For many years I have had a side interest in the recovery and the return of the cultural patrimony of peoples, tribes and nations. I have only litigated one case to recover ancient Aymara textiles for a Bolivian town, Coroma.  That story is wonderful, beautiful and moving. You can read more about here: The Recovery of the Aymara Textiles (http://culturalheritage.state.gov/aymara.html).

I am writing about this now because I recently saw that the demand for the Elgin marbles  (much of the Parthenon Frieze) is being pressed by Greece. They are currently in the British Museum. Greece now has a new museum at the foot of the Parthenon and has assembled white plaster copies of what should be the originals. To the extent there was ever an excuse that Greece would not care for the returned frieze(an excuse I never accepted), that excuse is over. There is now a fine, new museum in Greece for the Elgin marbles.

Over ten years ago the NYT reviewed a book about the marbles and book as well as the reviewer gave a lot credibility to England’s case for keeping the Parthenon Frieze. I responded strongly to that review in a letter the NYT published in its weekly book review.  That letter sets forth some of the issues and why there is really only one side to this question: the Elgin marbles must be returned. The letter from 1998 is below:

January 25, 1998

All the Marbles

To the Editor:

As an attorney who has fought for the repatriation of Indian sacred objects, I was appalled by Nigel Nicolson’s review of Theodore Vrettos’s book ”The Elgin Affair” (Jan. 4). The review reads like a litany of every unconvincing excuse collectors have employed for generations to justify possession of works of art and sacred objects that are the patrimony of other cultures.

Nicolson argues that the sculptures were not removed by ”dishonest means or stealth,” but admits that bribes were paid to Turkish officials. And by what right, except that of illegal occupier, did Turkish officials permit Elgin to export the Parthenon marbles? Nor is Nicolson’s claim that the marbles were better protected in the British Museum than ”high up on the Parthenon” relevant to their return to Greece today — there can be no question that Greece will safeguard them.

Underlying Nicolson’s arguments seems to lurk his belief that the sculptures are best appreciated by the English and best displayed by them as well. Nicolson likes having such works of art in British and American museums and in his own garden, where he has five Greek marble altars.

The point is that no matter Elgin’s motives, good or bad, the sculptures are probably the single most important work of Greek art and symbolic of one nation’s plunder of another. The sculptures, along with Nicolson’s altars, ought to be immediately repatriated.

Michael Ratner

Last week was a week of bad portents if we are trying to divine the direction of the Obama administration regarding some fundamental human rights questions, particularly regarding the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo.

One of Obama’s earliest acts was to order that Guantanamo be closed within one year. The executive order laid out three options as to how to deal with the remaining 245 detainees: try them, repatriate them or hold them in some other legal way.  We at CCR opposed a three option solution to Guantanamo. We believe there only two options: trials or repatriation. We oppose any form of preventive detention which is what Guantanamo is today. We oppose putting a legal wrapping on Guantanamo no matter where it is located or who does the wrapping. We remained hopeful that the third option, preventive detention, would not be a choice.   We may be losing that fight. On April 30^th Defense Secretary Gates said that as many as 100 Guantanamo detainees could end up held without trial in the United States.  A day before Attorney General Holder had this to say in Berlin:

“We have to determine what would be our basis for holding that person that would to the world appear to be fair and that would in fact be fair,” he said. “How could you ensure that due process was being served by the detention of such a person?”

The answer Mr. Holder is you can’t.  All the due process in the world does not diminish the fundamental human rights violation in jailing someone, possibly forever, without charging or convicting him of a crime.  Big Brother may be alive and well in the new administration.

As another one of his earliest acts Obama suspended the military commissions at Guantanamo. He did so for a period of four months.  It was better than letting them continue, but not much better. For what was to come after the four months?  At CCR we were worried. Why did he not end them, get rid of them all together? After all, they were entirely discredited. In seven years there were only two minor trials and evidence derived from abuse and torture was still permitted. Why should there be any kind of special courts in a democracy with a 225 year history of regular trials in regularly constituted courts—U.S. federal courts. The main reason for special courts is that it is easier to convict people when the rules are made up after the fact: the rules are bent toward conviction.

In a depressing and infuriating revelation in the New York Times on May 2, the revival of military commissions is stated as almost a sure thing.  The reason according to some administration lawyers is that it would be difficult to prosecute defendants in regular courts because they had been brutalized and because prosecutors want to use hearsay evidence. That is some reason. Let’s just put it starkly. Such trials would be an abomination, an abomination approved by our new President. 

Although not directly related to Guantanamo, but one that could have an effect on the issues outlined above is the appointment of a new Supreme Court justice. I was dismayed to read all of the verbiage coming out of pundits that he will choose a pragmatist and not a “larger than life liberal.” Let’s hope it is not true and let’s try to make sure it won’t come to pass. Why did the Republicans with too much Democratic support (no filibuster) have no trouble shoving two arch conservatives down our throats?  I don’t get it.

Today, April 23rd, I awoke to read that a number of human rights type groups have called on President Obama to create a commission of accountability to investigate and report publicly on torture and the cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees. There is not a word in the petition about criminal prosecutions of the torture team. Yet, I know that some of these groups would say they still want prosecutions. Sadly, this call and a commission if set up, would almost guarantee that prosecutions won’t happen.

