chris edney: obama did not prosecute bush admin people for torture etc. because he feared a coup

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-Team-Feared-Coup-If-by-Andrew-Kreig-110907-156.html

chris edley is the dean of the berkeley law school.
the article tangles up two different questions---this and another to do with john yoo's continued presence on the berkeley law faculty in the wake of his actions under the bush people. on the second, i am personally agnostic to a point---but feel free to bring it up along the way if you like.

on the point concerning the threat(s) that the obama administration felt itself under from the right that militated against prosecution of the central figures in amongst the bush people for war crimes--or even an investigation that could take on these questions on the order of the chilcot commission---what do you make of it? a revolt from amongst the intelligence services? does that seem far-fetched?

perhaps you don't remember quite what the bush people authorized them to do. this will refresh your memory. and it's a good series of reports so far.

this is a series of articles from jadaliyya on the genesis and reach of the bush people's decision to justify, institutionalize and routinize politically the use of torture.

part 1:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011967335292883.html#.TmemV0EhCx0.facebook

(it appeared in jadaliyya yesterday but appears to have originated here)

part 2:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/201197111731633147.html

parts 3 through 5 are coming over the next days.

if you read these, you'll get a sense of the magnitude of what these people did. and by any standard relating to nuremburg, this alone should be actionable---and this not even to start addressing the problems of starting an unnecessary war in iraq based on entirely false information...at the same time, if you read this material, you get a pretty clear idea of how systematic was the institutionalization of torture amongst the various "security" instutitions (cia, nsa) and of the magnitude of the problems these would face were there any legal action.

at the same time, it seems to me that the united states gave away--unprovoked---something quite fundamental about itself when this administration decided that--de facto--the national security apparatus rules the united states and can effectively determine policies on the part of the president.

what do you make of the information provided by chris edley?
of the obama administration's decision to not prosecute any of the bush people for war crimes?

does the al-jazeera/jadaliyya material change your view of the magnitude of these policies/use of torture?

this is far more than a "bad apple" syndrome. torture/renditions was the official policy of the united states under the bush administration.

 

No presidential administration will ever prosecute a former administration's members because it sets up the dangerous (for them) precedent that there are consequences for their actions beyond losing an election.

 

yeah, i kind of knew that. and had edney said as much i would have been confirmed in my cynicism but unlikely to have remarked much on it and still less made a thread. what i found interesting about it is an indication of the reality of the contemporary national-security state in its most advanced/degenerate form (depending on your politics, either obtains)...without more information, this raises the question of who runs the show? but i'd like to have more information about the basis for this. sadly i doubt it's forthcoming. i have some vague hope in wikileaks, tho....

 

I think even if wikileaks came out with a video or audio tape of Bush and Cheney clearly making statements about their engaging in illegal activities, nothing would be done for fear it would tear the nation apart.