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.
FFLEO,
I love it when you get all “Aw shucks” on us because it is fun. However, despite the “country guy persona” we all know you’re a lot more sophisticated then you let on.
“I also must keep with my point from the Condi Rice thread that asking people who are being tortured to wait for that “perfect” time is morally wrong to me.”
Jill,
I think this tack is somewhat unfair. If the prosecutions started tomorrow these people wouldn’t get out any earlier.
What is being struggled with is how do you let them out, after you’ve driven them perhaps insane. I know that I could not be like Nelson Mandela, who after being tortured and imprisoned for decades manged to maintain himself with composure and direction. If I had been one of those tortured, or now being imprisoned, my hatred towards the US would know no bounds and I would gladly strike back at them even if it meant my death.
The horror that was Bush/Cheney is ongoing and sad to say it must be resolved prudently, not in the stroke of a pen. It is a terrible position to be in, especially if you despise torture as I believe President Obama does. Easy answers usually do not yield good decisions.
Anonymously Yours,
You know something AY, I just do not get about 99.9% of your ‘wit’. Most of the time I just think ‘Say What!’ You stated in at least 2 threads to yourself that “I amuse me” and I thought, ‘I wonder why’. However, you do make some intelligent posts and who am I to judge another person’s wit when mine is perhaps often misunderstood. All I know for sure ‘n for certain is that all of the commenters combined cannot even touch ‘fesser Turley’s witticisms and they never will.
Therefore, post away, I am no person’s moderator here and your thoughts that remain on topic are sometimes—no doubt—better than mine are, and more legally valid if legal interpretations are involved. I am a father and I could not imagine what it is like to lose a child as you have had happen, especially if there is doubt and regret for things not done or said.
Finally, I will just say that I look forward to your experienced comments derived from your lawyering and there is no doubt that I will at least smile at your witticisms—the few that I *get*–and those that do not involve minor vulgarisms. I can find that urban language abundantly on the web and the language I seek here is one of law, process, fact, and justice, with some clean wit mixed in for spice and metaphoric humor.
In the final analysis, I gain multitudes more from the commenters here than I could ever repay; I sometimes even get *free* legal opinions and you know what laypersons say about the value of that…Thanks
FF LEO,
Snarkey, Hmm, Speak only for yourself. I do not want to have to have you reminded of the netiquette.
Really it is nice to have reasonably intelligent life form here. I try and strive for such. Maybe one day I will figure out that if you don’t put two Male Rabbits in the same cage that you will get more rabbits. Somehow or another the Moral Majority heard about my Abomination at Easter and picketed out front. Something about Breeding Homosexual Rabbits.
You never know about them folks. But then again I do not understand how you can get more rabbits after a lighten storm from a female if she is alone. But do remember that this is Texas and some Republicans have to have something to do.
And Kinky aka Richard Friedman is Running for Governor.
Kinky Friedman and The Texas Jewboys. That are pretty good.
Slartibartfast (what the heck kinda name is that away!) said:
“As a scientist (I’m a mathematical biologist)”
___________________
Well, I am a semi-competent ‘rithmetical genus too; 1 rabbit + 1 rabbit = 1 X 10 to the sixth power widdle wabbits.
Oh, and I done looked up that name of yourn and, dude; man, you are in serious need of a haircut, shave, Just for Men dye, and mega-gallons of Geritol…
Welcome aboard this legal starship as we wade through—or hitchhike across—this vast galaxy of governmental corruption with Professor Turley as the brightest Star in our legal Universe while accompanied by his attorney/lawyer lieutenants posting here who help guide us with their legal interpretations—a fine, shining star-filled blawg indeed.
(snarky, tongue-in-cheek turned-off) Welcome again Slubarfit….oh, whatever!
Slartibartfast,
I must admit I appreciate your perception of the realities that I and a number of others perceive as crucial before this side of the Obama administration commences.
When I was in college I read a number of books and one of them was the US CIA’s prediction of what Adolph Hilter would do and why and what the particular circumstances were for each scenario. I got interested in this because my girlfriend, Fiance, wife, exfriend and exwife, but mother of our children was a first generation American in New York. Her family was from the Ukraine.
Ya want to talk about a History Lesson for a Texas boy whose family moved to Texas with the Specific Intent to Steal the Land from the Mexicans. It was quite a cultural shock for me.