Briefly, here is why. We have reached a critical political moment on this issue. Obama has been forced or pushed to open the door to prosecutions, an opening I thought would take much longer to achieve. If there was ever a time to push that door open wider and demand a special prosecutor it is now. We have documented and open admissions of criminality. We have Cheney and Hayden admitting what they approved these techniques; and Cheney saying he would approve waterboarding again. We have the Senate Armed Services Report detailing how the torture program was authored and approved by our highest officials in the Whitehouse and employed in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan. And we have thousands of pages of proof. There is public outrage about the torture program and the media in the US and the world are covered with the US misdeeds. 

So at this moment, instead of human rights groups getting together and calling for a special prosecutor what do they do? Call for a commission. What this call does and it must be said strongly is take the pressure off what is the growing public push for prosecutions and deflects it into a commission. Outrage that could actually lead to prosecutions is now focused away and into a commission. Think if this list of human rights groups had demanded prosecutions. We would be closer and not farther from the goal.

I am sure some of these human rights groups will argue that a commission will or can be a first step to prosecutions. Sure, it is possible, but unlikely for the reasons I gave in a letter published in Harper’s and available on my blog. The commission process will drag on, statutes of limitation will run and the conclusion of the commission is likely to be: the US should not have tortured, but it was an extraordinary and dangerous moment after 9/11 and the torturers were acting in our best interest to avoid another 9/11. Prosecutions are not recommended.

I don’t think I need to repeat here why we need prosecutions. If we are to stop torture in the future we need to send the clear message that if an official tortures, prosecutions will follow. Without that message the next President or even this one, can again put us on the page of torture by signing another executive order. And don’t think that won’t happen no matter how many commissions reach results saying the US should not have tortured. It will and Cheney, Hayden and other have said so.

It is time to do what is necessary. Appoint a special prosecutor and insure that this country will not again be a country of torture.

 (These are the my personal views and not necessarily of any institution)

Michael Ratner is president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and author of “The Prosecution of Donald Rumsfeld: A Prosecution by Book.” Yes, it is good that President Obama ordered the release of four more of the torture memos issued by the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration. The inhuman interrogation techniques those memos authorized which include waterboarding, walling (in which a person is slammed against a wall), confinement in a small box and sleep deprivation clearly constitute torture and other crimes under U.S. law. There is nothing abstract about the techniques: they are initially focused on one individual and even discuss his psychological weakness in language similar to the novel 1984 — although in this case, it’s bugs, not rats.

Since when did legal advice make torture into a lawful and permissible interrogation technique?

Yet President Obama goes out of his way to praise those who engaged in these unlawful practices and assures them they will not be prosecuted. In part, he asserts that the C.I.A. personnel were following, in good faith, legal advice. But since when did legal advice make torture into a lawful and permissible interrogation technique?

Torture is torture and all the legal window dressing in the world cannot hide its essence: the infliction of pain and suffering on human beings. If legal advice can protect torturers, no official anywhere can ever be prosecuted. Legal advice then becomes a get out-of-jail free card and will be employed by every petty dictatorship to protect its abusers.

In making the decision not to prosecute, President Obama is acting as jury, judge and prosecutor. It is not his decision to make. Whether or not to prosecute law breakers is not a political decision. Laws were broken and crimes were committed. If we are truly a nation of laws as he is fond of saying, a prosecutor needs to be appointed and the decisions regarding the guilt of those involved in the torture program should be decided in a court of law.

Prosecuting those involved in the torture program, particularly the officials who conceived, authorized and ordered the torture program is not “retribution” or “laying blame for the past” as President Obama says. It is about insuring that we will not again become a nation that employs in torture. The prohibition on torture should not be dependent on who is president or on the stroke of a pen. We prosecute those who break laws to deter lawbreaking. President Obama, by granting impunity to torturers, becomes complicit with their actions. History will not judge him kindly.

Today, the Obama administration set forth the authority under which it claims it can continue to hold those at Guantanamo without giving them a trial. If any of us thought or hoped or prayed that Obama would reject the detention without trial scenario authored by Bush, we were sorely disappointed. Yes, the term enemy combatant is gone to be replaced by “members of enemy forces.”  And who are they? Well just go back to the Bush administration definition of “enemy combatant” with one small change—the word “substantially” in front of support. So, it is roughly the same except now the Obama administration says they will not detain the little old lady in Switzerland who unwittingly gives money to Al Qaeda or the Taliban.   

 Again, as with Bush the Obama administration is applying the laws of international armed conflict (the laws of war) to the Taliban, Al Qaeda and associated forces when those laws have no application to those entities in the current situation.  Again as the Bushies did they are conflating the right to use force against terrorists with a claim that they can be held forever without trial. The laws of war contain no such authority.  Again, they are claiming the right to capture and detain people anywhere in the world—the world is still a battlefield according to Obama. So, the “global war on terror” continues.

Here is the “new” definiton of detainees who are no longer called “enemy combatants.”  Guess what–as I said above:  its roughly the same.

