The President and The Torture Investigation

Isn’t it Congress that should lead the investigation? One would think and hope so.They lead the lead on Clinton and Nixon. It would be such a shame if Bush & Co. missed their date with them.

Whether or not Obama ultimately decides to openly support and investigation misses the point, which that he is constitutionally obligated to support theinvestigation and prosecution of war crimes. He took an oath to protect and defent the Constitution, against which crimes have been committed. It shouldn’t be a question of political expediency, but of doing the right thing, which is exactly the same case to be made against torture.

A seated president’s responsibility is to Protect and Defend the Constituion in real time, during his own administration’s stewardship of that founding document; President Obama has no constitutional obligation to prosecute past offenses against it. Bush swore the same oath, and failed miserably. Let the Justice Department take the lead, that’s where criminal investigations belong.

i agree with everything youve said here.however…i really wish the whitehouse would have come forth with a much more clear and concise message from the beginning.the pres’ stance has been thoroughly muddled,leaving him open as an easy target for the “torture is cool and necessary” types.i would have loved to hear from the beginning something to the effect of “we dont intend to politicize our justice dept.this will be the decision of eric holder and holder alone can answer all questions regarding this issue”that way,even though the wingnuts would still have thrown a fit,the more they huffed and puffed and stomped their feet,the more foolish they would appear.i think the best move from here on out is for the pres. to say as little as possible until some discernable progress has been made.

Maybe the adults in the DOJ could act like adults and do their jobs again. Wouldn’t that be cool?One thing Obama has to do is reestablish the fact, to the American people, that there are 3 equal branches of government again not a dictatorship.Investigating torture is in the realm of the DOJ and Congress. The DoJ needs to prove is it no longer a political tool to anyone that comes along. Congress needs to prove it can handle responsibility again.Republicans did a lot of damage with their submissive lazy ways.

I want Congress to do it. I want public hearings with questions asked by committee counsel to forestall endless political bullshit. This needs a full PUBLIC airing – the truth must come out and that will not happen with a DoJ investigation.Nowhere near the same amount of information will be released and broadcast thru prosecutions & trials as will thru congressional hearings – and people will have access to witness statements & video thru C-SPAN, which are not available from federal courts. Rumor will trump fact, bullshit will become fact, anything repeated more than 3 times will become fact. Think Watergate – minus the congressional hearings we wouldn’t know much about what went on at all. And a lot of people who DID go to jail probably wouldn’t have because of deals to get info.There’s no way, IMO, that this country can move forward with unity and a sense of moral purpose without ALL of this offal exposed and dealt with. It has to be done PUBLICLY if we are ever to heal.

It’s the DOJ and Congress’ job to do this. Problem is, how long will Holder last in his job if he decides to investigate and/or prosecute? And of course puppy dog Reid does whatever Obama tells him to do even though it’s not really Obama’s call. Pelosi is the best bet although I hope she doesn’t cave into the pressure by Reid and Obama not to investigate. And of course we’ll all have to endure months of rethugs screeching on TV. I only have one thing to say about that:WE FRIGGIN’ WON. YOU. LOST. Now if Obama will stop playing patty cake with these asses, we’d be in better shape. He thinks he needs the rethugs to push his agenda through. MEMO TO OBAMA- They’re not gonna vote for anything you put up.

ceu,There’s no way, IMO, that this country can move forward with unity and a sense of moral purpose without ALL of this offal exposed and dealt with. It has to be done PUBLICLY if we are ever to heal.yup. And the “closure” 62% of this country wants is the slamming shut of some jail doors.

There’s a difference between “not taking the lead” or “staying above it all”, and “publicly oppos(ing) an investigation”.In fact, I would say that “staying above it all” and “opposing an investigation” are opposing actions.If Obama wants to stay out of the way on this one… fine, whatever.

“In its first filing on detention and torture under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice filed briefs in March urging the Court of Appeals to reject any constitutional or statutory rights for detainees,” says a release. “The Obama Justice Department further argued that even if such rights were recognized, the Court should rule that the previous administration’s officials who ordered and approved torture and abuse of the plaintiffs should be immune from liability for their actions.”

