Huckabee falsely claimed Obama "toying with ... criminal prosecutions" for CIA interrogators
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Mike Huckabee falsely claimed President Obama is "toying with the ridiculous notion of allowing criminal prosecutions" of CIA officials "for carrying out orders to combat terrorism." In fact, the Obama administration has repeatedly said it would not prosecute CIA interrogators who followed Justice Department guidelines.
On the April 25 edition of his Fox News program, Mike Huckabee falsely claimed that President Obama is "toying with the ridiculous notion of allowing criminal prosecutions" of CIA officials "for carrying out orders to combat terrorism." In fact, the Obama administration has repeatedly said it would not prosecute CIA officials who, in Obama's words, "carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice."
From Obama's April 16 statement, in which he announced the release of four memos from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that had authorized harsh interrogation methods:
OBAMA: In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs [emphasis added].
Similarly, in an April 16 press release, the Justice Department said that in releasing the OLC memos, Attorney General Eric Holder "stressed that intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and relied in good faith on authoritative legal advice from the Justice Department that their conduct was lawful, and conformed their conduct to that advice, would not face federal prosecutions for that conduct." The release continued:
The Attorney General has informed the Central Intelligence Agency that the government would provide legal representation to any employee, at no cost to the employee, in any state or federal judicial or administrative proceeding brought against the employee based on such conduct and would take measures to respond to any proceeding initiated against the employee in any international or foreign tribunal, including appointing counsel to act on the employee's behalf and asserting any available immunities and other defenses in the proceeding itself.
To the extent permissible under federal law, the government will also indemnify any employee for any monetary judgment or penalty ultimately imposed against him for such conduct and will provide representation in congressional investigations.
"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Holder said [emphasis added].
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated Obama and Holder's argument in press briefings on April 20 and April 21. From the April 20 press briefing:
GIBBS: The President took the extraordinary step of stopping these techniques from ever being used -- again, as part of his administration. The President does believe and the Attorney General said quite clearly that those that believed in good faith that these techniques had been declared legal by the Department of Justice should not be prosecuted [emphasis added].
From the April 21 press briefing:
GIBBS: I do think it's important to make a distinguishing -- to distinguish exactly what the President said last week. The President believes and was assured by the Justice Department that those that have acted in good faith on what they believed was legal won't be prosecuted. The President still believes that [emphasis added].
From the April 25 edition of Fox News' Huckabee:
HUCKABEE: This week has made me believe more than ever that the appropriate adjective to describe the president's policies aren't necessarily strong and decisive, but wrong and divisive. The spending orgies have been disturbing enough -- add to that a level of government intervention and control of business, and we're starting to look like Europe.
But the president's turning loose detailed intelligence documents and then toying with the ridiculous notion of allowing criminal prosecutions for CIA and Bush administration officials for carrying out orders to combat terrorism has made me realize that we may have elected Barack Obama to sing on the stage, but the phantom of the opera might just be George Soros, the angry billionaire who has more money than he does decency and fronts an organization called MoveOn.org, which maybe ought to be renamed turnback.ugh, since he seems to be obsessed with the other George, as in Bush, who isn't even president anymore.
"N," "o," and the combination of the two.
This seems pretty clear. I don't get how he can think that it means the opposite.
OBAMA: In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.
Republicons put the NO in Knowledge. They have NO kwledge.
I actually thought I heard that Obama was softening up on maybe prosecuting the CIA interrogators, i.e. meaning he'd think about doing it. Now I can't think where I heard it, but it wasn't on Fox :-) I actually hope he reverses himself on this. I'd like to see them prosecuted myself.
Now as far as Huck? Let's just say his name should be The Huckster. He's getting to be a lot less than credible thse days. Maybe he always was, but has that affable, nice guy demeanor that gives him cover. Like that smiling buffoon David Brooks.
JJ, brings back memories of Vince the Huckster driving down the street twice a week with vegetables. But Vince was an honest, Christian fellow.
Thank God you lost, Mike. You stinkin' Christian zealot hypocrite. Torture is never to be condoned and you know it. You know in your Godly bones that these torture sessions had nothing to do with national security and everything to do with Bush and Cheney trying to coerce prisoners into saying Iraq had a hand in 9/11. It was, it is, about rationalizing war for empire. War for oil.