The President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks.
The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or
substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are
engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any
person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in
aid of such enemy armed forces.

Excerpt of DN! Interview on “Truth Commissions.”    March 5, 2009    http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/5/lawmakers_begin_debate_on_commission

AMY GOODMAN: Human rights attorney Michael Ratner joins us now in the firehouse studio, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, author of the book The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld, among others.

Welcome to Democracy Now! I want to talk about the secret memos. Let’s start with this hearing that has been called by Patrick Leahy, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, calling for an investigation into Bush administration crimes.

MICHAEL RATNER: You know, I won’t say I’m exactly biased here, but I think essentially that the Leahy commission is an excuse for non-prosecution. It’s essentially saying, “Let’s put some stuff on the public record. Let’s immunize people. And then,” as he even said, “let’s turn the page and go forward.” That’s really an excuse for non-prosecution. And in the face of what we’ve seen in this country, which is essentially a coup d’etat, a presidential dictatorship and torture, it’s essentially a mouse-like reaction to what we’ve seen. And it’s being set up really by a liberal establishment that is really, in some ways, in many ways, on the same page as the establishment that actually carried out these laws. And it’s saying, “OK, let’s expose it, and then let’s move on.”

And he even says, he says what we’re going to do with the truth commission is we’re going to look and see what mistakes were made. I mean, just ask the hundred people who were tortured in the secret sites about what mistakes were made, or ask the 750 people at Guantanamo, or ask the people at Abu Ghraib. This is not about mistakes. This is about fundamental lawbreaking, about the disposal of the Constitution, and about the end of treaties. So I think, actually, that Leahy’s current proposal is extremely dangerous. I call it the lame commission or basically an excuse for non-prosecution.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And you think that there’s no essential difference between him and the Obama—the White House position at this point?

MICHAEL RATNER: You know, I don’t think he would be out there without the Obama administration at least saying this is maybe a way to go. Look at, there’s a lot of pressure in this country right now for prosecutions. I mean, the polls indicate that people want to see a criminal investigation. We’ve had open—open and notorious admissions of waterboarding by people like Cheney. And we know that waterboarding is torture, even according to Obama.

So, how do you diffuse that pressure? And one way you diffuse it is you set up a, quote, “truth commission” that’s going to give immunity to people. And then, as Leahy himself says—the word he used, I think, is that he objects to those “fixated” on prosecution. Well, you know, it’s a legal requirement that you prosecute torturers in your country. And yet, he calls us “fixated” on it and wants to make this excuse. So I think this is, in a way—you don’t know this—but in conjunction with the Obama administration saying, “Let’s do this. It will dispose of, you know, the human rights groups in the world and others. And let’s go forward.”

JUAN GONZALEZ: And your assessment of these latest memos that the Justice Department has released, in terms of the further proof that they show possible criminal actions?

MICHAEL RATNER: I’m glad you said that, Juan, “further proof,” because, you know, we’ve known a lot of this from the beginning. You know, I remember, actually, six weeks after 9/11 writing an article called “Moving Toward a Police State (Or Have We Arrived?)” And we’ve certainly seen the effects of these memos. We’ve seen the military arrest Jose Padilla in the United States. We’ve seen them do that to al-Marri. We’ve seen torture. We’ve seen secret sites. We’ve seen warrantless wiretapping.

But what we see in these memos—and I recommend them to everybody, because you read these, you are seeing essentially the legal underpinnings of a police state or a dictatorship of the president. There’s no doubt about it. That’s what it is, and it’s not theoretical. These were the actual building blocks of what we had in this country for eight years, in which—and the one you mentioned when we opened, Juan, that what happened here was one of these memos said the military could operate in the United States, and operate in the United States despite the Posse Comitatus law, which prohibits the military from operating in the United States. And when it operates—this is really extraordinary—they can arrest and detain—“arrest” is not the right word—kidnap anyone they want and send them to a detention place anywhere in the world without any kind of law.

And then, on top of that, they can disregard the First Amendment. So this conversation we’re having right now, they could say, “Well, this is harmful to the national security of the United States”—that’s what these memos say—“this type of conversation is harmful, and we can ban this conversation.” And then they could put the military at the door to the firehouse and come in and say the Fourth Amendment, the one that protects us against unlawful searches, that the military could walk in here, search all of us and see if we have anything they don’t like on us. So, no First Amendment, no Fourth Amendment, no Fifth Amendment—essentially, the end of the Constitution and 225 years of constitutional history. In the face of this, this kind of memo, we’re seeing Leahy say, “Let’s see what kind of mistakes were made.”

AMY GOODMAN: Why was Posse Comitatus first put into effect, first passed?

MICHAEL RATNER: You know, that’s a good question. I don’t remember, Amy. It’s unfortunate I don’t remember. But it had to do—it goes back to our constitutional—the original convention, I mean, the original Constitution, that one of the biggest fears is that you don’t want the military operating in a democracy, because the military is not trained in constitutional rights. They’re trained to go in and kill and destroy, and that’s what they do in a country. And so, it was really—it came out of really the amendments that said you can’t quarter soldiers in your houses, all those kind—that kind of push that we don’t want the military enforcing law in this country.

