Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that he will “follow the law” in deciding whether to pursue criminal charges against Bush officials for the torture program. While first reported as a major advance, the statement conspicuously does not mention the appointment of a special prosecutor, an essential component to any investigation since the Justice Department featured heavily in these allegations.
Holder stated “We are going to follow the evidence, follow the law and take that where it leads. No one is above the law.” That is a great statement and much appreciated. However, the Justice Department should not be investigating itself. The Justice Department is notorious for a certain lack of vigor in the investigation of its own attorneys and any investigation without a special prosecutor from outside of the department would be viewed with considerable skepticism. There is an obvious conflict of interest and it is again bizarre (and worrisome) that Holder is resisting such an obvious step.
In the meantime, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a timeline on the program. Sen. Jay Rockefeller released the declassified report. Rockefeller has been a source of considerable criticism for his alleged knowledge of the unlawful surveillance and torture programs for years and his role in blocking any serious investigation. The timeline indicates that the work on the torture program began before the legal memos used later as a defense by Bush officials.
For the full story, click here.
My objection was to the misquote…!
Anybody who pays attention to what I have been saying here for the last year and a hlaf knows where I stand.
In addition, I would suggest a little thought be given to where we want to end up, before jumping head first off this cliff.
Obama said he wasn’t not suggesting anything. What he said was ‘given a choice’, his preference would be to have an independent bipartisan panel etc…
And what JT said was ‘the EASIEST thing to do would be to appoint a special prosecutor’ – who, by nature of appointment, outside of the Justice Department, would be non-partisan.
Dredd,
I saw the coalition of the willing redefining the question on torture not, is it against the law but does it work? No, it doesn’t work and yes it’s against the law. It’s scary how quickly the propaganda is taken in.
rcampbell,
I’m having trouble with your statement that enforcement of our laws is a desire for vengence. That’s not what the rule of law is about. We specifically have the rule of law to avoid the taking of vengence. A broad coalition of people would like to have the rule of law returned to the United States. Mespo has it right when he said: “We already have a “truth commission.” We call it the federal grand jury system.
Dredd,
I saw the coalition of the willing redefining the question on torture not, is it against the law but does it work? No, it doesn’t work and yes it’s against the law. It’s scary how quickly the propaganda is taken in.
rcampbell,
I’m having trouble with your statement that enforcement of our laws as a desire for vengence. That’s not what the rule of law is about. We specifically have the rule of law to avoid the taking of vengence. A broad coalition of people would like to have the rule of law returned to the United States. Mespo has it right when he said: “We already have a “truth commission.” We call it the federal grand jury system.
As the public knowledge stands, we know laws have been broken. To continue now with a ‘truth’ commission by our biased ‘leaders’ for a trial in the public, is tantamount to a civilized Islamic-style public stoning with vacuous words as our stones.
If one thinks that the rule of law is supreme, then a ruler of law, known as a Special Prosecutor, must be appointed. I do not know who that person would be nor even if any present-day constitutionally brilliant legal scholar exists with all of the requisite skills, legal standing/credentials, integrity, honesty, impartiality, humility, and political unbiasedness who is deserving of such an appointment.
There is only one such constitutional legal scholar who comes to mind, Professor Jonathan Turley.
I wonder if AG Holder will consider “it works” as an affirmative defense or as a cause for immunity?
The MSM sometimes seems to buy The Cheney Defense “It works for me”.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/04/whatever-works-it-works-for-me.html
JT has argued many times (as have others) that the most non-partisan way to deal with this situation is to appoint a special prosecutor. This person would do a thourough investigation and if charges were warrented, bring them.
Obama is relatively new to the political scene but the people in his administration at the very highest levels are old hands. He is surrounded by people from Bush I, Bush II and Clinton, so I don’t think it’s accurate to say this a a group of people who just wouldn’t know how to handle the situation. They know how to handle it, they just don’t want to do the right thing.
President Obama is trying to represent the interests of the broadest base of Americans and for that I think he should be applauded. A “truth and reconciliation” commission won’t satisfy my gut desire for vengeance on members of the Bush regime who blatantly violated the Constitution, but I’m not so sure that a diet of vengeance is best for my overall health. I can see some folks losing their law licenses, but maybe it’s the “adult” decision to reconsider the national ordeal of long drawn out trials that will undoubtedly become legally arcane, lose public support over time and deepen the chasm that divides our country.
What I do think the country needs is an affirmation that certain individuals made bad decisions and/or wrote incorrect legal opinions and/or took certain extra-Constutional authority. These things cannot go into history without comment in order to a)reestablish the Constitution’s primacy, b)prevent future administrations from viewing these Bush-era actions as legal precedent unless they’re officially repudiated and c) put the Bush legacy in the ashcan of history where it belongs.
I have been pondering, why a Special Prosecutor was not now name. I questioned it at first and thought.