And damn Obama for trying to look the other way, for trying to get past this chapter in our history with nobody being brought to account for these crimes against humanity. Damn his lofty rhetoric concerning torture on the campaign trail and damn his weak knees in the white house.
I hope some pressure is brought to bear on Obama. I want some prosecutions of the orderers and the order takers. There were CIA guys that refused to torture. And they were replaced by contractors or other agents. So they could have refused to torture. We need the disinfectant of sunlight on this episode in our history.
Glenn Greenwald at Salon has been doing some good writing on this if anyone wants to go and check him out. His most recent article is here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Thanks for the link juliajayne. Greenwald does good work, the Lord's work, as it were, like Huckabee ought to be doing. Huck is despicable. He has the nerve to talk about decency as he provides cover with his distortions for people who not only directed operatives to torture prisoners, but ordered the torture of the children of these prisoners. Huck disgusts me with his false piety, as does anyone who thinks such measures are justified for any reason. And that's what frustrates me about Obama's tiptoeing through this. By not doggedly pursuing justice, he gives the impression that he may believe, if just a little bit, that the ends justify means.
Hopefully I'm wrong and this is Obama's "make me do this" moment. Maybe he ordered the memos released to stir public sentiment against the horrific and barbaric nature of the frightened conservative psyche that is, apparently, willing to do anything to save its political a**.
ps.
I'm guessing you've read Frank Riches op-ed in the NYT. If not here you go:
The Banality of Bush White House Evil.
Hey RH, I didn't read Rich's column yet. Thank, I'm gonna do it now. I also left a link to another George Lakoff column in the first Saturday thread. He's always good. Thanks for bringing him to my attention, since I'm a person who loves words, as you do.
Thanks Julia for the Lakoff link and the kind consideration on the Saturday thread. When he's not teaching, truthout must be where Lakoff does his cyber work since rockridge shut down. BTW, one of Lakoff's collaborators from RRinstitute, Joe Brewer, is conducting a political psychology cite with, Sarah Robinson, and some social psychologists, at a cite called cognitivepolicyworks.com
I'll be reading Lakoff later. Thank you.
It's a shame that a "man of god" spins and lies and supports torture. Wonder what seminary teach those virtues.
I wonder what members of his former congregation think of him.
The Happy Bass Player Gov of Arkansas seems a strange source of expertise about whether the President for Il. would be inclined to prosecute CIA interrogators just a day after going to Langley and telling them he would not in person!
Which Wingnut thinks Obama, or their administration consulted Huckabee about this sort of issue, or much of any thing?
Fair and Balanced!!! What makes Huck anything more than a corporate front man, and shill?? A bass guitar?
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
The Huckster was a guest on Hannity one night last week. It was a lovefeast of hate towards America. You know, the President etc.
How can a preacher defend/condone/ignore torture, and still pretend like he is doing god's work?
How can the same preacher contest for Presidency?
Only in America.
Well, he is in God's "Five."
Media Matters might as well change the title of this story to: "Right-winger falsely claims that Obama wants to respect international treaties."
Come on. Couldn't you at least note in a short paragraph that the Convention Against Torture mandates prosecution of these CIA small fish?
The UN Rapporteur on torture told Greenwald recently:
Then the next question is...
Why isn't Huckabee commending Obama for wanting to violate international treaties?
After all, Amercia is exceptional, we rule, we'll torture whoever we want, and the rest of the world can kiss our @**.
<sarc>
The truthseeker seems to have blinders!
Obama went to Langley just days ago and told them he was not interested in prosecuting interrogaters, or any CIA personel that relied on OLC/Justice Dept opinions legalizing their illegal behavior.
Obama wants to assure that the Bush Admin is not allowed to move the boundries of the law this faraway from the letter of the law. That means policy makers, lawyers will have to be made to face their responsibility to the letter of the law, as it should be, and long over due when it comes to Republican Presidents!!