AMY GOODMAN: Go on through the memos that have now been released.

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, I said that the key memo is this one that we’ve been discussing, this one that the military can operate in the United States. I mean, as I said, that’s really—you know, I used to talk about Fuehrer’s law when I talked about the President. Everybody thought I’m exaggerating. Fuehrer’s law is what the Fuehrer, Hitler, said; that’s the law. And what these memos do is essentially say that what Bush says is the law. So that’s memo number one.

There’s another memo here on extraordinary rendition. We’ve discussed it here before. That’s where you send people overseas for torture. You nab them or grab them in Pakistan or Afghanistan, send them to another country where it’s more likely than not where they’ll be tortured. And these memos go through why that may—the argument they make is that that’s not against the law, that the Convention Against Torture doesn’t apply and the anti-torture statute, you know, can be avoided by not having the intent to carry out torture. So they essentially authorize sending people—sending people for torture.

Then, two of the memos—and this is pretty interesting—actually concerned Jose Padilla. Jose Padilla, you remember, got off the plane in Chicago, the so-called dirty bomber, never charged with that, and when he’s in the prison, the military comes to the prison door. They knock. Maybe they knock. And they say, “Give us Jose Padilla.” And they grab him. This is in America. This is in the United States. And they take him, and for five years they put him in a military brig. Two of the memos justify and say the President had the power to do that to Jose Padilla, an American citizen living in the United States, that the military could come in—could come in and get him.

Then, a couple of these memos go to what—parts that we haven’t yet seen exposed, which I think will be a broad and vast intelligence effort in the United States, surveillance effort, done by the Department of Defense, under the auspices of these memos, to essentially surveil and look into what all of us are doing in the United States. That hasn’t come out yet completely, but it’s going to be in these memos.

And there’s another memo on the warrantless wiretapping that essentially says the commander-in-chief can carry out warrantless wiretapping as his commander-in-chief power.

And let’s look at what these memos were built on. You know, first you have the question of, are we at war at all? So, first you have this questionable proposition, this questionable proposition that the war against al-Qaeda, so-called war against al-Qaeda, or the global war on terror, is a war at all. Or shouldn’t this be really a legal operation in which people are arrested and charged? So, my position, of course, is this should have been done under law. But so, they first make a questionable assumption about war, and then, once they call it a war, they then say, “Well, the President’s the commander-in-chief, and under war, commander-in-chief power, he can do whatever he wants.” So even if this had been the Second World War, he couldn’t have the power that he’s asserting here.

I have to say that, you know, to see these memos, to put it into that they were actually instrumentalized—this is not just theoretical; this is what was happening here for eight years, essentially a dictatorship—and then to see the response of many of the Democrats here to saying, “Oh, let’s just expose it and turn the page,” I mean, what we’re saying is that’s the way it’s going to happen again, because unless you prosecute people, there is no deterrence for not doing this again. And it’s out there, it’s public. If you’re going to do a commission—and I’m opposed completely to the Leahy type—if you’re going to do one, you can’t bury the issue of prosecution. You have to appoint a special prosecutor and make sure a commission of inquiry works together, because a commission can tear up and finish up prosecutions by giving immunity.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Michael, the prime author of these memos, John Yoo, what happened to him? He went back for awhile, left the Bush administration, went back to Berkeley, law school, to teach. What’s happened with him since?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, first of all, I think that these memos, these most recent ones, shred any semblance, any scintilla of reputation that John Yoo ever had that he was, you know, doing something in essentially an honest way. I mean, this finishes his reputation. I think the only—the questions we’re faced with are, is he going to be disbarred, and is he going to be prosecuted?

And it’s interesting. You know, two of the memos, which I didn’t mention, were issued by Steven Bradbury, who was head of the office that John Yoo was formerly in, the Office of Legal Counsel. And those memos are the—they were done within a few weeks of the Bush administration leaving office, in fact, one within a week of him leaving office, essentially, in a relatively mealy-mouthed way, saying he cautions against looking at the Yoo memos, that they shouldn’t—the OLC doesn’t really agree with them anymore. But he has a footnote in there saying—to protect the John Yoos of the world—saying, “I think all of those prior memos,” referring to the John Yoo memos, “were done—did not violate professional responsibility,” because it’s recognized that currently there’s an investigation going on of John Yoo, and I think it’s very—and Bradbury, himself—and I think it’s very likely that that’s going to come out and say certainly disciplinary, if not disbarment, for those guys. So I think Yoo is facing that and, as I said, prosecution.

Now, his geographical travels, of course, have been—as you said, he went to Berkeley, which, as he described a couple of days ago at a speech in Orange County, is made up of a bunch of hippies and radicals. That’s his former law school, or it’s still his law school. And there’s been a push to get rid of him at the law school. I think he finally realizes he can’t stay there, so he’s teaching at some—I guess a very conservative law school in Orange County, which is, of course, the heart of law schools and others that are very conservative. So he’s slowly being cornered, slowly being cornered.

