President Obama is sliding toward one of the most dangerous decisions of his administration – and very possibly one of the most dangerous in the history of the American republic.
Yesterday, Obama opened the door to possible prosecutions of former Bush officials. If the president’s words represent his intentions, this country may be about to plunge into a cycle of partisan reprisal that will make the years from Watergate through the Clinton impeachment look like a golden age of good feelings.
Until very recently, Obama has resisted all urgings from the more partisan Democrats to institute legal proceedings against former members of the Bush administration. As recently as Sunday, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel restated this view:
STEPHANOPOULOS: What about those who devised policy?
EMANUEL: Yes, but those who devised policy, he believes that they were — should not be prosecuted either, and that’s not the place that we go — as he said in that letter, and I would really recommend people look at the full statement — not the letter, the statement — in that second paragraph, “this is not a time for retribution.” It’s time for reflection. It’s not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back and any sense of anger and retribution. We have a lot to do to protect America. What people need to know, this practice and technique, we don’t use anymore. He banned it.
Then yesterday at a press conference alongside the king of Jordan, the president seemingly reversed course:
OBAMA: With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws, and I don’t want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.
Now it’s very possible that there is less here than meets the eye. The president may be looking for a gentle way to say “no” to his party’s angry wing: Punt the issue to the attorney general, wait 6 months for emotions to cool, then decline to take action. That would be less than heroic behavior, but it might represent the least politically fraught route to the correct answer.
But if Obama’s words mean something more, we are all heading for a world of trouble.
Since Watergate, American politics has moved into a new era of the criminalization of politics. Special prosecutor begets special prosecutor in a cycle of reprisal that has by now embittered the lives of dozens of former administration officials in the two parties.
Until now, however, this revenge cycle has had one limit: It ends when the administration under attack ends. The Clinton administration did not prosecute Reagan and Bush officials; the Bush administration did not act against Clinton officials.
Now Obama is musing about extending the political reach of the criminal law. If he does so, he will find he has opened a new front of political warfare that will not soon end.
After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush drew a curtain of oblivion against all the errors and mistakes that had led up to the attacks. There was accusation and counter-accusation in the media, but at the official level there was no recrimination against President Clinton’s decision not to kill bin Laden when he had the chance, no action against those who had failed to stop the 9/11 hijackers from entering the country.
If Obama proceeds to take legal action against those who did what they thought was right to defend the country, all that will change. Prosecutions launched by Obama will not stop when Obama declares “game over.” If overzealousness under Bush becomes a crime under Obama, underzealousness under Obama will become a crime under the next Republican president.
Revenge will be exacted for revenge, the costs of government service will escalate, mobilizing cross-party support will become practically impossible for any important action, and the political life of the American republic will take another step toward the play-for-keeps destructiveness of the last days of the Roman republic.
It’s a nightmare future. Let’s banish the possibility now. President Obama needs to do three things:
1) If he wants an investigation, he should follow the precedent of the 9/11 commission, whose mission was confined to fact-finding only.
2) He should declare unambiguously now: There will be no prosecutions, period.
3) He will serve notice on the European allies: Attempts in Europe to engage in local proceedings against Americans for official acts during their service in government will be regarded as unfriendly acts for which costs will be exacted across the full spectrum of government-to-government relations.
Obama’s promises of unity and change could have meant – could still mean – a departure away from the tit-for-tat use of law as a weapon of politics of the previous generation. If however it turns out to mean an escalation of the use of law, be warned: this is one escalation that will not soon be de-escalated.
94 responses so far
1 billypaulson // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:28 am
No prosecutions? Fine. But if a Truth Commission determines that these legal memos were, in fact, written to provide retroactive legal cover for torture already committed, then the lawyers in question should be debarred without question.
2 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:38 am
Er…he wasn’t in Jordan he was in the White House where the King of Jordan was visiting! And he didn’t reverse course, what his chief of staff says is not what he says and last week when made the announcement about the memos he said no prosecutions in the CIA unless they overstepped the guidelines but he definitely left the door open to some action against the lawyers who drafted the memos and other white house officials. Personally I hope, as does the president, that we move on but it’s not entirely in his hands as you well know David. These memos essentially approved acts that were illegal both under US and international law and broke the Geneva Conventions which we’ve ratified. He can’t just unilaterally stop the DOJ or congress from pursueing these matters. What you’re doing is essentially issuing threats that if these proceedings aren’t halted we’ll try and find some pretext to do it to you. In pursuit of this you also suggest somewhat bizarre courses of action like issuing threats against allied govt’s in Europe. This is a somewhat dangerous line of argument. So far the president has handled this fair deftly although in a way that was damaging to the reputation of the Bush administration as was inevitable. It isn’t helping in my opinion that people like Cheney, one of the most distrusted men in America, and Gingrich another polarising throwback who is also widely disdained are taking to the airwaves making various claims some of which are rather trite. Despite the threats Obama and the Democrats don’t have much to lose by this process unfolding, and Obama seems to have made a goodwill effort to cool it but since if he spits on the sidewalk it seems to occasion vast rage on the right. Republicans would be well advised to follow his lead and try to cool it.
3 Tenek // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:46 am
Torture is not a difference in ‘politics’. It’s evil, it’s a crime, and Obama gets to decide whether the President is above the law or not.
4 Ct_indi_dale // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:58 am
I don’t think this is a political issue, it is a legal one now. Our soldiers at Abu Ghraib were tried and convicted of abusing prisoners – and sentenced to prison. Do you advocate trying US soldiers on the ground, in a war zone, for following guidelines we now know were issued from the highest level of the Pentagon, but not the officials that were responsible for those illegal guidelines?
I was horrified by the pictures of Abu Ghraib, they were not the America I knew, or wanted to be responsible for. But it turns out that maybe it is part of a bigger story – every day we learn more, scary and sad, ashamed we may be – and we owe it to our selves and our children to face this as Americans, openly and within the law.
I don’t think that investigation, and indeed, perhaps charges, would be “tit-for-tat”, if they were warranted under US law.
5 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 7:10 am
Ct_indi_dale
…The issue of these bozos at Abu Ghraib is an interesting one. You can’t totally exonerate them but it does seem a classic case of “It’s the rich what gets the pleasure and the poor what gets the pain.” They clearly were incited to this behavior by higher ups. If you’ve had a commission in the military you always know you have a few comedians in your platoon or company so it’s your job to make sure these characters don’t get out of hand. When all this was at it’s height I kept asking myself where are their commissioned officers. Subsequently they were all basically exonerated apart from the National Guard woman BG who was reduced in rank. It was obvious there was more whitewash than in a paint store. Personally I think there’s some case for commuting at least part of the sentences of these small fry who basically got the shaft from the military and political high ups.
6 barker13 // Apr 22, 2009 at 7:44 am
“After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush drew a curtain of oblivion against all the errors and mistakes that had led up to the attacks. There was accusation and counter-accusation in the media, but at the official level there was no recrimination against President Clintons decision not to kill bin Laden when he had the chance, no action against those who had failed to stop the 9/11 hijackers from entering the country.”
Which was a MAJOR breach of faith with the American People.
It’s BECAUSE Bush provided cover to Clinton administration POLICY FAILURES regarding “homeland security” that to this day tens of millions of Americans are under the false impression that President Clinton did everything within his power to take out terrorists who posed a threat to the United States and specifically to kill Bin Laden.
My God… consider this: Jamie S. Gorelick was appointed to the 9/11 Commission. JAMIE GORELICK!!!