But anyways the book facianted me. I learned a lot about the psycholigical warfare that we played and the role the Ukranians played in Nazi Germany.
So I understand what you are saying and why you are saying it.
Jill,
I don’t agree that “public opinion is already there”. I haven’t seen any polling on this, but I think that if you divided people into three groups: a) Appoint a special prosecutor; b) have a commission; and c) torture is effective and necessary for national security a majority of the people would fall into groups (b) and (c). Keeping in mind that although the president is very popular he’s also got several other items on his agenda which are equally important (if the economy collapses then war crime prosecutions aren’t going to happen no matter what) and given President Obama’s pragmatic focus (I think he clearly would much rather concentrate on the economy and health care rather than war crimes and I don’t think that’s a bad thing) I don’t think that the time is ripe until group (a) is the majority and group (c) is marginalized. I don’t believe that anyone is currently being tortured, so no one is being adversely effected by waiting. I agree that investigating war crimes is both a legal and moral obligation, but I’m much more concerned that this mess get cleaned up correctly than it get cleaned up quickly.
Mike S,
Thanks, I stumbled onto this blog as I had seen Professor Turley on CKO and RMS* and I was looking for arguments to debunk what I had read on a blog about the natural born citizen issue (which I found here in spades) and liked the polite tone and vigorous debate. As a scientist (I’m a mathematical biologist) I’m always up for a good argument and likely have a very different view of proof and evidence than most posters here and as someone who has no legal training it’s interesting to see what those of you with a much better understanding of the law think of my ideas.
*Countdown with Keith Olbermann and the Rachel Maddow Show for those of you not up on your TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms).
SB,
Public opinion is already there. It is the president and the AG who do not want to act, not the public. I also must keep with my point from the Condi Rice thread that asking people who are being tortured to wait for that “perfect” time is morally wrong to me. The president is quite popular. Brave people in our govt. will continue to put out information. Legal investigation into war crimes is the law. It is justice. If we do not clean up our own mess now we may never do so.
Jill,
Thanks for the link – I’ll check it out. I don’t have a problem with keeping the pressure on (in fact I agree with it) and I also agree that the whole commission idea is a bad one (a way to defuse the pressure and potentially avoid prosecutions). What I don’t want to see is quick official action (as I posted on another thread, I don’t want to see anything out of the White House except for “It’s AG Holder’s decision”) because quick action is much more likely to be a commission rather than a special prosecutor, it would prematurely stop the torrent of information we’re getting right now, and it could be incredibly politically damaging to the administration. I don’t necessarily agree with the thesis that more extreme calls (for prosecution rather than a special prosecutor) would have had a better effect – I think what needs to be done is to move public opinion and the more extreme a voice is the easier it is for the very people we need to persuade to ignore it. I’m all for keeping the pressure on – but remember the goal of the sermon is to reach everyone, not preach to the choir.
SB,
That was funny. It means the Center for Constitutional Rights. They feel it’s very important to keep up the pressure for prosecutions. See what you think:
(Michael Ratner from the Center for Constitutional Rights quoted in Jeremy Scahill)
“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 White House 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 U.S. and the world are covered with the U.S. 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.”
Here’s their site:
http://ccrjustice.org/
Slartibartfast,
Nice to see a new contributor. I like the stuff you’ve written and your take on things. I too have no idea what CCR is, but then I was called to task recently for using MSM as short for mainstream media. I’m an old Fart, won’t text and so au courant acronyms sometimes confuse. Welcome aboard.
Jill,
CCR? I didn’t know Credence Clearwater Revival did political analysis (I’m teasing a little, but I would like to know what you’re referring to so I can check it out). Your point about propaganda was exactly the one I was trying to make: We need to focus on exposing the propaganda, not on applying pressure – as long as the truth wins out the pressure will become overwhelming.
Mike Appleton,
Thank you Sir.
Mike A.,
I agree with what you said. What I was pointing out is something different–that is, propaganda is flying thick and fast. We need to be aware of this as citizens so we don’t fall for these lies. There is enormous pressure to stop criminal investigations. The CCR has a very good anaylsis of this pressure if you have time to read it.
Jill
Prof. Turley:
Greetings from East Haven, CT.
If you would please; what evidence would be considered unambiguous proof that the lawyers Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury
deliberately misinterpreted the law against torture
—-
You didn’t ask me, but on its face, that Yoo wrote a memo arguing in favor of the use torture, which is clearly against the federal statute and international treaty, and was signed by his boss, Jay Bybee, regardless, but which was later rescinded when it became public pretty much says it all, I’d say.