One thing I should say about Yoo and even about the Leahy hearings, the one—you know, while I think they’re a bad idea, I think one thing that could come out of them, which Rivkin, the conservative commentator, made a good point on—he says, “Look at, you’re going to expose the stuff on the record.” And then, while he didn’t use the name of the Center for Constitutional Rights, he said, “Then people are going to be able to prosecute these guys in Europe, because the evidence is all out there.” And that’s correct. As more and more information comes out and these memos come out, we’re going to continue to pursue efforts in Europe and pursue prosecution at home. The Center actually currently has a campaign, if people go to our website, to actually tell Leahy, “This is not enough. We want prosecution.”

AMY GOODMAN: Where is Donald Rumsfeld?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, you know, he and Rice, right? They’re—you know, what is California? What is it? Like a magnet for right-wingers? You know, they’re both at the—what is it now?—on the campus of Stanford. What’s it called? The Hoover Institution? Yeah. So they’re there, or they’re going there, Rice and Rumsfeld, and they’re going to be some kind of scholars-in-residence at Stanford at the Hoover Institution. And there’s apparently a protest that was starting either yesterday or today objecting to that. So, you know, maybe we can all get them into a corner of Orange County and actually give them their own country and just put prison walls around it. You know, I’m not sure, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: And are there other countries that are pursuing a possible prosecution against any of these Bush administration officials?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, I think right now what’s happening is they’re going to wait and see what Obama does. If Obama doesn’t do anything in the next few months, I think there’s going to be a huge push in Europe. At the same time, there is stuff going on in Europe, and that’s—when there’s conduct or illegalities on the country itself, they don’t have to wait for the United States. So, you have an investigation, that we’ve talked about here, in Italy of the CIA agents going on who kidnapped an Egyptian cleric of the street. In Spain, you have a—

AMY GOODMAN: Explain that. You have CIA officers being tried in absentia in Italy.

MICHAEL RATNER: That’s correct. There were twenty-four CIA officers involved in a conspiracy to kidnap an Egyptian cleric off the streets of Milan. There’s an independent prosecutor in Italy who has been running a trial now for probably a year or more, in which testimony is being taken on what those CIA agents have done. I think there’s arrest warrants issued for a number of those people throughout Europe. So that’s one relatively successful effort in Italy. And again, if you look at it, they actually kidnapped someone and violated the sovereignty of Italy, so they went after them.

Spain, likewise, has an investigation going on with a court, a judge, because the rendition flights landed in Majorca, they landed in Spain. And so, Spain looked, and its territory has been violated. So that’s going on.

But I think, overall, what we’re seeing here is—I mean, from my perspective, we’re seeing actually more push for prosecutions than I actually expected, that the American public, it seems, is not really giving the sort of Obama line, “Let’s look forward and not backward.” Of course, to me, prosecutions is looking forward, because that’s how you prevent torture in the future. So I think we’re seeing a much greater push. I do think, though, that, as I want to say, that the combination of the memos and Leahy should just really send a message to America that we’ve got to make these guys accountable.

JUAN GONZALEZ: What about the—do you have any hopes for any more independent investigations going on in the House at all? Or in—

MICHAEL RATNER: Oh, I think that’s a good question. You know, I think Conyers has a better take on this than Leahy. Conyers does want a commission or an investigation set up, but his material also talks about accountability and prosecutions. I think if you had a commission here—not a commission; I would never call this a truth commission. I mean, this is not—this is not South Africa. This is not, you know, an emerging democracy from, you know, Chile or something. This is—supposedly was a functioning democracy. In that case, you don’t need, quote, “a truth commission.” What you need is a commission of inquiry that’s going to lead to prosecutions. And I think that’s much more what Conyers is looking for. I’m sure he’s in favor of prosecutions. And, you know, there’s a huge effort, a grassroots effort, out there, as petitions—hundreds of thousands of people have signed this stuff.

On the celebration of King’s birth I often read or listen to the anti-war speech that he gave at Riverside Church on April 4, 1967—A Time to Break the Silence. It was a powerful statement of his opposition to the Vietnam War. He spoke of how he was told to not oppose the war because his opposition would anger President Johnson and harm the civil rights movement. He was warned that “Peace and Civil rights don’t mix.”  King admitted he held back because of this possible consequence for too long and failed to speak out earlier.

I bring this up today when I think about Israel’s recent invasion of Gaza. While we are celebrating King’s birth and the inauguration of Barack Obama, Israel invaded Gaza killing over 1200 people, men women and children, and injured thousands. It targeted UN buildings, homes, mosques, police stations, universities and media outlets.  Thirteen Israeli soldiers were killed—a ratio of one hundred Palestinians for each Israeli. The international law violations have been well documented: disproportionate military force, attacks on civilian targets, collective punishment. The killings of the three daughters of a Palestinian doctor gave a face to those killed in way that numbers could not. Members of my broader family knew the doctor, had visited him in Gaza and heard from during the Israeli onslaught.  He was terrified for his family, but had no way out. 

When I heard the news of the murders of the doctor’s children I was at the Sundance film festival and had just viewed an amazing and moving film about radical lawyer Bill Kunstler called Disturbing the Universe.  The film shows Bill in Chicago during the 1969 Chicago 8 trial. During the time of the trial Black Panther leader Fred Hampton was murdered by the Chicago police. Bill was appalled by the murder, but he did not just blame the Chicago police. He blamed himself and all white Americans. For it was white Americans that for too long had remained silent and accepted the pervasive racism and the murder of Blacks in our society.