No. I’m not saying Gorelick or anyone else should have been prosecuted for policy decisions and official actions that in part “allowed” 9/11 to take place, but for God’s sake, Bush should have not only ALLOWED the full story of their inane incompetence and the results of their wrongheaded politically correct thinking to reach the average American, he should have ensured that the “real story” got out in an OFFICIAL “historical” sense.
Bush made the same mistake with the Clinton pardons. And now… we have Attorney General Eric Holder.
(*SNORT*)
David… am I correct in my understanding that you actually APPROVE of Bush’s actions in deliberately muddying the waters and sweeping under the rug DELIBERATE policy actions taken during the Clinton administration that it can be reasonably argued hurt our national security and opened the door to the 9/11 attacks?
BILL
7 cmhmd // Apr 22, 2009 at 7:48 am
Yeah, we don’t want no fancy-pants lawyers show boating on something as inconsequential as torturing in the name of America.
And, BTW, I don’t care if they did get good information: The ends don’t justify the means, especially when the means include torture which this nation has vigrously condemned since George Washington. We are better than this and I don’t know why Cheney and the conservatives just don’t get this!
8 krove // Apr 22, 2009 at 7:48 am
Here is the rub David, If we just sweep this under yet another rug we will learn nothing from it.
The Nixon Administration basically were criminals, they were let off and no real lessons were learned. Some of the criminals from that administration Cheney and Rumsfeld in particular just took up where they left off when they joined Bush2.
If a proper investigation and charges had been conducted of the Nixon White House then we maybe would have avoided this current embarrassing disaster.
If we let this go what happens the next time an administration wishes to break American and international laws?
Are these laws and treaties just to be discarded as inconvenient? I am not sure why you as an individual are getting yourself in a “show trial” knot about this. Are you scared for yourself? Because it sure seems like that to me.
The law is the law, no one is above the law. Do you agree to that or not?
9 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:01 am
@Barker13
Sorry Barker this is not about Clinton or his pardons or anything else to do with his administration. I can understand your desire to try and deflect blame but this is about decisions taken during the Bush admin which border on if not cross the line of illegality. You mention the 9/11 Commission. This is what Phillip Zelikow who is a Republican lawyer, was a counsellor to Rice and subsequently was the secretary of the 9/11 commision has to say on the matter of the legality or otherwise of these memos.
“The OLC holds, rightly, that the United States complies with the international standard if it complies with the comparable body of constitutional prohibitions in U.S. law (the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments).
[cut]
So the OLC must argue, in effect, that the methods and the conditions of confinement in the CIA program could constitutionally be inflicted on American citizens in a county jail.
In other words, Americans in any town of this country could constitutionally be hung from the ceiling naked, sleep deprived, water-boarded, and all the rest — if the alleged national security justification was compelling. I did not believe our federal courts could reasonably be expected to agree with such a reading of the Constitution.”
10 LJS // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:01 am
With Cheney calling for positive torture memos to be released, Obama may be firing a warning shot across the Cheney bow warning Cheney he may get not only the memo he request but a lot more.
Obama may also think it’s more valuable for the country to move forward and learn from the mistakes.
Apparently the memo Cheney wants released is from retired Admiral Dennis Blair. Who said
“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,”
But he is also quoted as saying
“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.
We do not need these techniques to keep American safe.”
11 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:05 am
barker13
wrote 18 minutes ago”After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush drew a curtain of oblivion against all the errors and mistakes that had led up to the attacks. There was accusation and counter-accusation in the media, but at the official level there was no recrimination against President Clintons decision not to kill bin Laden when he had the chance, no action against those who had failed to stop the 9/11 hijackers from entering the country.”
…..You’re also wrong on the facts….if you watched any of the 9/11 hearings there was in fact a a vigorous attempt by the Bush admin and it’s spear carriers to deflect blame onto the Clinton admin.
12 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:13 am
LJS
wrote 4 minutes ago
I’m bound to say I think Cheney is playing with fire on this. If they had ever got some pieces of solid info that was instrumental in averting a major attack on this country does anyone believe for a moment that Cheney who was quite prepared to out CIA agents if it suited his purpose or Rove or any other of the white house crowd wouldn’t have been shouting this from the roof tops years ago. Of course they would, it’s a strong card. The problem was they never got any of this ticking time bomb stuff. I’m sure Blair has characterised it correctly. Once Cheney starts demanding the release of memos after he’s spent years trying to keep stuff secret he’s opening a Pandora’s box that it’s hard to believe is going to enhance his or the Bush admins reputation.
13 krove // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:26 am
otto,
I have always thought the same. If we averted major plots by torture where is the result. Where are the individuals who were charged with conspiracy or on terror charges. There are none, zero zip.
The fact is torture brought us nothing but the explosion of new terrorists.
The incarceration of hundreds of innocent boys and even men over 90 years old has radicalized more Muslims than Al qaeda ever could. Most of the foreign fighters in Iraq were in the country because they were disgusted at our actions in this area.
So far from keeping us safe the exact opposite is the case.
14 LJS // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:37 am
ottovbvs
I have not heard Bush say one thing, only Cheney. I agree he would have relased anything he has thru one of his many channels.
From what I read the memo Cheney is reffering to (below) is from Admiral Blair.
“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Blair wrote last week.
Blair this week released a statement.
The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.
“We do not need these techniques to keep American safe.”
15 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:40 am
krove
wrote 6 minutes ago
…..That’s a basic fact of human nature which seems to escape the “bomb them” crowd. To be honest I’m not sure why David is playing this up and issuing veiled threats. Sure Obama has trashed Bush and Cheney but I suspect he also wants to avoid a food fight over this so I’m not sure what David thinks the GOP gets out of stirring it up. Making the Republican party the pro Torture party doesn’t seem a good strategic move either. Best to take Obama at his word and move on.
16 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:43 am
LJS
wrote 3 minutes ago
I agree Bush is doing the right thing keeping a low profile. It’s Cheney who is one of the worst spokesman for the GOP it’s possible to have, as is Gingrich. The GOP needs to be adult and conciliatory over this but it seems to have left their genes somehow.
17 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:47 am
krove
wrote 17 minutes ago
“The fact is torture brought us nothing”
I’m not sure I’d go as far as this. It probably brought some info on organization on financing. Mind you there was probably a lot of misinformation as welll because people are going to tell you what you want to hear. As Blair say’s a decided net negative but that doesn’t mean we got nothing.
18 barker13 // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:47 am
Re: Cmhmd; wrote 46 minutes ago –
“…I don’t care if they did get good information: The ends don’t justify the means…”
And that’s an honest, honorable position. I disagree, but at least you’re acknowledging a key component of the debate.
(*NOD*)
Re: Ottovbvs; wrote 33 minutes ago –
“@Barker13: Sorry Barker this is not about Clinton or his pardons or anything else to do with his administration.”
Ott. I was responding DIRECTLY so something David wrote.
(*SMIRK*)
As to the rest of your post… (*ROLLING MY EYES*)… as I’ve made clear in previous posts, I don’t believe non-citizens should have the same constitutional protections as citizens – in fact, not even the same level of protections afforded legal visitors/residents.
Next. I certainly don’t believe that non-citizen ILLEGAL enemy combatants caught and held overseas possess constitutional rights nor are they covered by the Geneva Convention(s).
Furthermore… I don’t consider waterboarding to be “torture,” let alone “lesser” methods of “enhanced interrogation.”
Last but not least… returning to the issue of “effectiveness” which Cmhmd brought up… I believe that enhanced interrogation (including waterboarding) can and has “worked” and that it should be in our national tool kit as applies to spies and illegal combatants (terrorists).