Jill, I don’t think the train can be stopped at this point, regardless of what anyone says. We know from history that conspiracies fall apart as soon as one person begins to speak. Once that breach occurs, facts start coming out, if for no other reason than that all of the participants become concerned about protecting themselves. That is why Dick Cheney, who publicly uttered three or four sentences in eight years, is quickly becoming a virtual motor mouth. And I’m pretty confident that more than a few members of the journalism profession are privately having lustful thoughts about the bountiful Pulitzer prospects over the next few years. I believe that this will play out much like Watergate did.
And it should. We have had a dysfunctional government for too long and the airing of all of the dirty laundry is absolutely necessary. It cannot be treated as simply a matter of enforcing the law, because the problems are political as well as legal. I view government as a organism. The illness is not limited to the executive branch. The whole purpose of checks and balances is to prevent one branch from dominating the others. The fact that the executive has been out of control for years reflects the failure of the legislative branch to prevent it. Thus when members of Congress insist that we need to forget about “retribution,” what they really mean is that they would prefer not to be held accountable for any of the excesses in the executive branch.
While the legislative branch was ceding authority to the president and essentially abandoning its oversight obligations, the executive was busy corrupting the judicial branch by politicizing the DOJ through ideological screening and purging. That enabled the executive to create a platoon of compliant lawyers who could be counted on to fashion legal opinions supporting whatever policies the White House chose to adopt from time to time. Career lawyers who objected were simply forced out. That is why the question of “good faith reliance” on legal opinions has especial significance in this situation.
The anticipated investigations by both congressional committess and aggressive reporters will gradually expose all of the political failures and simultaneously uncover whatever evidence is out there relating to the violation of criminal statutes. It will then be the responsibility of the legislative branch to reassume its proper constitutional role through established political procedures and of the judicial branch to prosecute those who have committed crimes through established legal procedures.
We have to act with the assurance that the American public has sufficient maturity to examine the facts as they emerge and accept whatever painful truths those facts reveal about our government and our society. This process is not about retribution. It is about restoration. To attempt to accomplish that without uncovering all of the breakdowns would be like trying to rebuild a home without removing all of the hurricane debris from the foundation.
Prof. Turley:
Greetings from East Haven, CT.
If you would please; what evidence would be considered unambiguous proof that the lawyers Bybee, Yoo and Brandbury deliberately misinterpreted the law against torture
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/04/23/holder-promises-to-follow-the-law-on-any-torture-investigation-but-fails-to-mention-special-prosecutor/#comment-49150
So, Jill, now you copy from TPMuckraker because I have, lately? Get a life – of your own!
And some legal training would help, as well!
p.s. What time was that post from TPM yesterday.
After mine, you say?
Oh…
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/04/22/president-obama-leaves-open-possibility-of-prosecutions-for-torture-while-his-intelligence-director-affirms-that-the-torture-program-was-successful/
In the last few weeks, I notice my comments here are somewhere between a week or two ahead of the pundits and/or their guests. It’s very satisfying when I listen to people like Isikoff saying the very things I’ve just said.
I am complete with my contributions to this blog AND ‘the world’, on this issue – despite the petty jealousy displayed here.
I know what I am talking about and I’m not waiting for kudos from people who echo my words while simultaneously attempting to exclude me from the conversation. It won’t work!
I’m claiming them for myself
– at the risk of ‘tooting my own horn’… Beep Beep 😉
SB,
Thank you for your response. I want to wait for Lottakatz before I say anything. I do want to include the latest from Obama according to reporting by TPM.
“Obama: On Second Thought, Scratch That Commission Idea
By Zachary Roth – April 23, 2009, 6:36PM
Is President Obama flipping back again on the subject of how to conduct torture investigations?
His press secretary, Robert Gibbs, told reporters today that Obama had met with congressional leaders, and told them that he no longer favored the idea of a bipartisan commission to probe the issue. “The president determined the concept didn’t seem altogether workable in this case,” said Gibbs.
That follows Obama’s comments Tuesday, in which said that if an investigation was going to happen, he favored the bipartisan commission approach, rather than having congressional hearings.
As for the notion of appointing a special prosecutor — which would seem to be the only way to really hold wrongdoers accountable — that idea doesn’t appear to even be on the table.”