Do you think Mike Huckabee will be going to a better place, vs. The Bible he keeps thumping would suggest? Is he a preacher or a defense councilor? The Holy Bible said something about serving two (2) masters. Mike is," Huckabucking" for the next election. Alright, let the lie continue. So, last century. I can only smile as or ship leaves port, for better waters. Mike and ilk will be history, told by the world. We are connected, all right. No time to celebrate, Vote! Question authority, expect results, and Vote! You have one voice, ask many questions.
Congress returned from their recess last week, to begin what truly might be an historic session, one that sees not only the necessary regulation of our robbed financial system, but also real regulation of emissions and maybe a greatly expanded public health insurance (we'll see).
And Congress dove right into those things last week, beginning Monday and working right through to Friday.
There was a start on the financial system issue, when the House Financial Services Committee marked up a "Credit Card Holder's Bill of Rights" that has real teeth in it (I don't know when it will come to the House floor): also, there was the beginning of mortgage fraud legislation: on Tuesday the House's Joint Economic Committee held a Hearing titled "Too Big to Fail or Too Big to Save? Examining the Systemic Threats of Large Financial Institutions" (like I said, this session may be historic for the regulations imposed on our robbed financial system): the Senate's Armed Services Committee held a Hearing on the current readiness of U.S. ground forces (Army and Marines), and that's extraordinarily important, because those forces have been stretched very thin for years now: energy legislation began taking shape too last week: on more than one day last week, Gen. Petraeus testified regarding Defense Appropriationson: also Justices Thomas and Breyer of the SCOTUS testified regarding appropriations for the Courts: on Thursday, Secretary of State Clinton testified before the House Appropriations Committee, in the matter of her department's funding (but she was forthcoming on all matters asked her): also AG Holder testified last week, regarding DOJ appropriations: Friday was an extraordinary day, with former VP Al Gore and former House Speaker Gingrich being the star witnesses in testimony regarding the American Clean Energy Security Act of 2009...
Does that sound like an awesome action-packed week of National and Public Policy talk (talk and action both, on all those issues, regulations chief among them), sound like an exciting week in our nation's capitol?
Because it was all LOST UNDER THE RADAR, and discussed not in the least, by those many and stupid cable television political commentary shows, as they ran hog wild with this "torture memos" bullchit!
Everyone of those hack idiots blathered non-stop about that nonsense last week... look at who's initiating all of this, and who keeps talking about it: hannity and o'reilly and scarborough, and limbaugh and all of them really, they prattled on about "torture" and "memos" and "torture memos" all last week, distracting you in a truly neurotic and insane fashion... as I bet you missed most if not all of what I listed above, right?
That was intentional!
When was the last time you saw such a line-up of Republican media hacks run so non-stop wild with anything truly important?
Never.
When those hacks get to beating all their drums all day and night and in sync, then you know you're being played... and you were played last week, and distracted completely from the beginning of a truly historic session of Congress, as they were out in force those hacks were, endlessing obsessing about "torture memos".
And so a great and awesome last week was LOST UNDER THE RADAR, and nothing can be done about that...
But what about this week?
Are they going to do the same thing, those Republican media hacks, especially the cable television variety, are they going to go into a full court press and start prattling non-stop all day and all night long, from Monday through Friday, regarding "torture memos"?
You'll know in the morning.... "morning joe" will signal the start, and then you'll know... as for me, I'm sick of it!
It's sickening what these people are doing.
All I know is they're not doing it to me... maybe to you, but not to me.
I'm not sure there isn't a silver lining in this. If the drum beaters keep their hordes' attention fixed on irrelevancies, then they won't be interfering with important stuff. However, you can bet that the affected corporations won't be distracted and will send their lobbyists en force to interfere with the important stuff. Therefore we have to be attentive as to what's going on the way that demo2020 has been so that we can do something to counteract the effects of the corporate world, aka the Dark Side.
So What's your opinion on people that approach an issue with a closed mind?
Why change the subject? We are talking about people who ordered torture being punished for their crime. Are you suggesting that ordering people to be tortured is ok? That one shouldn't automatically assume that breaking the law deserves prosecution?
Yuo mean like most of the RIGHT WING talking heads? Not much.
You're spending all of your energy lambasting Republicans and you enjoy doing that so at least it brings you some pleasure. But very few bother to address the issues.
