ACLU Concludes Only Way To Hold Bush Torture Thugs Accountable: Pardon Them!

Former NSA and CIA chief, despiser and despoiler of the Constitution, and consistent torture advocate for George W. Bush's war crimes operation, Michael Hayden, models one possible accountability alternative—an appropriate and prominent tattoo—or brand as the nation sees fit to apply its scarlet letters upon traitors. What's great about a soulless creep like Hayden is that he actually appears to get morally outraged when somebody points out he is a monster.
A bizarre op-ed published in The New York Times today, written by the Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Anthony D. Romero, argues that the only way to inflict any real accountability on George W. Bush and his gang of post-9/11 torturers, is to grant them full pardons for their war crimes.

Even though Romero acknowledges that in the past the ACLU had argued against pardons for the perpetrators of the torture regime, Romero now argues:
“That officials at the highest levels of government authorized and ordered torture is not in dispute…[ACLU] and others have spent 13 years arguing for accountability for these crimes. We have called for the appointment of a special prosecutor or the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission, or both. But those calls have gone unheeded. And now, many of those responsible for torture can’t be prosecuted because the statute of limitations has run out.”
And why has that happened?

Simple answer: Barack Obama allowed the Bush war criminals to get away with it.

Romero explains:
“Neither [Obama] nor the Justice Department has shown any appetite for holding anyone accountable. When the department did conduct an investigation, it appeared not to have interviewed any of the prisoners who were tortured. And it repeatedly abused the “state secrets” privilege to derail cases brought by prisoners—including Americans who were tortured as “enemy combatants.”
Romero concludes that Obama has by this pro-torture stance issued a tacit pardon to Bush and his gang, which because it is not formally acknowledging criminal behavior, means Obama “leaves open the very real possibility that officials will resurrect the torture policies in the future.”

Of course, “in the future” is a strange way to put it, given the fact Obama himself has authorized numerous acts of murder and torture on his own war watch—including the force-feeding of detainees at Gitmo.

A general pardon for all the American evil-doers in the wars might be the only way Americans will ever get close to some kind of accountability on the part of those who betrayed what were supposed to be bedrock principles of civilized behavior.

But, if Romero is correct is asserting that Barack Obama is a coward:
“Mr. Obama is not inclined to pursue prosecutions—no matter how great the outrage, at home or abroad, over the disclosures [in the Senate torture report]—because of the political fallout.”
—and more and more Americans believe this to be the case about Obama, then taking an action that would, as Romero says, put Bush and his gang into the same category as pardoned Confederate generals after the Civil War, is extremely unlikely.

That is especially the case given the “political fallout” that would ensue from the Republicans, new masters of the Congress. It might be the thing that would push the GOP to backing impeachment of Obama (if they don’t already).

A nation that is comfortable with torturing innocent people—or any people—is just fine with the default victimized minority in the USA getting downsized by street-courts with militarized cops as judges, juries, and executioners.

The United States of America had a long way to go on September 10, 2001 to being a truly just and civilized nation. At this point, striving to ever become such a thing seems a waste of time and energy.

The empire struck back—and it won against its only real enemy—the tiny minority of the American people who still give a damn about the long-dead republic and its promises of freedom and justice for all.

Comments