This brings me to Gaza and role of American Jews and, in fact, of almost all Americans. For too long, and I do not exempt myself, most of us have stood silently by or made only a marginal protests about the massive violations of Palestinian rights carried out by Israel.  I recall a conversation I had some years ago with the political artist Leon Golub, famous for his outsized oil paintings of torture carried out by American mercenaries in Central America. Leon told me that he had been invited to attend a panel to address what it meant to be a Jewish political artist. He said he had never thought of himself as a “Jewish political artist” but only as a “political artist.”  Then he thought some more. Of the works of art he had made, none concerned Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. And then he knew, at least for himself and probably many others: to be a “Jewish political artist” was to be an artist who avoided depicting the horrors inflicted on Palestinians. Of course, that is true for more than just artists. Many Jews who are very involved in human rights, ending poverty and war, and fighting for the underdog avoid criticism of Israel. They wrongly think that human rights are divisible; or that like ostriches they can hide their heads and pretend not to see what is clearly staring them in the face and makes them uncomfortable: the inhuman treatment of Palestinians.

Some of our willful blindness and refusal to act is a result of our ambivalence about condemning the actions of a people that have experienced pervasive antisemitism and the holocaust. Some of our hesitation to act results from the condemnation and opprobrium anyone, but especially Jews, encounter with even mild criticisms of Israel. Organizations that take a position against Israeli actions subject themselves to a loss of funding from foundations and individuals. Few can afford to do so.  As long as this silence continues, so will the U.S. billions in aid and arms that facilitates the killings of Palestinians. As long as this silence continues, more and more settlements will be built. As long as this silence continues, there will be more and more Gazas and more and more children murdered.

The lesson here is simple, but difficult to act on. We are, each of us, responsible for the murders in Gaza. Our silence is betrayal. Each time we hesitate to speak out; each time we moderate our condemnation we become accomplices in killing. The time, if there ever was one, to show courage is now.  Yes it will be difficult for many. As King said about the reluctance of some to oppose the Vietnam War:  

“Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainly; but we must move on.

We must take King’s words to heart.  We, each of us, “must move on.” We must begin somewhere even if it just means saying the issue is not off our agenda. Begin the discussion; begin to act; show that you care. And remember, “A Time Comes When Silence is Betrayal.”  That time has come.

This is a response to Scott Horton’s December Harpers Piece “Justice After Bush, Prosecuting an Outlaw Administration.” Horton concludes that a Commission of Inquiry or Truth Commission is the right approach.  I think he is wrong and that he and others ought to be demanding a criminal investigation and prosecution of the Torture Conspirators. My conclusion has been recently bolstered by Cheney’s confession of his involvement in approving waterboarding and his boast that he would do it again. In these circumstances, it is obvious that prosecution is necessary to deter torture in the future. To do otherwise is to grant impunity.  The letter, parts of which will appear in Harpers, is set forth below.

********

The December Harper’s Cover promises a lot:  Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are behind bars. Prominently displayed under the prisoners is the title of Scott Horton’s article “Justice After Bush, Prosecuting an Outlaw Administration.”   I was excited.  I thought I was about to read the case for prosecuting high level administration officials for the torture program. 

Alas, it was not to be.  Prosecutions are given only lip service while the bulk of the article argues for a truth commission/commission of inquiry. A commission will not do what is necessary to end torture now and in the future: make it clear, just as we do in cases with the most minor offenses, that actions have consequences.   A failure to initiate a criminal investigation of the torture program will only encourage future law breaking by sending a message of impunity. The message that we need to send is that the torture conspirators will be held accountable. That is the only way to fulfill Obama’s promise:  “I have said repeatedly that America doesn’t torture. And I’m going to make sure that we don’t torture.”

What is surprising in Horton’s article is the disconnect between the first half which is one of the strongest pieces I have read about the lawlessness of the Bush administration and the latter half where he sets up a complex and unworkable commission. The articles opening paragraphs scream out the necessity for prosecutions.  Horton states that no other administration has been “so systematically or brazenly lawless;” that torture is the crime that “calls most clearly calls for prosecution;” and that it is the “most likely to be successfully prosecuted.” In one of his most important observations Horton states that the administration “waged war against the law itself,” and that the ruler claimed that it “was the law.”  This recognition is critical. It means that no matter how many executive orders and new prohibitions on torture are enacted, a future administration can reassert Bush’s claim that the President is above the law. The prohibitions will be for naught as will the conclusions of a commission. This is a key reason why the deterrence that results from prosecutions is necessary. Never again should we have an executive who claims to be above the law. 

