Who will defend the Bush administration’s decision to abandon the Geneva conventions, torture people, and spy on Americans without warrants? With a new Senate Armed Services report out that points the finger for these abuses squarely at the highest officials, the only question is: “what are we gonna do about it?” Are we going to have the Justice Department launch an investigation into these decisions? Are they going to ignore or quash individual cases of prisoner abuse and warrantless surveillance? Is there going to be some kind of bipartisan commission to look into all of this? How can we address these issues responsibly, because sweeping them under the rug is not a responsible option.
I know what I would prefer. I would treat all of Washington DC as a crime scene, and I would initiate a justice-based Reign of Terror down on anyone that broke any significant law during the Bush years. I would get to the bottom of their criminality on everything from the torture and illegal spying, to perjury and obstruction of Congress, to corruption in the Pentagon, CIA, and Interior Department. I’d seriously consider a few Hatch Act prosecutions, just to send a message. But I know that I’m not going to get what I want. I know that, but what concerns me is that I will get nothing of what I want. The people that did this to our country will walk, free to run for high office again, free to serve in future administrations. That’s my fear.
Yet, how can Washington avoid bringing a measure of justice? Can they just ignore the conclusions of the Armed Services committee?
Most Americans have long known that the horrors of Abu Ghraib were not the work of a few low-ranking sociopaths. All but President Bush’s most unquestioning supporters recognized the chain of unprincipled decisions that led to the abuse, torture and death in prisons run by the American military and intelligence services.
Now, a bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his legal counsel, William J. Haynes; and potentially other top officials, including the former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.
The report shows how actions by these men “led directly” to what happened at Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret C.I.A. prisons.
It said these top officials, charged with defending the Constitution and America’s standing in the world, methodically introduced interrogation practices based on illegal tortures devised by Chinese agents during the Korean War. Until the Bush administration, their only use in the United States was to train soldiers to resist what might be done to them if they were captured by a lawless enemy.
The officials then issued legally and morally bankrupt documents to justify their actions, starting with a presidential order saying that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to prisoners of the “war on terror” — the first time any democratic nation had unilaterally reinterpreted the conventions.
Armed Services chairman Carl Levin told Rachael Maddow last night that ‘you can’t just make something illegal legal by merely getting some lawyer to say it’s legal.’ And that’s unambiguously true, unless those lawyers work in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Historically, decisions coming out of the OLC are considered authoritative, to the point of near-immunizing those that follow their guidance. But what if they say it’s legal to murder people, so long as you observe them breaking the law? How about saying it’s legal to torture people so long as you have a reason to suspect they mean you harm? Can any citizen do this, or just those in the government’s employ? Can the mailman torture drug-dealers on his route?
In any case, there needs to be a full accounting of what was done. If we can have that, I don’t foresee too many people will be willing to defend these criminals. We may want to move on, but part of moving on is ending the strained defenses of this administration too.
There is no Senator Church right now. No one has the balls or the stomach for this in the Democratic party.
I saw a glimmer of hope in the statements made by Carl Levin last night.
I also have a lot of respect for Rush Holt, if not for many of the other members of the House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel he chairs. I know House Judiciary chair John Conyers is ready to go if he can ever get the go ahead. I have no faith in incoming Senate Intelligence chair Diane Feinstein. I have more faith in Senate Judiciary chair Pat Leahy.
But, I don’t think the impetus for this should come from Congress. It should come from the administration and it should use the Justice Department. The Bush Justice Department, as compromised as it was, prosecuted a lot of lawmakers (almost all Republicans) so I see no reason why the Obama Justice Department need let up on corruption charges. But the big decision is whether to treat the big ‘security-related’ crimes as crimes, or to just document them and pass new guidelines clarifying and strengthening the law.
.
The New Yorker by Seymour Hersch – How Antonio Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal, became one of its casualties.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."No.
Your naievete is showing once again, Booman.
So is Carl Levin’s, if of course he really believes that statement to be true after serving in the United States Senate for 30 years. Perhaps he is just blowing political wind. More than likely, actually.
How do you people think that things are made “legal” or “illegal” in the first place?