This is not staying above it all.This is actively arguing against prosecution.Link to the story quoted above:http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Appeals_court_rules_Gitmo_detainees_are_0424.html

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, I return, again and again, to Ford’s pardon of Nixon. It, along with Nixon’s resignation, is one of the formative memories of my life, and it shapes my opinion of what will and won’t happen. Bush is most certainly not going to be indicted, convicted, or any other kind of thing, in my opinion, because Bush is a former president. For whatever the reasons, Presidents don’t attack former presidents. Even the difference in disposition between Bush and Cheney toward Obama is reflective of this reality. Bush was a president, Cheney not – and so Bush is being respectful of the sitting president, Cheney, not.Given that that is my expectation, in the best of all possible worlds, I would love to see AJ Holder indict everyone who had a hand in these decisions, I’d like to see Obama formally pardon Bush, and let the rest of the chips fall where they may.As to those who acted in good faith, I’ve posted on my own blog about this http://obamaproject.windonwater.net/2009/04/why-protect-cia-interrogators/Long and short – we don’t have any precedent for this. The german and the japanese precedents don’t help – because in both cases, we actively dismantled their militaries, and then moved in to protect and rebuild. So sure, we could have a zero tolerance nuremburg process. In our case, dismantling our intelligence apparatus to hold torturers accountable just isn’t going to cut it. We aren’t going to dismantle our intelligence operations, and it would be incredibly destabilizing for the entire world for us to do so. So – the best we can do is let those who acted in “good faith” alone, and let those who created the circumstances hang.QT

…I’d like to see Obama formally pardon Bush…

I’m curious.Why?

2 reasons:1. I expect it, and so I’d rather we just got it out of the way. I think this is an “Office of the Presidency” thing, as opposed to a personality thing, but in any case, Bush has already demonstrated his determination to respect the office. Whatever his failings, that one saves his hide, in my opinion.2. I think there’s a very good case to be made that Bush wasn’t the ringleader of these decisions. I honestly hope one day we get a Bush library and a full accounting of the relationship of Bush the younger and his vp, Cheney. Among other things, the Scooter Libby deal reflects heavily on my mind. It looks very much like a president who persistently had his hands tied behind his back by his vice president. Of course the president is the president – but being a failed president is not a crime – if the real blame belongs with the vice president, I’d like the record to reflect that.QT

Here’s a WTF momentArticle is titled Appeals court rules Gitmo detainees are not ‘persons’ and includes this:In its first filing on detention and torture under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice filed briefs in March urging the Court of Appeals to reject any constitutional or statutory rights for detainees. The Obama Justice Department further argued that even if such rights were recognized, the Court should rule that the previous administration’s officials who ordered and approved torture and abuse of the plaintiffs should be immune from liability for their actions.WTF?

WTF, indeed………….I really don’t know where they’re going with this……..

QT…Point one doesn’t resonate with me at all. You don’t excuse law-breakers because they’re respectful, well mannered lawbreakers. Comity does not trump accountability.Point two…Okay, I’ll give you point two. I agree that it’s more important to see the people mainly / directly responsible prosecuted, than go after Bush simply because he’s at the top of the chain of command.