Remember… historically spies were subject to EXECUTION. In fact, I believe they still are. (*SHRUG*)
BILL
19 JJWFromME // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:51 am
Looks like Paul Krugman stole your and Michael Gerson’s copyrighted word, Mr. Frum:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/grand-unified-scandal
20 Jeffryw // Apr 22, 2009 at 9:26 am
Since when does the Bill of Rights apply to non-citeizns captured on the battlefield.
One can only imagine an image of US Marines on Iwo Jima not being allowed to blow up a cave without first being required to toss in a few leaflets with the Miranda rights scribbled on them.
If not for the severe consequences, it would be utterly ridiculous how much danger the American left is going to put this country at risk in the future.
21 krove // Apr 22, 2009 at 9:28 am
Worse in many ways than the torture is the “disappeared”. People that the CIA took off the streets of the world and they just either have literally disappeared of turned up in some foreign prison never charged never had a trial.
Here is a list of some of these and best guesses as to where they are at present. The story of these people can found here.
http://www.propublica.org/article/dozens-of-prisoners-held-by-cia-still-missing-fates-unknown-422
1. Hassan Ghul, a Pakistani citizen who was detained in Iraq in 2004. As we wrote last week, one of the recently released memos revealed Ghul [3] had been in CIA custody. He was reportedly last seen in Pakistani custody in late 2006. His whereabouts now are unknown.
2. Ali Abd al-Rahman al-Faqasi al-Ghamdi, detained in Saudi Arabia in June 2003. He is believed to be in Saudi custody.
3. Ali Abdul-Hamid al-Fakhiri, also known as Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Was detained in Pakistan in November 2001 and is believed to now be in Libyan custody.
4. Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, a Syrian national captured in Pakistan in November 2005. He is believed to be in Syrian custody.
5. Abdul Basit, believed to be a Saudi or Yemeni national taken before June 2004. His whereabouts are unknown.
6. Adnan. His last name and citizenship are unknown. He was captured before June 2004 and whereabouts are unknown.
7. Hudaifa. His last name and citizenship are unknown. He was captured before June 2004 and whereabouts are unknown.
8. Mohammed al-Afghani. An Afghan citizen detained in Pakistan in May 2004. Believed to be at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
9. Ayoub al-Libi, a Libyan held in Pakistan in January 2004. He is believed to be in Libyan custody now.
10. Yassir al-Jazeeri is an Algerian captured in early 2003 in Pakistan and whose whereabouts is unknown.
12. Mohammed Omar Abdel-Rahman is an Egyptian who was captured in Pakistan in early 2003 and is now believed to be in Egyptian custody.
13. Majid, a Libyan. His last name and whereabouts are unknown.
14. Hassan Rabai, a Libyan who is believed to be in Libyan custody.
22 krove // Apr 22, 2009 at 9:29 am
More.
15. Khaled al-Sharif, a Libyan who is believed to be in Libyan custody.
16. Osama bin Yousaf is a Pakistani citizen who may have been captured in Pakistan in August 2005 and whose whereabouts are unknown.
17. Osama Nazir is a Pakistani citizen believed to have been detained in Pakistan in November 2004. He is believed to be in Pakistani custody.
18. Sharif al-Masri is an Egyptian believed to have been nabbed on the Pakistan-Afghan border in August 2004. His whereabouts are unknown.
20. Mustafa Mohammed Fadhil is a Kenyan or Egyptian national who was reportedly detained in Pakistan in August 2004. His whereabouts are unknown.
21. Musaab Aruchi is a Pakistani citizen detained in Pakistan in June 2004. His whereabouts are unknown.
22. Ibad Al Yaquti al Sheikh al Sufiyan is a Saudi citizen believed to have been detained in Pakistan in January 2004. His whereabouts are unknown.
23. Walid bin Azmi, his nationality is unknown. He was reportedly captured in Pakistan in January 2004 and his whereabouts are unknown.
24. Amir Hussein Abdullah al-Misri, an Egyptian who was reportedly arrested in Pakistan in January 2004. His whereabouts are unknown.
25. Safwan al-Hasham is a Saudi national reportedly detained in Pakistan in May 2003. His whereabouts are unknown.
26. Jawad al-Bashar is an Egyptian who was reportedly captured in Pakistan in May 2003. His whereabouts are unknown.
27. Saif al Islam el Masry is an Egyptian citizen reportedly detained in Georgia in September 2002. His whereabouts are unknown.
28. Sheikh Ahmed Salim is a Tanzanian citizen reportedly detained in Pakistan in July 2002. His whereabouts are unknown.
29. Anas al-Libi is a Libyan who was detained in Sudan in February 2002. His whereabouts are unknown.
30. Al-Rubaia. His first name is unknown. He is believed to be an Iraqi citizen arrested in 2002 and whose whereabout are unknown.
31. Speen Ghul was arrested in Pakistan. He is believed to be Somali and his whereabouts are unknown.
32. Khalil al-Uzbeki, an Uzbek citizen. His whereabouts and the details of his capture are unknown.
33. Ahmed Abdul Rashid a Somali citizen. His whereabouts and the details of his capture are unknown.
34. Hiwa Abdul Rahman Rashul, an Iraqi citizen arrested in Iraq in 2003. His whereabouts and the details of his capture are unknown.
35. Abdullah Ahmad Salih al-Rimi, believed to be Yemeni. His whereabouts and the details of his capture are unknown.
23 krove // Apr 22, 2009 at 9:37 am
“Since when does the Bill of Rights apply to non-citeizns captured on the battlefield”
As detailed below many were not captured on any battlefield.
Also if an enemy soldier is captured they are then under the Geneva convention, The Red cross is then the authority in control. The Red Cross was prevented access to these prisoners.
Torturing an enemy soldier is against that convention (that we signed) .
24 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 9:49 am
barker13
wrote 51 minutes ago
….What you believe doesn’t matter. The fact is as Zelikow pointed out in that opinion of his I posted most of this activty almost certainly breached US and international law and you are completely wrong about the protections offered by the Geneva conventions. I’m afraid in a contest between your “prejudices” and the body of law on the matter you are not likely to emerge the winner. Not that that will prevent you from giving us the benefit of your expertise.
25 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:01 am
krove
wrote 12 minutes ago
….I see a lot of people are now starting to pick up on this “disappeared” list. This is just one issue that’s going to come tumbling out of this and this has the potential to become very big scandal. Strictly on political grounds which I’ve really tried to focus on with my postings there is no benefit for the GOP in aligning itself with all this stuff. Basically were’ making ourselves the Abu Ghraib party…..it’s totally nuts. The problem is the pushback is being led by neocons and people like Cheney anxious to protect themselves. All this is over the head of partisans like Barker who think it’s about trying to dance around the subject or transfer blame. Given that David is basically a political operative I’m surprised he doesn’t see the danger in this approach. The Bush/Cheney ship is well and truly wrecked, spending the next year defending it is a disastrous strategy for the GOP. Obama has the Republicans where he wants them on this, as I’ve said below we’d be much better off being adult and conciliatary than starting a war we are going to lose.
26 tarazeigler // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:05 am
David – Are you seriously equating tactical errors made by the Clinton administration with the breaking of international treaties/laws by the Bush administration? This is beyond troubling. While I hate to see the country dragged through prosecution of the past administration, there is something to be said for the rule of law. And Obama is right: this is not entirely his call. Congress and the Justice Department have every right to pursue possible charges.
For the record, most sane politicians don’t want to go this route. It would be incredibly painful and could very well cause irreperable damage to the current administration if they look like they are being politically vindictive.
27 Jeffryw // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:12 am
“Also if an enemy soldier is captured they are then under the Geneva convention, The Red cross is then the authority in control. The Red Cross was prevented access to these prisoners.”
