hurt him politically?

[Molyneux]

Something I've known for awhile, but it's always good to get more confirmation of something like this.
Now if only the big-name media would touch it with a ten-foot pole (that is, do their fucking jobs...)

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm afraid shit like this is going to continue for so long as the United States views itself as THE Superpower and insists on relating to the rest of the world in what are de-facto imperial terms. And it does not seem to matter who is in office. It seems that about the only remaining difference between the Obama foreign policy and what we would have gotten under McCain is that the latter would be eagerly ramping us up to war against Iran right now. But this... I expected better of the man than this.

That's a pretty big difference. I suspect Afghanistan would be a bit different too (more troops, no withdrawl date).

[Shroom Man 777]

The fact that Obama was willing to do the right thing to defend our great nation from the threats of the terrorizers, and the fact that he followed in the footsteps of the Decider - the Greatest President in the Galaxy - only makes the term "Zerobama" more slanderous. He did this because we couldn't HANDLE the truth, because he is in the business of saving lives. Once more, he has shown us his patriotism and Americanism - not Kenyanism or Secret Muslimism or Socialism - and thus he is worthy to be called an Herobama, now and forever. Amen.

[Bakustra]

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I can understand his reluctance to pursue investigations of torture by the US. In doing so, he'd put himself in the unenviable position of being the president to institute what would look and be presented as criminal investigations of opposition politicians. Before anybody chimes in with "well the Republicans couldn't get any more opposed", Obama still has a 49 percent approval rating. If he was publicly investigating the previous administration for crimes, that would quickly drop and he would be seen as the most partisan of presidents. There's also the problem that he'd have to probably investigate many members of his own party, alienating them as well.

Putting pressure on Spain is repugnant, but also derives from the same motivations- he'd lose any chance at all of Republican support if he was willing to let American government officials be tried and punished by other nations over actions that most of the party still don't view as fundamentally wrong and which they undertook under official auspices. As it is, no matter his personal opinions, he can't allow serious investigations if he wants to hold onto power or have his party hold onto power. While it would have been nice to see this investigated and punished, I doubt that it will happen barring miracles.

[K. A. Pital]

If he was publicly investigating the previous administration for crimes, that would quickly drop

You realize this means that the majority of Americans support torture and war crimes? Because if your rating falls for investigating the latter as opposed to rising... Well, let's say that's not normal. It's not Obama's problem the Republicans used state-sanctioned torture, secret prisons and all other nice stuff from a "Torture for dummies: how to do it and not get caught" book, isn't it?

If you think the only problem is Obama being afraid of popular disapproval, this doesn't reflect good on neither Obama, nor America.

[Lonestar]

I wouldn't go that far. He's certainly not liberal but I wouldn't call him a conservative either. What about the demobilization in Iraq

Uh...the one that Bush arranged?

FYI, I just got off the phone with a user in Iraq a mysterious desert country. "Demobilized" is just code for "shuttering smaller company-platoon sized bases and retreat to mega-FOBs", and we would have gotten to this point with or without the Obama "demobilization".

[Patrick Degan]

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I can understand his reluctance to pursue investigations of torture by the US. In doing so, he'd put himself in the unenviable position of being the president to institute what would look and be presented as criminal investigations of opposition politicians. Before anybody chimes in with "well the Republicans couldn't get any more opposed", Obama still has a 49 percent approval rating. If he was publicly investigating the previous administration for crimes, that would quickly drop and he would be seen as the most partisan of presidents. There's also the problem that he'd have to probably investigate many members of his own party, alienating them as well.

The problem with that sort of logic is that the longer criminality goes uninvestigated and, worse, unpunished, the worse it gets with the next round. Do you think Iran/Contra would have happened if Nixon had been sent to prison for Watergate? Would Darth Cheney have dared try all his shit if the Iran/Contra criminals had would up in orange jumpsuits? Now, we've got the whole Bush/Cheney mob getting away with what were outright war crimes and worse some of those crimes continuing. What do you suppose the next Republican regime is going to be like as far as the rule of law is concerned given how they now know they can essentially do anything and never be held to account for it or even worry about the prospect?

[Bakustra]

If he was publicly investigating the previous administration for crimes, that would quickly drop

You realize this means that the majority of Americans support torture and war crimes? Because if your rating falls for investigating the latter as opposed to rising... Well, let's say that's not normal. It's not Obama's problem the Republicans used state-sanctioned torture, secret prisons and all other nice stuff from a "Torture for dummies: how to do it and not get caught" book, isn't it?

If you think the only problem is Obama being afraid of popular disapproval, this doesn't reflect good on neither Obama, nor America.