ceu -I seldom disagree with you but in this case I must.Firstly. Trials are in the public record. Anyone may obtain transcripts of every minute of any trial that does not have ‘in camera’ proceedings. Judges do not like ‘sealed’ trial documents and generally minimize the amount. The fact that not all trials are televised is a different matter.A congressional investigation may have the advantage of of being on my TeeVee, but the wrong wing will scream “partisan witch hunt” until Teh Hell™ freezes over.In my opinion, this requires a special prosecutor. Special Prosecutors are required to report their findings in a public document that you can download as a PDF. I still have Ken Starr’s abortion of legal mumbo jumbo as a pdf somewhere on a harddrive.Diane -Watergate and Whitewater/BlowJob were both a special prosecutor that did the original investigation and legal groundwork.The Watergate Special Prosecutor (SP) was fired by the AG for insisting that Nixon turn over the audio tapes that the SP subpoenaed. The AG resigned because firing a SP is not done. The next AG also resigned minutes after being given the job as acting AG for the same reason. The next acting AG also resigned. Finally, Robert Bork was named acting AG and he fired the SP. This is known as the Saturday Night Massacre. Congress got involved because it was apparent that Nixon had politicized the DoJ and that the DoJ could not be trusted to do the job correctly. Robert Bork was denied confirmation to the SCOTUS because he had demonstrated that he was willing to ignore law for politically motivated reasons. He would have been a terrible Justice.Whitewater/BlowJob was an investigation that went on for years run by a SP named Kenneth Starr. Congress only got involved when Kenny boy’s report recommended impeachment. What you saw the congress doing was an impeachment over oral sex.We have war crimes as well as a very long list of criminal activity engaged in by the Bush White House. The politicization of the DoJ under Bush was far more extreme than under Nixon.If we don’t start punishing people that use the constitution as a door mat, it will only be worse the next time these fascist criminals occupy the white house.

MatthewN:

QT…Point one doesn’t resonate with me at all. You don’t excuse law-breakers because they’re respectful, well mannered lawbreakers. Comity does not trump accountability.

If that had been my position, I’d concede it was a dumb one… Of course, that’s not my position at all.As I stated in the first place – I believe this is an “office of the presidency” thing. If the AJ goes after the president, I won’t be surprised if Obama intervenes and pardons Bush. I expect it because it’s just what presidents do – in respect for the office of the presidency. I’d be resentful of it if Bush were not behaving like a president, but he is. He was good about the transition, and his public posture toward his successor is appropriate – in short, he’s demonstrating that he’s still a part of the institution, and not all out for self. I’m therefore not only not opposed to the proposed pardon, I’d like it to be done with, so that we can get on with the more pressing issues of who really was responsible.I think there’s a tendency on the left to forget that a conservative mindset is just what it sounds like – conservative – in the sense of preserving institutions. That liberal mindsets are all about shaking up established norms is all well and good, but conservatives are the opposite of that… and a lot of wasted energy is going into worrying about the image of the presidency from a conservative viewpoint. Remove that obstacle, and we might get a lot more willingness to deal with this issue.QT

Silly: I have to intervene somewhat. It’s entirely unfair to state that the president was impeached over a blowjob. He was impeached over perjury – a very serious crime. Why the blowjob became such a focus of the SP is one which liberals love to frame as “a blowjob” but in fact, it was a very typical conservative mindset concern – the utter lack of respect for the Office of the Presidency. A young intern giving blow jobs to the president in the oval office is problematic for this reason (not to mention that Bill came into office with a string of scandals in tow).I only mention that part to reinforce my wish to see a presidential pardon for Bush over the torture issue. The office of the presidency has some deep meaning for Americans, and perhaps conservatives take it to the extreme, but I suspect most liberals feel some degree of angst over the office being sullied as well. Indeed – I’m sure of it. Some of people’s appreciation of Barack Obama is for the dignity he brings to the office.QT

Thank you, Bob!

I expect it because it’s just what presidents do – in respect for the office of the presidency.

And thusly demonstrate their total disregard for law.It’s been done twice. Once by Ford (And I’ve never forgiven him for that), and once by George H.W. Bush. It was wrong both of those times. If we are to continue to believe that the president is above the law as Nixon suggested, then we might as well burn the constitution and all of the law books because we then live in a lawless society.THE POTUS IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW. Read the Constitution and tell me where it says that he is. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.It’s time that we acted like a lawful society and hold out leaders to their oath instead of allowing them to sleaze away. I’m tired of feeling like I’m living in a banana republic where der furher can do whatever he damn well pleases. Aren’t you people fucking sick and tired of this shit yet?QT -Fuck perjury. A gentleman never divulges anything about what he does with a woman in private. A gentleman is expected to lie under such circumstances in order to protect the lady’s honor. If he had divulged what went on between him and Monica, the wrong wing would have been screaming “He’s no Gentleman, He’s no Gentleman.” Since he was a gentleman, the shouted “Perjury, Perjury.” He was set up in a no win situation over oral sex because they could find nothing else to pin on him after an investigation that went on for five years.Looks like they sucked you into their scam as well.