That only applies to those of other NATIONS who also RATIFIED the treaty. And in what wars do you think that piece of paper really had effect since the Western Front of WW2…to some limited extent???
Yeah, I’m sure if you were taken by Al Qaeda Karl they’d make damn sure you only gave name rank and serial number! (Just ask those guys whose heads were sawn off or the Americna soldiers mutilated in Iraq).
I swear you libbies live in a land of MAKE BELIEVE! It would be laughable if your messiah wasn’t in control of this country’s destiny!
28 tarazeigler // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:13 am
ottovbvs: Very good points. I am not often inclined to quote Chris Matthews, but he posed this question to his panel yesterday on Hardball: “Do the Republicans want to be known as the party of tax cuts and torture?” It is an obviously loaded question, but it is worth considering. The Democrats have successfully painted Republicans as the party of “no”. Tying the Republican party to torture could be just as easy if the right is seen as carrying the water for Bush administration sins. If I was a Republican in power, I’d distance myself from Cheney and keep my head down. This is a minefield if there ever was one.
29 Jeffryw // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:15 am
Tarazeigler. Obama could put the kaibosh on this witch hunt with one statement. Seriously cut it out.
What international laws, treaties did the US break?
30 barker13 // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:15 am
Re: Ottovbvs; wrote 11 minutes ago –
Ott. For God’s sake…
(*SIGH*)
Who do you think Zelikow is and what authority do you believe he has…???
Ott… the guy is a history professor at the University of Virginia. His writings are not the equivalent in force of law to a five or more member ruling of the USSC.
(*SNORT*)
Now don’t get me wrong… I’m not downgrading the guy. Interested parties can track down Zilikow’s cv for themselves. (*SMILE*)
My point is that Zikikow’s “opinions” (regardless of how correct and authoritative any of us may or may not find them) have no force of law.
Jeez… even YOU note “…most…”
Jeez… even YOU note “…most of this activity almost certainly…”
Hell, Ott, you yourself don’t seem ready to state that EVERYTHING Zelikov cites as his “opinion” is CERTAINLY the last word on “the law.”
Heck, son… you’re not CITING ANY LAW!!!
(*CHUCKLE*)
Anyway… try again. (*WINK*) And be specific. Don’t just cite case numbers. Provide context; provide actual rulings citing the specific wording. (*WINK*)
BILL
31 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:19 am
Jeffryw
wrote 0 minutes ago
….Unfortunately you belong to the group who just ignore facts….if there’s no legal jeopardy what’s everybody on the far right getting so excited about including David …you just confirm the the reality with the refutation….just like these folks claiming all this stuff was a slap on the wrist…..well if it was just a slap on the wrist why would it be so effective at producing the valuable info its supposed to have done….you can’t have it both ways…..
32 barker13 // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:25 am
Re: Tarazeigler; wrote 11 minutes ago –
“…breaking of international treaties/laws by the Bush administration…”
Ahh… by BUSH.
Hey Tara… let me ask you, hon… when President Obama orders military attacks – or even incursions – on/into the sovereign state of… er… let’s say Pakistan… is he violating international law…???
And just to see how intellectually consistent you are… is it your position that the Clinton administration NEVER engaged in… er… “violations of international law?”
Big. Small. Bombing aspirin factories in Sudan or passenger trains, hospitals, and the Chinese embassy in Kosovo under the supposed authority of NATO… NATO… not the UN… NATO…
(*SMIRK*)
Hey… just interested in seeing how consistent and logical your thinking is REGARDLESS of who is (was) in the Oval Office.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
33 krove // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:25 am
It’s now obvious that the real reason for the torture was not to gain useful intelligence. It was to find or invent a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They were desperate to justify the Iraq debacle and would use torture to do so.
That in my mind (a Liberal one) is far worse than the first stated intention. To torture just as a cover your ass tactic is pure EVIL.
That is the reason they continued to water-boarded one individual 183 times and another 87 times even when the operatives told the administration there was no more information to be gained. It seems that the White house said just keep on torturing them until you get the right answer.
34 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:30 am
barker13
wrote 4 minutes ago
Zelikow, Republican, counsellor to Condoleeza Rice, sec of 9/11 commission…..no this guy has no credentials at all…..certainly not as many as you in the sighing and eyerolling dept…. .And where did I say his opinions had the force of law…..his opinions merely stated the statutes that would have guided the OLC and therefore suggested these practices crossed the line and rendered them highly questionable from a legal standpoint. To prove the point almost all these OLC opinions were refuted even before Bush left office and this has been reaffirmed by the Holder DOJ.
35 tarazeigler // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:33 am
Jefferyw: In theory, sure Obama could end this. However, Eric Holder is under oath saying that he believes waterboarding is torture. Torture is against the law. Therefore, he has painted himself into a corner. As for Congress, they are even more difficult to control.
As for laws/treaties: Hate to break it to you but Iraq, Afganistan and Pakistan all signed on to the Geneva convention, so it should apply here. There are questions about how enemy combatants are designated and what constitutes a battlefield. However, even the Bush administation let up on this in the end and started letting the Red Cross in. That raises questions as to whether or not the Red Cross should have had access all along.
36 krove // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:35 am
Here is the link to the McClatchy story about the use of torture to do a CYA on Iraq.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html
37 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:36 am
barker13
wrote 6 minutes ago
The drone attacks in Pakistan are taking place with the tacit approval of the Pakistan govt as they were when Bush was making them.
38 Bulldoglover100 // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:37 am
Dick Cheney will go down in hostiry as an evil man. Bet on it.
On the other hand David how about if it had been your Mother? Could we water board her and you say it’s not torture? Really?
Obama is bowing to public pressure because the majority of people in this country want answers and we DESERVE answers. Truthful answers…not just walk on by like Peggy Noonan said we should do…….You also mislead wnen you do not use quotes. Obama said he would NOT go after anyone other than those who wrote the opinions that it was legal. Attorney’s and Bush?Cheney/Rumsfeld. Those are the guilty parties.
We can deal with these facts or remain a nothing party for the next 7 years and possibly longer but these lies and twistings of truth have to stop David.
39 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:41 am
tarazeigler
wrote 3 minutes agoJefferyw: In theory, sure Obama could end this.
…..What theory would that be? Obama has no power to halt an investigation by the DOJ if they believe crimes have been committed and he has no power to halt congressional investigations. If the AG is a hack as was the case with Gonzales and Ashcroft they can bend to pressure from the WH to delay or abort investigations. The problem is Holder is not a hack although I know the right like this type of hack AG.
40 tarazeigler // Apr 22, 2009 at 11:06 am
Barker: Aren’t you adorable with all your *smirks* and *shrugs*?
For the record, hon, I have serious issues with the Clinton bombing in Sudan, which was likely a violation of international law. As for the Pakistan bombings, which were done by both Bush and Obama, the case is unclear. Pakistan offered tacit approval for these bombings. In that case, it is hard to make the argument that international law was broken.
41 tarazeigler // Apr 22, 2009 at 11:14 am
Ottovbvs: First, I think Obama was absolutely correct to point out the legal limitations of his power. However, no one is immune from politics. Holder is no hack, but if Obama were to make it known that he opposes all prosecutions, there is a good chance that Justice would walk away from this. If for no other reason than once you start prosecuting, it is unbelievably unclear as to where you stop. Really, the final decision on torture rested with Bush: Does that mean you prosecute the former President? That is huge and would mean entangling the country in trials that would go on forever. This is no light decison, as was made clear by the crossed wires between Rahm Emanuel and Obama. Emanuel’s point is valid: the previous administration was operating within what it believed was the law. That being said, I think there is a strong case to be made for disbarring the lawyers who authored the torture memos. I am just not sure if we want to get into prosecuting the former President.