Some lawyer…some group of lawyers, all lock, stock and barrel-owned by the same corporate interests that fund almost the entire political process here including the opinion manufacturing process…says that it is legal or illegal. And then some other lawyers…and/or judges (A lawyer by any other name still smells as foul.)…agree. Or disagree, at which point a wrangle ensues and the lawyers with the most power…with access to the deepest pocketbooks… win.
The basic process is the same. It’s just a little more…efficient…when it’s done the decider way.
What?
Did they just wake up to the way things have been going down for eight years?
For over 50 years?
Of couyrse…he was deposed.
Succeeded eventually by that squeaky clean politician, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Notice that he wasn’t in Dealy Plaza that day in 1963.
Please.
Every once in a while this system of overt and covert Presidential fiat doesn’t work out so well, and then some bespectacled long term cop-out Senator like Carl “Oh, you Armed Services guys want money? SURE!!!” Levin so heroically stands up and spouts this kind if idiocy.
And what the fuck is going on at MSNBC, by the way?
Maddow and Olbermann are a simpering, posturing slightly less obsessively heterosexual liberal version of O’Reailly and Hannity, nothing more.
Really.
This whole Blagojevich thing?
I mean…he may be a dishonest prick, but I thought that in the U.S. one was supposed to be innocent until proven guilty?
These two?
They pose and posture and make cutesy faces and sounds…they have much more sheer broadcasting talent than the Fox News assholes, I will freely admit…BUT THE CONTENTS OF THEIR SPIEL IS JUST AS EMPTY OF ANY FORM OF JUSTICE AND JUST AS FULL OF POLITICALLY-DRIVEN EXPEDIENCY AS IS THAT OFTHEIR SO-CALLED “ENEMIES”.
Lord, Booman!!!
Wake the fuck up.
In this case, fighting fire with fire…fighting disinformation and dishonesty with more disinformation and dishonesty, no matter how well it is presented…simply prolongs the root problem.
Disgusting.
Later…
AG
Please.
Actually, I thought I was touching on your point when I said that when the OLC says it’s not a crime then it’s not a crime (a variation, but a more sound one, on Nixon’s theme).
On the other hand, when the Justice Department (or the president, or Congress, or a judge) says something is illegal, then it’s illegal unless and until someone more powerful trumps their position).
What is not the case is that some lawyer can walk into court and tell the judge and jury that a crime is not a crime and have it be accepted at face value. They will argue that, and it will be accepted or not.
Now, they are statutory crimes and then there is the Constitution. And when it comes to fucking with the Constitution by blatantly ignoring the fourth and six amendments, or blowing off ratified treaties, then there is at least a baseline for restoring the rule of law. For seven years the Bush administration acted as if the Constitution didn’t apply, so it didn’t. All you have to do is say that Constitution applies again and then a bunch of what they did ‘legally’ is not retrospectively ‘illegal’. You make the decision to do this, or you don’t.
But, either way, if you are siding with the plain language of the Constitution, then you’re on the more solid footing. If you’re trying to spin away the plain language (or find implied rights) you open yourself up for reversal at a later time (see Roe v. Wade for an example of a ruling that is under perpetual risk of reversal because it relies on implied, rather than plain language, rights).
And LBJ was in Dealey Plaza.
Hmmm…
Thank you for that information, Booman.
Somehow for all of these years I have carried a picture of LBJ being informed of the shooting by phone.
The tricks of memory.
The story of how history is really built.
Whoever manages to plant the most images in the minds of people…that’s history, folks!
So it goes.
Thanks again…
AG
Argued very eloquently, as always, BooMan. I have just one question. Are we a nation of laws or not? If we are, then, our course should be clear: investigate and bring criminal charges against all who are indicted. If no one is indicted, no problem. If no investigation, then, we have a major problem. We are colossal hypocrites and our democratic leadership stands convicted of criminal failure.
Why would any of our friends and allies pay any attention to us when we can’t back up our words with our deeds? What a truly sad pass that would be.