"Torture is a term that, like most of our words, suggests different meanings dependent on the circumstances. I'd consider it torture to listen to Rap music for more than a minute and I have known people who would pick other genre's. The question here really comes down to:
(a) a legal definition of torture.
(b) a moral definition of torture.
In (a) the Bush legal department determined that the actions they took did not legally qualify as torture. That is in dispute, but no determination has been made by any court. It is in doubt that there ever will be one. You can read U.N. definitions and form your own opinion, but that's not how we decide legal issues in America. For every one of you who thinks that legally defined torture took place, there is someone else that thinks it didn't and last time I heard a pole on this I think general public opinion was running about 2 - 1 against bringing this question to court.
I have also read that the conventions involved apply only to uniformed combatants. Disguised infiltrators, like the German Wearwolves or the Taliban, Al Quaida and others we've captured aren't covered. So despite the U.S. laws that treaties have legal force, the matter may be moot to begin with. As to American law: the Constitution gives the President authority to act as Commander and Chief of the nation in time of war. There is no limit on those powers. Any limit would require a Constitutional amendment. So if President Bush, under the authority of the War Powers Act, declared this was acceptable proceedure, then legally it was. If President Obam,a wants to change that, it's his perogative, but has no retroactive weight.
In (b) a number of you have registered theological opinions, mostly about former Governor Huckabee. This raises the question of whether or not you believe that there is one true religion or not because without that your in no position to judge whether Huckabee is in violation of his beliefs about the nature of God's wishes for our behavior. I suspect that the former pastor has given such subjects some thought and, though he may disagree with you ... will have what he thinks are solid grounds to base his beliefs on.
I think about what rules I would want and expect to apply if I was captured as a non-uniformed combatant. I would want to exclude things that would cause me permanent physical harm because it is implicite in my accepting capture that I am willing to surrender my body into the custody of my captors. Otherwise, I would either fight them to the death or resume such a fight as soon as I was able. I could not exclude things that would cause me permanent psychological harm because the very nature of combat is as traumatizing as it gets. I could not rule out things that would cause me dicomfort or distress for much the same reason. And I would not want my own side to rule out such things as I would not rule out for my own treatment because the alternative to capture in defeat is death and I would not want my life and those of my fellows placed at risk because someone was squeemish about coercing the needed information out of an enemy captive.
authority to act as Commander and Chief of the nation in time of war.
Which war? The war on terror? Have we declared war?
Yet another apologist for torture. It's illegal. It doesn't provice quality information.
It appears that you have been reading too many Rove talking points and not doing enough evaluation on your own.
Like all ideas, things get fuzzy at the borders, but no one at all is claiming that what we did in Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantanamo and the various black sites was borderline. Beating on people with tire irons is torture. Making people think they are going to die is torture. Smothering people in sleeping bags is torture. Destroying a person's sanity is torture. It isn't at the edges. It is right down the middle. The he said/she said argument doesn't hold water.
The Constitution may give the president the authority of Commander in Chief, it does NOT say that he is above the law. Indeed, every time the Supreme Court has ruled on the subject they have ruled that he is still under the law. So in order to remove those limits, you would need a Constitutional Amendment.
You may have read that the conventions only apply to uniformed combatants, but not in any law or regulation such as the Geneva Conventions. They specifically forbid torture of any kind on anyone. The uniformed combatant fiction is a product of the Rove talking point machine and has no backing in any court of law.
As for Huckabee's faith, his own particular flavor is irrelevant because he is living in a society that requires certain behavior. Among those requirements is integrity and truth telling. In this case Huckabee has demonstrably trespassed society's requirements by publicly stating falsehoods. He may believe that he is justified by his particular faith in doing so, but he still has transgressed societal standards. Some moral standards are just not situational even though you might wish it so. And the "what about them" defense is just an admission of guilt.