Horton’s conclusions regarding the criminality of this administration are well documented in administration memos, FOIA documents, congressional hearings, the testimony of victims, and book after book. Recently, a bipartisan report of the Senate Armed Services Committee concluded that Rumsfeld and other high administration officials were directly responsible for the abuse of detainees. The key torture conspirators are well known: Bush, Cheney, Tenet, Rumsfeld, other members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee and the lawyers who constituted the War Council: Addington, Gonzales, Yoo, Haynes.  As Major Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who investigated the Abu Gharib scandal for the Pentagon declared:  “There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”

Why then after running through various possibilities for accountability does Horton land on a commission as the best method for investigating and deterring lawlessness in the future?  He says it is “clear” this is the best option “given the political situation in the United States.”  In other words, it is a choice based upon political efficacy not on the best way to hold the torture conspirators accountable and prevent torture in the future.  Horton admits that a commission cannot provide “justice.”  However, to be fair, he does say that it might be a two step process of a commission first and then a special prosecutor—although he barely discusses this second step.

This is the wrong way to go about ending torture.  If the appointment of a special prosecutor is what is required then that is what we must demand. The political situation is not static. We should not be tailoring what we think is right to what Obama or his advisors currently may have in mind. Their positions can shift, but will not unless we make our voices heard. Had Horton and the others who have been writing and speaking on this subject called first and loudly for a special prosecutor we would be closer to that goal. That goal is not futile. When the Armed Services Committee issued its report, Senator Levin called for holding the abusers responsible: “But I would hope that the new administration, as well as the Defense Department…would look for ways, where appropriate, to  hold people accountable. It is time for a lot of those focusing primarily on commissions to catch up with Senator Levin. This is also a lesson for all of us going forward in dealing with the Obama administration on other issues. We should not be negotiating with ourselves. We must insist on what is principled and necessary.

(The question of domestic prosecutions could be a moot point if the President gives a generic pardon to unnamed officials who may have violated the law including himself. The pardon’s validity can be challenged on various grounds e.g. international law forbids pardoning war crimes and torture. If we lost the challenge, a commission would be the only alternative in the U.S. However, pardons are not valid internationally. The fact that there could no longer be prosecutions in the U.S. would make prosecutions in Europe all the more likely.)

One question to ask is whether the commission model is even appropriate. This is not Latin America; this is not South Africa. We are not trying to end a civil war, heal a wounded country and reconcile warring factions. We are a democracy trying to hold accountable officials that led our country down the road to torture. And in a democracy, it is the job of a prosecutor to determine whether crimes were committed.

An examination of Horton’s proposal for a commission demonstrates that it is unworkable, unlikely to lead to accountability and will not lead to prosecution of the torture conspirators. He builds a complex super structure that begins with the appointment of party affiliated co-chairs. That is the beginning of the end. The Republicans are unlikely to go after key people in their own party and sadly many Democrats knew about and failed to stand up against the torture program.  These co-chairs along with the balance of the commissioners will be chosen, as was the 9/11 commission, by the speaker of the House, the Senate majority leader and minority leaders in both houses.  How is this ever going to work? Nancy Pelosi, the speaker, was briefed on CIA water boarding and secret sites. At the time she failed to object. Horton seems to understand this problem and suggests a qualifications commission that would recommend candidates to Pelosi et al. Nowhere does he say how that commission would be chosen and, of course, under his scheme there is no way to free it from the taint of protecting the torturers.  

Among many other problems, one other is striking. Horton acknowledges that subpoena power is necessary to gather the information for the commission’s report and says obtaining that power is a complex one. He never mentions the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. That could stop any testimony by the key conspirators. Granting immunity for that testimony, assuming the commission could ever do that, which is dubious, would be granting impunity. (Although not related to a commission vs. criminal prosecutions, Horton limits the commission to the treatment of detainees connected to the Authorization to Use Military Force Against Terrorists. That is too narrow and would exclude torture carried out in Iraq under a different war authorization.)

I can probably write the conclusion of a commission as suggested by Horton, although I would hope I am wrong. The paragraph below will give a flavor of what we can expect (with of course some recommendations tossed in e.g. Office of Legal Counsel should be protected from political pressure):

“We must look at the decisions of administration officials in the context in which they were made. The attacks of 9/11 were unprecedented. There was fear throughout the country; fear of the next attack, fear of sleeper cells and fear of anthrax and its potential to kill millions.  The administration acting with the best of intentions and in good faith did all in their power to insure the safety of America. At times, because of the nature of the threat, they did not adhere fully to prohibitions embodied in law.  This was unfortunate. However, there was never any intent to violate the law. While this sad episode should not be repeated we do not believe the actions of officials warrant criminal prosecution.”

A commission does have some positive aspects including an investigation and public airing of how the torture program was planned and carried out. However, much of this will be repetitious of what has already been revealed especially by the bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee.  It is true that the Senate committee did not cover the entire program. For example, because of refusals by the CIA, it was unable to examine the heinous torture program at secret sites. That is important to do. However, if a bipartisan senate committee with subpoena power could not do it, no commission will. In general, a commission will be limited by classified material and the refusal of the key officials to testify.  There can be fewer such excuses in a criminal investigation. A trial also has a public education function and one that is far more dramatic and important than will occur at a commission. Just imagine if there had been no Nuremberg trials, but only commissions. Nuremberg is important because it served justice and memory. It drew a clear, bright line that sent a warning to officials in the future. That is what we need today

One of Barack Obama’s first acts as president should be to instruct his attorney general to appoint an independent prosecutor to initiate a criminal investigation of former Bush Administration officials who gave the green light to torture.