42 krove // Apr 22, 2009 at 11:26 am
It’s being said that Bush,Cheney, Rumsfeld etc were ignorant of the fact that waterboarding was torture or that we had prosecuted and executed Japanese interrogators for the same thing.
If that is true it’s an even worse case of incompetence than Katrina. Dis these people actually govern or simply stumble through 8 years of stupidity.
It’s also said that they got these techniques from, Pol Pot and other Communist regimes. How ironic is that.
43 tarazeigler // Apr 22, 2009 at 11:43 am
krove: If you look at the whole body of decisions made during the Bush years, 8 years of stupidity is not beyond the realm of possibility.
The worst thing about all of this is that, apparently, Cheney is really proud of what went on in these interrogations. And, before all the comments come: Yes, I have heard administation officials claim that we gleaned invaluable info from “Enhanced Interrogations”. At the same time, there are plenty of military and intelligence experts that claim that there are better methods. Perhaps those would have worked just as well? Seems possible, anyway.
44 krove // Apr 22, 2009 at 11:46 am
A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue said that Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that intelligence agencies and interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration.
There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used, the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issues sensitivity.
The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there.
It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly Abu Zubeida at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Mohammed 183 times in March 2003 according to a newly released Justice Department document.
There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheneys and Rumsfelds people to push harder, he continued.
Cheneys and Rumsfelds people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasnt any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies.
Senior administration officials, however, blew that off and kept insisting that wed overlooked something, that the interrogators werent pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information, he said.
Source
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=20317
45 krove // Apr 22, 2009 at 11:53 am
The Soviets would torture to get confessions. They had no real interest in the information derived from torture and knew that it would be of dubious value. It was all about the confession. So essentially the Bush administration is like the Soviets in this regard, only stupider in that they may have actually thought there was useful information to be gained.
Maybe Bush really did look into Putins soul and decided that he liked what he saw.
46 dendup // Apr 22, 2009 at 12:16 pm
David, Estimates of those Stalin killed during the Great Purge range form 700,000 to 1.7 million people. Alluding to this atrocity with the phrase “show trial” to describe the tentative steps Obama has taken so far dishonors those people. You would never let pass (nor should any of us) a similiar use of the Holocaust. Shame on you.
47 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 12:35 pm
“tarazeigler
11:14 AMOttovbvs: First, I think Obama was absolutely correct to point out the legal limitations of his power. However, no one is immune from politics. Holder is no hack, but if Obama were to make it known that he opposes all prosecutions, there is a good chance that Justice would walk away from this.”
……Yes but with a high visibility issue like this Holder would not only have to do the right thing he would have to be seen to do the right thing. I’m basically with you and Obama on this in that it’s probably wisest to move on. In discussion of this I try to separate out the component parts but there is a lot of mixing up of issue here. On the legal front I suspect there maybe something in David’s comment that Obama is just going to let this thing lose traction in the DOJ and has no intention of doing anything other than completely destroying the reputations of Bush/Cheney and their legal minions. At the moment the main obstacle to that is a political one of pushback firstly by the left, which he can handle, but more seriously by Cheney and the usual suspects on the right. This may be kneejerk because they’ve lost the capacity to do anything else but I do wonder if there’s an element of rope a dope about this. Maybe Obama anticipated it and is painting the GOP into a corner as the party of torture. Their front man on this is Cheney one of the most distrusted men in America….what could be better. The problem is the more the right stir this up the more they risk a counter reaction from the admin (unlikely) or dems in congress (very likely). As I’ve observed below the Republicans woud be best shutting up on this…. it’s not an argument they can win. The Bush/Cheney admin is wrecked the GOP are going ot spend the next year defending it unless they wake up.
48 Tom B // Apr 22, 2009 at 12:55 pm
This just in from the Washingto post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818.html
“Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques “led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.” KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that “information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave.’ ” In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New “
I know you have a tender heart. And can’t believe bad things happen when there is a war going on. That civilians aren’t targets, and when captured the bad guys help the good guys. Works in the movies and the 30 minute sitcoms you watch..
Not the real world people. I know you don’t like and wish it didn’t happen, but then you not really prepared to serve are you? Not prepared to have your children serve are you?
If you child was serving and a captured terrorist was waterboarded to get info on the next roadside bomb. Your rightous indignation would disappear with the sigh of relief. You may not like it but that is the real thing.
49 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 1:00 pm
SDspringy
wrote 2 minutes ago
You’re behind the times springy, this piece by Thiessen who is a former Bush speech writer got demolished yesterday.
50 Tom B // Apr 22, 2009 at 1:01 pm
And to Krove and Dendup alittle history lesson for ya. Which Dem president referred to Stalin as “Uncle Joe”?
Of course all the libs on the east and west coast at the time thought ole “Uncle Joe” was just peachy. So which party loves to cozy up to the Commies. Which party tends to the government control aspect of society?
Come “Uncle Krove” you can let your colors show.
51 cork // Apr 22, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Is there much historical precedent for a tradition peaceful transition of power in countries where it is customary for governments to put their predecessors on trial?
52 Tom B // Apr 22, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Ottovbus it was published yesterday. You must be in a time warp
53 krove // Apr 22, 2009 at 1:09 pm
The Washington post is about as credible as Pravda, and Thiessen about as reliable a source of information as Chemical Ali.
54 Tom B // Apr 22, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Its always so easy to discount those things you don’t want to believe.
Maybe if it came out in the DailyKos you would find it more believable “Uncle Krove”.
55 krove // Apr 22, 2009 at 1:20 pm
I really don’t care if torture gave some useful information, that is not the point. The ends do NOT justify the means.
A law is a law, civilized practice is just that. The fact that they tortured in part to try and obtain some sort of tainted confession that 9′11 and Saddam Hussein were linked says it all really.
So results are an empty argument.
56 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 1:24 pm
“SDspringy
wrote 14 minutes agoOttovbus it was published yesterday. You must be in a time warp”
……I know it was…it was demolished by the end of yesterday!
barker13
wrote 6 minutes agoOtt, the guy’s resume is what it is; note, as I tried to explain to you, whatever you think of his qualifications and/or his opinions, “opinions” are all they are.
…..Except unlike you he’s quoting the statutes….which proved correct because these torture memos were withdrawn so his “opinions” unlike yours were proved correct.
…..And do spare us all the diversions about Pakistan….it’s all irrelevant to this thread.
57 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 1:32 pm
SDspringy
wrote 24 minutes agoAnd to Krove and Dendup alittle history lesson for ya. Which Dem president referred to Stalin as “Uncle Joe”?
Of course all the libs on the east and west coast at the time thought ole “Uncle Joe” was just peachy. So which party loves to cozy up to the Commies. Which party tends to the government control aspect of society?
…The second greatest president, a Democrat, FDR. I guess you didn’t want the Soviet Union as ally against the axis. No doubt you’d have preferred the American and British armies to take the 80% of casualties involved in breaking the Wehrmacht. Of course it was about 10 million men…a small price to pay for cosying up to Uncle Joe I’d say.
58 dendup // Apr 22, 2009 at 1:36 pm
SDspringy: Stalin was evil. It was and is foolish for anyone not to see that. I don’t care what party is involved.
The people who died, were tortured and sent to the Gulag in the Great Purge deserve our respect – not to be the occasion of facile and clever rhetoric.
If you or David want to make your points, fine, just don’t do it at their expense.
59 krove // Apr 22, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I read a great book on the gulag the story of a survivor. It’s called The diary of Vikenty Angarov. Written by Victor Murvin.