If no charged are filed yet, it can be investigated easier, it can be seen as a due diligence inquiry, it can not be used as a partisan battle, it can be used as a tool of leverage for the administration (Hoover style), the decision will not be tainted anymore than it is already tainted and as we have become aware the wheels of justice especially in the federal arena move slow and not always fairly. I think that the current administration is trying to do the right thing and the administration is new for all practical matter. The impending consequences not only affect the USA as a whole but the reputation of the US as a whole.
I don’t know how many people thought the former ruler of Iraq got a fair deal. I don’t. I don’t really see a lynching for Cheney, Rice or Bush in the near future or even at all. But I do see some retribution.
I do like what Meghan McCain had to say about the Republicans being out of touch with Main Stream America.
eniobob,
This is *not* the time for ‘vox populi’ but a time for the legal system to function now that the people have spoken.
From Patty C’s link:
Obama is quoted as stating:
“with “independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility…”
______________________
Yes, President Obama, and that *one* independent participant would be *a* special prosecutor.
Patty C:
“He said he would prefer an inquiry “outside of the typical hearing process,” with “independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility…””
if you have to do it that is the way to do it, that has been one of my big reservations from the beginning (along with others), the partisanship would be overwhelming and would detract from the real issue(s).
Let this be truly fair and impartial and above reproach and let the chips fall where they may. And if Bush or Chenny do time, as long as it is fair, I can live with that.
NPR is wrong… or, more likely, you heard it wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22intel.html?_r=1
… “Mr. Obama said he was “not suggesting” that a commission be established. But he also sketched out the parameters for a panel that would look much like the one that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that “if and when there needs to be a further accounting,” he hoped Congress would examine ways for it to be conducted in a bipartisan fashion. Some Democrats are pushing similar proposals on Capitol Hill…
…But Mr. Obama said Tuesday that he feared a Congressional inquiry would turn partisan and divide the country. “I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively,” he said, “and that it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations.” He said he would prefer an inquiry “outside of the typical hearing process,” with “independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility…”
I would like to both look back and at the present.
Past: The illegal wiretapping and other surveillance of American citizens preceeded 9/11. Cheney and Addington were in the basement of the WH on the afternoon of 9/11 talking about where to put detainees so they would not be able to avail themselves of the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions. Yesterday we learn that the highest officials in the Bush administration were asking for torture techniques before, as JT points out above, the OLC memos were written. We obviously don’t have the full story yet by any means, but we certainly have a great deal of credible, documentary evidence which would justify an immediate criminal investigation. Which leads me to the present.
Present: Our law is clear. The evidence suggesting massive violations of our law is overwhelming and credible. I am struck by the lack of action by Holder and Obama. They should be out in front on this issue (actually they should have been on it shortly after Obama’s oath of office). Yet we have many distubing indications that they do not intend to have a valid investigation into the evidence.
We further have every indication that Obama is adopting/perpetuating many of the same positions of the discredited bushcheney presidency. The Electronic Foundation, for example, says we should no longer call the warrentless surrveillance a Bush program, it is an Obama program.
As was also revealed yesterday, there are a number of ghost detainees that the Obama administration still will not reveal their whereabouts. There were two credible allegations of torture at Guantanamo reported last week, torture that has been occuring under the presidency of Obama. The Obama administration has not followed our equally clear laws on prosecution for financial crimes.
We cannot afford to ignore either the past or the present. There is lawlessness in this nation at the highest level. It must not be allowed to continue or to be swept under a rug.
The good news in all of these memos that have been declassified is that the nonsense that was used as legal reasoning is open for all to see how foolish and wrong headed and how illegal these tactics were and as far as we know may still be utilized at Gitmo and elsewhere. Holder is moving slowly, but there will be so much damning evidence in the public eye in the next several weeks, that investigations will be demanded from every corner of the country. I don’t know if it will be a Special Prosecutor, but there will be several investigations into these Bush regime felons. We will see some “perp” walks in the near future.
Jill:
“NPR just reported that Obama would like a 9/11 type commission. This is a cover up.”
no truer words were ever spoken on this blog.
JIll:
We already have a “truth commission.” We call it the federal grand jury system.
Now we know who was really in charge…..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/condoleezza-rice-cheney-a_n_190340.html
Mr. Turley,
Thank you for the information. Since you assume that Holder is resisting appointing a special prosecutor, I wanted to know what the standard procedure would be. Is that the only first step in investigations, or if there seems to be impropriety found by the Justice Department in their initial investigations, could they then appoint a special prosecutor?
Thanks
A former prosecutor was on Olberman last night and she said if a special prosecutor was asigned that,all the information would be shut out to the public.
She sighted the scooter libby case,when once that happened,we the public were kept in the dark.
I think this is the only place to get a correct answer to that notion.
NPR just reported that Obama would like a 9/11 type commission. This is a cover up. I hope information continues to flood out and that the people in our populace to include those in the govt. continue to press as hard as possible to restore the rule of law. We cannot let lawlessness stand. We need to take back our govt.