The point is that it can be framed as politically-motivated investigations, and yes, the American public probably doesn't care all that much about waterboarding "terrorists", and Bush is not so unpopular that there would be general agreement that this was a good thing! You seriously think that the Republican party (or Democratic party, for that matter) will just meekly submit to be arrested en-masse amongst the senior party leaders? Or large parts of the CIA, Department of Defense, State Department, god knows how many private contractors, Justice Department- with everything that's come out about the torture policy, it implicates large parts of the power structure. The level of arrests needed would look like a politically-motivated prosecution, that the implicated would devote all their power to enforcing in the public eye. It's not going to happen for a long time.

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I can understand his reluctance to pursue investigations of torture by the US. In doing so, he'd put himself in the unenviable position of being the president to institute what would look and be presented as criminal investigations of opposition politicians. Before anybody chimes in with "well the Republicans couldn't get any more opposed", Obama still has a 49 percent approval rating. If he was publicly investigating the previous administration for crimes, that would quickly drop and he would be seen as the most partisan of presidents. There's also the problem that he'd have to probably investigate many members of his own party, alienating them as well.

The problem with that sort of logic is that the longer criminality goes uninvestigated and, worse, unpunished, the worse it gets with the next round. Do you think Iran/Contra would have happened if Nixon had been sent to prison for Watergate? Would Darth Cheney have dared try all his shit if the Iran/Contra criminals had would up in orange jumpsuits? Now, we've got the whole Bush/Cheney mob getting away with what were outright war crimes and worse some of those crimes continuing. What do you suppose the next Republican regime is going to be like as far as the rule of law is concerned given how they now know they can essentially do anything and never be held to account for it or even worry about the prospect?

Nixon was far more hated than Bush is currently. The problems are pretty clear, but at the same time, how do you charge large parts of your own power structure with crimes at once without collapsing in a democratic society where the guilty are convinced they have done nothing wrong, that this is political oppression, and have the public voice to get that out? If you have a plan for getting around the opposition, that'd be great, and I'd love to hear it. But don't pretend that this is an easy decision to make, or that this is some kind of proof that Obama is especially evil as US politicians go.

[Simon_Jester]

The point is that it can be framed as politically-motivated investigations, and yes, the American public probably doesn't care all that much about waterboarding "terrorists", and Bush is not so unpopular that there would be general agreement that this was a good thing!

Nonsense. Bush left office with about a 30% approval rating, and I doubt you could find more than a sliver of that 30% who could possibly be convinced to do anything less than their utmost to fight the Obama administration in any case.

The danger is, yes, that we're unwilling to risk implicating a large fraction of the power structure in crimes. But that's not really a defense of Obama. It is, as Stas points out, a serious problem with our system. I mean, basically you're saying that it's impossible for our government to police itself because our political system as implemented in practice assumes that all political figures are above reproach and any attempt to behave otherwise is a sign of political bias.

[Shroom Man 777]

So he abides torture and illegal killings out of political convenience? That's even worse than supporting torture and other illegal acts out of a warped sense of national defense, which was what Bush and Cheney did. It makes him out to be a spineless invertebrate enabler, who is doing something wrong even when he knows its wrong, without even the excuse of having a deluded sense of righteousness. It's reprehensible behavior, Bakustra. Does Obama need to bomb a semen-saving Nazi submarine to make his acts outright outrageous?

[Patrick Degan]

Nixon was far more hated than Bush is currently. The problems are pretty clear, but at the same time, how do you charge large parts of your own power structure with crimes at once without collapsing in a democratic society where the guilty are convinced they have done nothing wrong, that this is political oppression, and have the public voice to get that out? If you have a plan for getting around the opposition, that'd be great, and I'd love to hear it. But don't pretend that this is an easy decision to make, or that this is some kind of proof that Obama is especially evil as US politicians go.

Unless Congress would actually attempt in the event to prohibit by legislation the Justice Department from investigating and bringing to trial the criminals of the Bush mob (which would be a separation of powers violation), the problem of the opposition doesn't enter into it. In fact, a saavy politician could make the Republicans eat it over their clear attempts to interfere with the rule of law and peg them as the party which protects its own criminals: "If they're so innocent, why are they afraid of a trial?". And the guilty are always convinced they've done nothing wrong, so that objection also doesn't obtain. Let them squawk as much as they like. All anybody would have to say in rebuttal is "these are the people who lied this country into war in Iraq, cost us 4000 lives and $3 trillion".

The point is, sooner or later, this sort of confrontation is going to have to come. No republic can allow this state of affairs to continue to fester and expect to survive in the long run.