I highly recommend it for anyone wishing to learn something about that holocaust from a close personal account. It ain’t pretty.
60 JJWFromME // Apr 22, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Yup, distracting us from the *real* issue of recent torture by making an unrelated, guilt-by-association argument– about something that happened over 60 years ago.
That’s your modern GOP. Thanks for “letting your colors show,” SDspringy.
(Not that we’d need any allies while fighting the Nazis, right? It’s the usual, absolutely ridiculous wingnut stuff.)
61 krove // Apr 22, 2009 at 2:01 pm
From last nights Maddow show.
MADDOW: So you first saw these Office of Legal Counsel memos in 2005. What was your reaction to the legal reasoning in those memos?
ZELIKOW: Many years earlier when I had been a law student and had been a practicing lawyer, I had worked, actually, on issues of treatment of prisoners and that whole body of constitutional law. So when I saw the memoranda, I was struck by the fact that, even aside from the policy problems, the legal reasoning seemed deeply unsound to me, and I wasn’t sure that the president and his advisers understood just how potentially questionable and unreasonable many lawyers and judges would find this reasoning. And so, I thought it was important to just say, hey, there is another view here of this law, and a lot of people would regard the views in these memos as, to say the least, outliers.
MADDOW: So when you say that judges might see it, you suggest judges are one of the audiences that might not be persuaded by the reasoning in these memos, were you thinking ahead to the purpose for which these memos were drafted, which is essentially — I mean, it’s hard for those of us outside of government sometimes to understand what an OLC — what the purpose of an OLC memo is, but essentially to provide a defense in case people were accused of acting illegally in ways that were described in those memos? Is that what you were thinking of?
ZELIKOW: Yes. Rachel, perhaps just a little bit of background, to put this in context for your viewers. America has fought a number of wars in our history, including against unconventional enemies. This was an interrogation program, however, for which there is no precedent in the history of the United States. We’ve never done a program like this before. So where the administration is moving into uncharted waters, they are clearly doing things that folks know are legally questionable. That is why these opinions were requested, because there were questions about whether this sort of conduct was lawful, since it was unprecedented.
So here the Justice Department is coming down and saying, look, this is a murky area of the law, but here’s what we think you’re allowed to do. Now, whether it is a good idea to do it is another question. Whether it is moral is another question. The question before them was, is it lawful to do this? And the Justice Department has the job of giving authoritative guidance for the executive branch on how the U.S. law should be interpreted in the conduct of our actions. (emphasis mine)
62 krove // Apr 22, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Zelikow also wrote about his dissent yesterday at Foreign Policy’s Web site.
Stated in a shorthand way, mainly for the benefit of other specialists who work these issues, my main concerns were:
the case law on the “shocks the conscience” standard for interrogations would proscribe the CIA’s methods;
the OLC memo basically ignored standard 8th Amendment “conditions of confinement” analysis (long incorporated into the 5th amendment as a matter of substantive due process and thus applicable to detentions like these). That case law would regard the conditions of confinement in the CIA facilities as unlawful.
the use of a balancing test to measure constitutional validity (national security gain vs. harm to individuals) is lawful for some techniques, but other kinds of cruel treatment should be barred categorically under U.S. law — whatever the alleged gain.
The underlying absurdity of the administration’s position can be summarized this way. Once you get to a substantive compliance analysis for “cruel, inhuman, and degrading” you get the position that the substantive standard is the same as it is in analogous U.S. constitutional law. So the OLC must argue, in effect, that the methods and the conditions of confinement in the CIA program could constitutionally be inflicted on American citizens in a county jail.
In other words, Americans in any town of this country could constitutionally be hung from the ceiling naked, sleep deprived, water-boarded, and all the rest — if the alleged national security justification was compelling. I did not believe our federal courts could reasonably be expected to agree with such a reading of the Constitution.
63 barker13 // Apr 22, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Re: Ottovbvs; wrote 27 minutes ago –
“…he’s quoting the statutes…”
WHAT statutes…???
WHAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE in WHICH statutes…???
Ott… dude… (*SNORT*)… do you think no one notices that you keep on talking AROUND the specifics rather than simply making your case?
Heck… I’m not even sure what your “case” is anymore! I just went back to re-read YOUR post which started this back and forth over Zelikow and here’s what YOU wrote:
“…decisions taken during the Bush admin which border on if not cross the line of illegality…”
“Border on…???” “…if not cross the line…”
Ott. Set aside for the moment actually PROVING the case that Bush acted illegally and violated legally binding statutes… technically you didn’t even directly accuse him of doing so originally!!!
(*SNORT*) (*CHUCKLE*)
Hey… and where’s some sucking it up coming from you and Tara over “Pakistan’s tacit approval…?”
(*SNORT*)
I blew you two out of the water and… nothing…??? Tsk, tsk, tsk… I expect at the very least a gracious acknowledgement after using CITABLE FACTS to smack you guys around. (*GRIN*) (*WINK*)
Com’on, Ott… com’on Tara… (*CHUCKLE*)
BILL
64 joeofpa // Apr 22, 2009 at 2:17 pm
I think these show trials are an abomination. But the danger of tit-for-tat recriminations under a Republican administration are unfounded. The media wouldn’t let that ever occur. This is a win/win scenario for the Democrats.
65 krove // Apr 22, 2009 at 2:23 pm
What show trials, this is ridiculous. There are no show trials and as yet not even an investigation or a hint of an investigation.
You really need to get a grip on reality.
66 Mike K // Apr 22, 2009 at 2:56 pm
In the 1940s, there was a sure way to identify communists and distinguish them from those who were merely “fellow travelers.” It was the Nazi-Soviet nonaggression pact of 1939 that paved the way for World War II. Following this decision by Stalin, communists rallied to the Nazi cause and ridiculed the position they had taken a few months before. Lillian Hellman’s play “Watch on the Rhine” opened just after the pact was signed and she was besieged by her fellow communists. It was anti-Nazi, you see. She had had the misfortune to write it while Hitler and Stalin were enemies. Once they signed the pact, she was out of sync with her fellow communists.
Two years later, with the invasion of the Soviet Union by Hitler, things changed back in a flash. Forever after, those who were public figures and had expressed opinions were marked, by those who cared and paid attention, by the communists sudden whiplash of opinion about Nazis.
This move by Obama will have a similar effect in that it will mark forever those who choose to persecute, for it is the process, not the verdict that punishes opponents, the other side. If there is some sort of terrorist incident in this country in the next five to ten years, Democrats, at least the far left variety who support this perversion of politics, will never escape the opprobrium, even with the help of the vanishing press.
Be careful how vigorously you defend this travesty if you are a public figure.
67 // Apr 22, 2009 at 3:12 pm
SDspringy:
The claim by Thiessen that the enhanced terrogation techniques used against KSM led to the disruption of a plot to destroy the Library Tower in Los Angeles is completely false. In 2002, the FBI broke up the terrorist plot to destroy the Library Tower. KSM was not captured until March of 2003. Therefore, it would have been impossible for the interrogation of KSM to have helped foil the plot to destroy the Library Tower.
I would be very interested to know if you are objective enough to concede this point, or if you, like most Rebuplican politicians and practically all neo-cons over the past 8 years, are impervious to facts.
68 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 3:57 pm
barker13
2:04 PM
Why don’t you just read Zelikow’s opinion…he refers to several amendments…..did you ever attend comprehension classes?……Despite your immense cleverness apparently not
69 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Mike K
2:56 PM
Obama’s release of the torture memos and his recognition of the legal process in the US equated to the Nazi Soviet non aggression pact. That’s what I Iove about you guys on the far right…..Your sense of proportion.