First off "torture" is not a Republican or Democratic issue it is a legal and moral one! U.S. and International laws were broken read :http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html, and what you've read concerning who these laws were applicable to was flat out wrong. I suggest you broaden your reading to the actual statutes in question! In 1988 Ronald signed onto The UN Convention Against Torture here is the link: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html, from the first paragraph the document says who it applies to:
The States Parties to this Convention,
Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,
Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)),
Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world,.. "
All members of the human family not some ,all members are afforded the recognition of their equal and inalienable rights against torture and other harsh cruel degrading treatment. So the matter is not moot, and the constitution and oath the President took was not to break the laws set but to faithfully execute and uphold them. You may consider rap-music torture but your attempt to trivialize what took place these last 6 or 7 yrs. went far beyond playing loud music. I suggest you read the report from the International Committee of the Red Cross which detailed the suffocation by water, beatings by use of colllar, prolonged nudity, confinement in boxes,exposure to extreme temperture and cold/water, prolonged use of handcuffs and shackles, threats,deprivation/restricted provision of food/solid , of 14 prisoners held over a number of years in CIA prisons and at Guantanamo. Prisoners shackeled with their arms above their heads to a poll deprived of sleep for days on end finally passing out until the whole weight of their body pulled against their shackeled arms causing their arms and wrist to swell then awakened. We prosecuted our own soldiers for waterboarding during the Viet Nam war and did the same to the Japanese soldiers that were convicted of using this torture technique.
Only the most sadistic mind and or the most frightened cowards would quibble over what torture is but if your still confused :
Article 1
this from US Code I provided a link for :
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and (3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States. You can go on believing your sadistic fantasy that torture is in the eye of the beholder but the laws are precise and specific, and the president nor anyone else has the authority to circumvent it. We are a nation of laws, and no one is above or below the law! What an authoritarian mindset you must have to abdjicate all your rights to the president, the writers and founders of our republic and constitution didn't see it that way, they understood the horrors of a "king" with absolute power could bring on a people thats why they established 3 seperate branches of government to act as a check and balance on each other. Laws were broken and those responsible need to be held accountable,we were lied into a war andthen tortutre was used to try and justify our illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that posed no immediate threat to us. A war that has cost us more in American lives and money than was lost on 9/11. We are not safer torturing,not only is the torturee dehumanized so is the person and the society that condones it. Roles immediately become reversed in the eyes of the world, the criminal becomes the victim and the victim the criminal. tell me that is not what happened after all the support from the world we received following 9/11 only to be squandered with our war of choice in iraq and the subsequent revelations of abuse and torture from there ,blacksites, and GITMO. We prosecuted so-far the privates and sargeants we knew were carrying out orders from above, why is it illegal for PVT's and Sargeants but not for those who devised the policies and ordered the breaking of the laws?? Is it always those without the power who must obey the laws, fight in the wars, in a word suffer,while the rich and powerful do what they want and never have to pay the price? Open the door and start the investigations now into who ordered torture, who knew about it and didn't stop , in other words prosecute all those responsible no matter where it leads.Article 4
Article 3
Part I
ewl94232: Quite happily for all of us there are limits on the powers of the President of the United States. The US Constitution, for starters. The President swears an oath to uphold it before he becomes President.
The Constitution states that treaties signed and ratified by the US have the full force of law. Since President Reagan pushed through the no-torture treaty (excellent discussion of that is below) its on the books for the US.
Period.
I think Huckabee's behavior can be explained if we realize where he's coming from. It appears that the pattern has been set by the fundamentalist creationists who are so adamant that evolution is wrong. Their position is based on their need to have everything well defined by some authority. In defense of that position, deceit and blatant lying are considered completely and totally justified. Witness the perjury committed by the president of the school board at the Dover trial.
Huckabee is in the same position with regards to Obama. He needs to believe that everything that Obama does is wrong, so he feels that deliberate "misrepresentation of the facts" is justified. The alternative is severe cognitive dissonance. St. Loyola said something to the effect that if the church said something is black, you need to agree that it is black even if it looks white.
The same mindset is at work with Huckabee. He just has a different value system than most people. You need to believe that everything Obama does is wrong, even when it isn't. The end justifies the means.
Gov.: In the final paragraph, the word you were seeking is "that," not "which."
First, should a guy who calls himself a reverend be lying for a living on a fake news channel.
Second, EVERYONE associated with torture should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
After all, SAMMY 'THE BULL' GRAVANO was "just following orders"