What’s really at issue is a legal concept called ‘discretion’. Prosecutors make a decision not to prosecute crimes all the time. Most of the time, they are making perfectly ethical, sound decisions. Judges use discretion when deciding a sentence, or running a trial, or in deciding whether to hear an appeal. Discretion is an important part of the law.
We have layered reasons for wanting justice. There are criminals that should never be entrusted with high office again. There are victims crying out for justice. There’s the message we send by prosecuting or failing to prosecute. There is the issue of deterrence. But there are things to weigh on the other side. How far to go? How high to go? How will Republicans respond? How will their reaction impact negatively on the vital legislation goals of the administration? Can we afford a divisive fight that keeps the partisan toxins boiling at a time like this? If we must do something, what is the right balance?
Finally, there is another factor involved here. Obama can make a leadership decision on what he wants the Justice Department to do and what he wants Congress to do. But he can’t stop the victims from using the courts to try to get justice. The court cases have a momentum all their own, and I watched one such case recently on CSPAN. It was the 2nd District court of appeals, and they were hearing the government appeal a case they lost related to the extraordinary rendition of a Canadian citizen to Syria. The government was arguing that even though the guy was tortured and torture is clearly against the Constitution, that the Constitution isn’t exportable, so no one can be held accountable for a crime carried out in Syria, by Syrians.
The judges appeared to be somewhere between appalled and disgusted by this argument, and I doubt their ruling will be favorable to the government. However, would Obama’s DOJ even make that case in court? I doubt it.
In other words, it isn’t so easy to sweep this stuff under the rug, even if that is your inclination.
However, would Obama’s DOJ even make that case in court? I doubt it.
The Obama DOJ may CHOOSE not to appeal. That’s the key.
But if they chose to appeal, I bet they would make the argument even if it was only a part of their brief that they thought it was a loser. Because you make all the arguments that exist and you let the court decide. Maybe it is the ONLY argument there is. I haven’t read the govt. brief in this case.
Truthfully, I’d rather have the govt. lawyers make every possible argument in this case and see all of them shot down by the appellate court and see the appellate court ruling upheld by the supremes than for them to leave out an argument and leave the door open for later administrations to use an arguable gap in the law.
I don’t think all those carbs for Santa is a good idea.
Anyone ever think, W needed a war to last long enough for the Oil Companies to get their contracts in Iraq. (Conspiracy Theory). We all know there was no WMD and with enough troops Iraq would be silenced in 6 months. So less troops, chaos..shock doctrine..,an insurgency started in Abu Ghraib. And six years later were still in Iraq.
Besides the point, I think there will either be a great number of pardons by W or a great number indictments,maybe a few transfers to the Hague.
The torturers will be fine. As we know, Bush got a new crib in Big D. He’ll be sleeping soundly there for many, many years.
Together, the knuckle draggers (“Kill evil. Me safe because of Bush. Obama born where?”) and kumbaya types (“Partisan we must not be. Big problems we have. Focus on solutions moving forward we must.”) comprise a solid electoral majority that will sweep out of office anyone who carries out the long, uncomfortable task of upholding the rule of law. And history dictates that the American public tend to not care about crimes committed abroad under the flag of our protection. So, those in Washington will merely follow the will of the people, in true democratic fashion.
Thank you for your very well-articulated and obviously heartfelt statement. You have made very clear your revulsion over the actions of the Bush Administration and your wish to see them be held accountable.
I must take issue, though, with the stunningly self-centered statement that “The people that did this to our country will walk, free to run for high office again, free to serve in future administrations.”
WTF?!! The “people who did this to your country?!!! Even when it is about committing crimes against people in and from other countries the REAL victims are YOU?!!! Do you have any idea how that sounds to anyone who has any connection at all outside American society, and in particular those who are members of the societies that have been recipients of the treatment you so abhor?! And do you have any idea how deep and pervasive is American exceptionalism when it is so deeply integrated into the minds of progressives in your country that they make statements such as the one you just made – that is, when in your mind your country is the true victim of your government’s torture policies?
Your statement about what those people “did you to your country” is proof of just how deeply embedded American exceptionalism is in American society. This needs to change before there will be any significant change in American foreign policy.