Spartacus
wrote 45 minutes ago
…..As I pointed out to Springy this little Thiessen fantasy was discredited within hours.
70 Mike K // Apr 22, 2009 at 4:07 pm
“That’s what I Iove about you guys on the far right…..Your sense of proportion.”
Fair enough. It’s what frightens me about you people. Obama destroys what’s left of the CIA after Frank Church got through with them and you want to chase fantasies. Do you plan to prosecute the officers who scheduled thousands of US pilots for SERE training where they were waterboarded ?
71 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 4:08 pm
This is supposed to be a site devoted to talking about how you revive the GOP. These far right guys who think this is going to be assisted by making us the party of torture must be smoking something. Hence we get all the non sequiturs, distractions about Stalin, confused rhetoric. This is a total loser guys. The sooner the GOP walks away from this the better. We’re playing Obama’s game.
72 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Mike K
wrote 1 minutes ago
Total exaggeration. No CIA officers are going to be prosecuted nor any air force officers. You don’t seem to realize the CIA was at war with the Bush admin for most of his presidency. Remember Tenet, Goss and his buddy Dusty Foggo were going to clean up the place. By contrast they seem very comfortable with Obama judging by the reception he got the other day. You need to stop living in the past and move into recent and current times.
73 JJWFromME // Apr 22, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Some people on the right seem to have Tourette’s Syndrome. They can’t say two words about their political opponents without saying “mumb mm STALIN!!1!” and “murmbli HITLER!!1!” like Mike K.
What kind of political dialog does this make for?
This wouldn’t be so bad, if it were just people on the fringes, say, just commenting on conservative blogs. But some of them actually quite frequently give speeches at conservative “think” tanks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqpqQQeSZVY
74 krove // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Now we know why ZELIKOW was all over Maddow last night. His ex boss is in this way up to her neck.
Timeline: Top Bush Officials Approved of Harsh Interrogations as Early as Summer 2002
Condoleezza Rice, John D. Ashcroft and at least 10 other top Bush officials reviewed and approved as early as the summer of 2002 the CIA’s use of harsh interrogation methods on detainees at secret prisons, including waterboarding that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has described as illegal torture, according to a detailed timeline furnished by Holder to the Senate Intelligence Committee….
…At a moment when the Justice Department is deciding whether former officials who set interrogation policy or formulated the legal justifications for it should be investigated for committing crimes, the new timeline lists the members of the Bush administration who were present when the CIA’s director and its general counsel explained exactly which questioning methods were to be used and how those sessions proceeded.
Rice gave a key early approval, when, as Bush’s national security adviser, she met on July 17, 2002, with the CIA’s then-director, George J. Tenet, and “advised that the CIA could proceed with its proposed interrogation of Abu Zubaydah,” subject to approval by the Justice Department, according to the timeline. Rice and four other White House officials had been briefed two months earlier on “alternative interrogation methods, including waterboarding,” it states. Waterboarding is a technique that simulates drowning….
75 tarazeigler // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Woah, nelly! This comment thread went all over the place while I was at work.. Hitler and whatnot. Wow. Interesting stuff.
barker13: Your “cleverness” masks your meaning. Perhaps that is the point. Regardless, I don’t know what you are talking about.
ottovbvs said: “You don’t seem to realize the CIA was at war with the Bush admin for most of his presidency….By contrast they seem very comfortable with Obama judging by the reception he got the other day. You need to stop living in the past and move into recent and current times. “
Excellent point and a big part of why this issue is a loser for the Republicans. The CIA folks in the audience loved Obama; cheered and applauded upon completion of his speech. One would guess that if they felt under attack, the reaction would be slightly more subdued.
Unless Obama goes totally lefty on this issue (which is unlikely), he comes out ahead as long as Cheney is out there giving interviews and politicians are backing him up, Some of the Republicans in power seem to be daring Justice to act on this. That is a mistake, as Ottovbvs has pointed out more eloquently below. (By the way, to any Republicans that think that Cheney is out there doing what is best for the party: You are about to be really disappointed.)
76 PiltdownMan // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:17 pm
This is all red meat for the extreme Left. Even if Holder were inclined to prosecute, it’s not clear exactly how he might go about it. Chris Matthews asked Wasserman-Schultz that question and she said “Let’s not get ahead of ourselves” which means “I haven’t a clue”. I haven’t seen anyone explain which laws were allegedly broken.
But, don’t expect Obama or anyone else to go out of their way to kill the story or dim the hopes of those who have visions of Dick Cheney being carried off to Super Max with his feet “hardly touching the ground”.
77 PiltdownMan // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:20 pm
This is all red meat for the extreme Left. Even if Holder were inclined to prosecute, it’s not clear exactly how he might go about it. Chris Matthews asked Wasserman-Schultz that question and she said “Let’s not get ahead of ourselves” which means “I haven’t a clue”. I haven’t seen anyone explain which laws were allegedly broken.
But, don’t expect Obama or anyone else to go out of their way to kill the story or dim the hopes of those who have visions of Dick Cheney being carried off to Super Max with his feet “hardly touching the ground”.
78 Mike K // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:32 pm
“The CIA folks in the audience loved Obama; cheered and applauded upon completion of his speech. One would guess that if they felt under attack, the reaction would be slightly more subdued.” Yes, I could see where you might think that. After all, the CIA loved Frank Church, right ? Analysts like Valerie Plame ate it up. Covert agents like Bob Baer, not so much. Did you read his first book ? I recommend it along with Reuel Marc Gerecht’s first book.
“ottovbvs
Total exaggeration. No CIA officers are going to be prosecuted nor any air force officers.”
No, just the DoJ lawyers who wrote the legal advice.
” You don’t seem to realize the CIA was at war with the Bush admin for most of his presidency.”
The analysts were but not the agents. Do you know the difference?
“Remember Tenet, Goss and his buddy Dusty Foggo were going to clean up the place. By contrast they seem very comfortable with Obama judging by the reception he got the other day. You need to stop living in the past and move into recent and current times”
Yes, Tenet who was never an agent but a Congressional staffer, was comfortable with Clinton who appointed him. Goss tried to clean it up but Bush caved and left Goss twisting in the wind. Goss had been an agent, unlike Tenet.
When the bomb goes off in New York or DC, the one al Qeada gets from Pakistan, I hope you remember this exchange.
79 tarazeigler // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Mike K said: “When the bomb goes off in New York or DC, the one al Qeada gets from Pakistan, I hope you remember this exchange.”
This is just gross and this is the kind of rhetoric that was rejected in the last election. If Republicans want to keep losing, they will keep repeating lines like this.
80 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Mike K
6:32 PM
I just watched Baer on TV this evening commending Obama’s actions and saying what a waste of time torture is.
Not just the lawyers if they are considered to have condoned illegal conduct but anyone else involved. This is a complicated legal matter so there will have to be a finding of fact.
Analysts and agents, get your facts straight. Bush had to fire Goss because he was screwing up all over the place including lettting go operational people. Obama/Panetta just recalled one of them and made him director of clandestine ops. Foggo just got convicted for corruption.
You seem to forget that 9/11 actually happened when Bush was president and he ignored warnings
81 danbmil99 // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:56 pm
DF: isn’t it obvious that the right wing of the party is making things worse for themselves by constantly bringing forth their tired arguments from “24″ about ticking time bombs? Can’t they be man enough to just say “we made a mistake”?
They are digging their own grave here. The argument has no force, as anyone with an ounce of philosophy or ethics background can see plainly. If waterboarding doesn’t work, why not start snipping off fingers? Surely one terrorst’s fingers (he’s still got 8 or 9) is worth less than thousands of American lives, right?