At Obama’s press conference on Dec. 1, he spoke of upholding America’s highest values as he introduced Eric Holder as his choice for attorney general. Holder insisted there was no tension between protecting the people of the United States and adhering to our Constitution.

A few months ago, Holder was even more explicit. “Our government authorized the use of torture, approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens, secretly detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants and authorized the use of procedures that violate both international law and the United States Constitution,” he said. “We owe t he American people a reckoning.”

The day of reckoning is fast upon us.

If Obama and Holder want to adhere to our Constitution and uphold our highest values, they must pursue those in the Bush Administration who violated that Constitution, broke our laws, and tarnished our values.

Read the words of Lt. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal for the Pentagon. “There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,” he concluded. “The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”

Despite Taguba’s words and reams of documentation supporting his statement, there has been little discussion about holding officials accountable for their design and implementation of the torture program.

We need to make it clear, just as we do in cases with the most minor offenses, that actions have consequences. To simply let those officials walk off the stage sends a message of impunity that will only encourage future law breaking. The message that we need to send is that they will be held accountable.

A popular refrain in Washington these days is that criminal prosecutions would be an unnecessary look backward. Some argue that in order for the new administration to move forward, presidential pardons should be granted and a Truth Commission assembled to investigate the circumstances that gave rise to the brutal interrogations and deaths of prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and CIA black sites around the world.

But pardons would be the final refuge for an administration whose egregious violations of human rights have, for all too long, gone unpunished. And a Truth Commission is not applicable.

This is not Latin America; this is not South Africa. We are not trying to end a civil war, heal a wounded country and reconcile warring factions. We are a democracy trying to hold accountable officials that led our country down the road to torture. And in a democracy, it is the job of a prosecutor and not the pundits to determine whether crimes were committed.

Criminal prosecutions are not about looking to the past; they are about creating a future world without torture. They will be the mark of the new dawn of America’s leadership and our new era of accountability.

Prosecuting these officials would help the United States regain its moral standing in the world and to prove our commitment to upholding international human rights standards.

In his first nationally televised interview, President-elect Barack Obama made this promise: “I have said repeatedly that America doesn’t torture. And I’m going to make sure that we don’t torture.”

The best way to do that is to prosecute those who designed the torture policies.

Copyright 2008 The Progressive Magazine

Michael Ratner is president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and author of “The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld: A Prosecution by Book.”

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/04-8

Comment

By Michael Ratner & Jules Lobel

President-elect Obama should be applauded for reiterating his promise to close the prison camp at Guantánamo. It has been a national embarrassment and a symbol of everything the Bush administration has done wrong in the “war on terror”: detention without charges or trial, torture, and the establishment of military commissions in which handpicked military judges, not civil courts, try people on the basis of coerced evidence and hearsay. Shutting it down is important. However, we do not know what will be done with the 255 prisoners still detained there. Most of them will probably be sent back to their home countries, or else given asylum if it seems likely that repatriation will result in torture.

But what of others whom the Bush administration asserts cannot be released? And what will be the fate of any new detainees under the Obama administration? These questions should be answered as they have been for 200 years in this country: if there is sufficient evidence, charge them with crimes and have trials in federal courts; if not, release them. Not much will have been accomplished if Guantánamo is shuttered while the practices that underlie it continue. Yet this is being suggested by some who may have Obama’s ear. They argue that holding some terror suspects without trial or charges is necessary. A National Security Court composed of specially appointed judges without juries, using watered-down, minimal due process, would make the decisions.

Suggestions to repackage Guantánamo with a legal gloss must be rejected. Congress would in effect be legitimizing the long-term, perhaps lifelong, detention of people without charging or trying them in federal courts. It would be correctly perceived by the world as a continuation of Guantánamo, would undermine Obama’s pledge to restore our moral standing and would weaken the foundation of one of our most precious civil liberties.

There is no evidence that holding people without charge and trial is necessary. Proponents of preventive detention claim that regular criminal trials cannot work, because the evidence is classified and may have been procured by torture. But classified information is dealt with in federal terrorism trials all the time, through the Classified Information Procedures Act. And evidence procured by torture is inherently unreliable and should never be used in any trial, in any court. A recent Human Rights First study by two former federal prosecutors of more than 120 terrorism trials found that the courts capably handled these cases without compromising national security or sacrificing due process. That conclusion is echoed by judges who have presided over terrorism trials, such as Judge John Coughenour, who concluded that the regular criminal courts are “an adequate venue for trying suspected terrorists” and that it would be “a grave error” to create “a parallel system of terrorism courts unmoored from the values that have served us so well for so long.”

While the supposed advantages of a preventive detention scheme supervised by a special court using specially created rules are conjectural, the dangers of such a scheme are all too real. In the 1970s Britain established special “Diplock Courts” and administrative bodies to preventively detain and try Irish Republican Army suspects; the courts are now recognized as misguided efforts that undermined the liberty and fundamental rights not only of IRA suspects but of the British people themselves.

Shutting down Guantánamo is long overdue. We should not re-create it under another name.