This playing to the base instincts of the crowd is the death-knell of a party. You can’t blame the Dems for smelling blood and closing in for the kill.
82 danbmil99 // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:58 pm
DF: isn’t it obvious that the right wing of the party is making things worse for themselves by constantly bringing forth their tired arguments from “24″ about ticking time bombs? Can’t they be man enough to just say “we made a mistake; torture is immoral”?
They are digging their own grave here. The Jack Bauer argument has no force, as anyone with an ounce of philosophy or ethics background can see plainly. If waterboarding doesn’t work, why not start snipping off fingers? Surely one terrorst’s finger is worth less than thousands of American lives, right?
This playing to the base instincts of the crowd is the death-knell of the Grand Old Party. You can’t blame the Dems for smelling blood and closing in for the kill. For the most part, you brought it upon yourselves.
83 HHomer // Apr 23, 2009 at 2:34 am
David, if authorising torture is not a serious enough crime to warrant a criminal investiagtion then where do you draw the line?
If Bush officials had given legal cover to state sponsored, rape, or child abuse would an investigation still be playing politics? If they had authorised torture of US citizens on the US mainland would you consider this playing politics? Please tell us where you draw the line.
84 ottovbvs // Apr 23, 2009 at 5:21 am
danbmil99
10:58 PM
My thoughts entirely. There’s no benefit for the GOP going forward in making a big issue of this. They are making themselves the torture and elevating people like Cheney who is totally distrusted and merely serves to remind everyone of the disastrous Bush admin. It is digging your own grave, but the GOP seems to have made a bit of science of this.
85 sinz54 // Apr 23, 2009 at 6:38 am
No! I do NOT agree that torture is inadmissable under all circumstances. Nor do I insist that any means of interrogation greater than gentle questioning is to be regarded as “torture.”
In America, police forces had used something call “the third degree” for many years. If they were pretty sure a suspect had committed a serious crime, they took him down into the basement of the police station and worked him over till he confessed.
In the 1960s, in the Escobedo v. Illinois case, the Supreme Court struck down forced confessions. But that means that we had been using forced confessions regularly in the U.S. in criminal investigations till the 1960s.
86 sinz54 // Apr 23, 2009 at 6:46 am
I have suggested that the real issue here is the arbitrary use of Executive power to decide tricky issues of extreme measures, detention without trial, and (as has been in the news recently) domestic surveillance of political extremists.
When Bush started doing these things way back in 2001-2002, I pleaded with my fellow conservatives to consider how they would feel if a future Democratic President (say Hillary, who conservatives hated back then) would use these measures against suspected right-wing extremists. I got no answer. I was prescient in my concerns, given the recent flap over that Homeland Security memo.
The answer is what our Founding Fathers gave us: Checks and balances. I suggested that extreme measures could be carried out by the Executive Branch, on a case by case basis, only if at least one of the other two branches of government were willing to sign off on that particular case. In our time, that would mean either Chief Justice Roberts or Speaker of the House Pelosi.
That would eliminate the possibility of the Executive Branch abusing its ability to order such measures.
Finally, I think it should be made policy that such measures should be used only as a last-ditch means of interrogation in a specific case. They should never be used for punishment or revenge. (Some folks on RedState.com believe that torture could be used because these terrorists “deserved it.” That is inadmissible in a civilized society.)
87 sinz54 // Apr 23, 2009 at 6:48 am
danbmil99: If there were another large-scale terrorist attack that took place under Obama’s nose, there would be enormous benefit for the GOP. They would look like Churchill in the 1930s, warning against a growing threat while the leadership slept.
Unfortunately, I believe that is what the GOP is counting on. They are sure that Obama’s soft foreign policy is going to invite another large-scale terrorist attack on our shores, and they are setting themselves up to make the most of it.
Exactly how the liberals during the Bush Administration positioned themselves to profit from America’s difficulties in Iraq.
88 Breggers // Apr 23, 2009 at 6:53 am
Yes, the most dangerous decision in the history of the American Republic. Just to clarify, are we going back to 1791, 1787, 1776, or earlier?
89 ottovbvs // Apr 23, 2009 at 7:03 am
“sinz54
wrote 18 minutes agoNo! I do NOT agree that torture is inadmissable under all circumstances.”
…..Ok your in favor of torture….you can’t draw distinctions because there aren’t any.
“Unfortunately, I believe that is what the GOP is counting on. They are sure that Obama’s soft foreign policy is going to invite another large-scale terrorist attack on our shores, and they are setting themselves up to make the most of it.”
…..Indeed they are…..just as they are hoping for economic failure…..And this is supposed to be the patriotic party….the problem is just as they did with the economy they are going to make it too obvious…. They simply have no idea of how exposed they are over this.
90 krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 7:09 am
Here is President Bush’s take on torture.
“I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture…” – Official proclamation by President Bush, June 26, 2003.
So there you have it from the horses mouth. we need to investigate, and prosecute according to President Bush. And he is never wrong. Right.
91 krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 7:40 am
This is the sum total of the information gained from Zubaydah.
This information is contained in the 9/11 commission report. The commission asked for and received all intelligence gained from torture.
So for 86 waterbordings this is all we got!
Full details
here.http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/abu-zubaydah-waterboarded-83-times-for-10-pieces-of-intelligence/
1. “Abu Zubaydah describes his role running the Khaldan and Derunta training camps.”
2. “Abu Zubaydah describes Rahim al-Nashiri’s success as a recruiter.”
3. “AZ describes Bin Laden’s popularity.”
Story continues below
4. “AZ gives tempered description of KSM’s popularity.”
5. “AZ insisted there were no ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.”
6. “AZ claims Bin Laden expanded the scope of KSM’s original plan.”
7. “AZ provides description of the origins of “the Encyclopedia,” a terrorist training manual created during the anti-Soviet campaign.”
8. “AZ provides a description of Bin Laden’s actions after the Cole bombing.”
9. “AZ provides information on Abu Turab, who reportedly conducted the final training for the 9/11 plotters.”
10. “AZ provides a comment on whether Saudis were selected for the 9/11 plot specifically.”
92 sinz54 // Apr 23, 2009 at 7:58 am
Breggers: Those who are moaning and hand-wringing over Bush’s measures forgot that in World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt signed an Executive Order consigning 100,000 innocent Japanese-Americans to detention camps for the duration of the war. None of them was ever convicted of any crimes. Even FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, no civil libertarian he, protested this action. Yet *nobody* at the time said that America was “lowering herself to the level of the Nazis.” We knew that despite detention camps, despite executing German saboteurs without trial, despite Dresden, despite Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we were still much, much morally superior to our enemies. And because we won the war, we control the judgment of history.
The difference, of course, is that America’s participation in World War II lasted less than 4 years. Whereas Bush seems to have let America drift into a state of perpetual war, with no hope of putting al-Qaeda out of business, yet obviously unable to surrender to them either. Perpetual war means a state of perpetual hemorrhage of morality. And that, in the long run, could doom a democratic society like America.
93 barker13 // Apr 23, 2009 at 10:07 am
Wow… more posts mysteriously “disappeared” from the thread.
I thought Pinochet was dead…?!?!
(*SMIRK*)
BILL
94 LJS // Apr 25, 2009 at 10:45 am
FOX News had this information.
Gen. David Petraeus, along with a number of other high ranking military officials, believe all the pictures related to allegations of detainee abuse should be released — a number that would total in the thousands — a senior defense official close to the U.S. military commander told FOX News.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/25/source-petraeus-wants-release-photos-showing-detainee-treatment/
You must log in to post a comment.