Trials are in the public record. Anyone may obtain transcripts of every minute of any trial that does not have ‘in camera’ proceedingsthe trial may be public record, but the transcripts, at least in state courts, are not public property. They are owned by the stenographers and the public has to pay to have copies. [I know this from being involved in trying to get transcripts for a highly publicized trial which was not televised - the price for the transcripts was in the thousands of dollars]I firmly believe that if the DoJ, not Congress, had investigated Watergate, the American people would never have known that there was a taping system in the WH (via Alexander Butterfield – who would not have been a witness in a criminal trial) or that Dean had warned Nixon that there was a cancer on the presidency. Compare what came out about Watergate & the Iran-Contra Affair with what came out from the Scooter Libby trial.Nevermind…there is no comparison.There are going to be cries of “partisan witch hunt” no matter who does the investigation, but if it’s Congress, we, the people, will see & hear the evidence. We have that right & that obligation. This ugliness will not be cleansed without the disinfectant of public airing. And it must be cleansed or we can never move on or hope that it won’t be repeated by a future administration.

ceu -Yes, getting transcripts is costly. The internet makes this easier to spread the cost out over all of the interested readers. I’ll point to Groklaw, which obtained every transcript, brief, memorandum, and filing for the SCO v. IBM, SCO v. Novel, and SCO v. Autozone cases. All of these documents are available both as pdf, and as html at Groklaw. They spent thousands obtaining all of the documents but thousands of people contributed. If cases that only interest technogeeks such as myself can do it, I don’t see why something with a much broader interest base can’t.I thought the special prosecutor that was fired made the fact that audio tapes existed of everything said in the oval office. He was fired because he refused to allow Nixon to refuse to turn them over.

Butterfield is the one who told the committee and, hence, the American people that the tapes & taping system existed. Judge John Sirica ordered the tapes be turned over to the committee. Nixon said he’d let someone listen to them or have transcripts made of the relevant parts of the tapes. Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor, said it wouldn’t comply with the judge’s order. Nixon ordered Elliot Richardson, the Attorney General, to fire Cox. Richardson refused & resigned. Then Nixon ordered William Ruckelshouse (sp??) to fire Cox. Ruckelshouse also refused and resigned, which left the firing of Cox to none other than Robert Bork (he of “Borked on the way to the Supreme Court” fame).Without Butterfield confirming John Dean’s suspicions about conversations in the WH being taped, none of that or what followed would have come out. It is doubtful that Butterfield would have been called as a witness in any criminal proceeding since he was not implicated in any way with the doings of Watergate. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that John Dean would have been called as a witness since he was counsel to the president at the time & in a court would have claimed attorney-client privilege.In the case of Watergate, congressional hearings accomplished what never would have happened if the investigation had been solely the purview of the DoJ. I’m NOT saying that I don’t think that Justice should investigate – it definitely should! And it should prosecute any/everyone implicated. But I firmly believed, having lived thru this shit, that much more info will come out from hearings than from trials.addendum on the transcripts question – the transcripts we tried to get were copyrighted by the stenographer and we were prohibited from making them public.

“Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men, is now for Congress, and ultimately, the American people, to decide.” – Archibald Cox, 1974 (after being fired as Special Prosecutor at Richard Nixon’s insistence)

Thank you Chris. Your summary of events is correct.We both want justice and I do agree that the information must be available far and wide to all and sundry.I do not want them to sleaze away from this. I plan to keep the pressure up and I know that you will too.QT -I also have never heard a description of what the legal basis of the questioning that led to the perjury charge was. What law was he supposed to have broken by receiving blowjobs from an intern that was above the age of consent? Why was he being interrogated about this?The questions he lied about had no legal basis for being asked. What king of despicable pervert asks questions like that? The whole thing was a politically motivated farce.I had two young daughters at that time. One nine years old and the other twelve. I went for a year and a half not being able to watch the evening news because it was about blowjobs every night. So much for the republicans being the party of family values.

Silly: I find it amusing that you support one law bending case over another. So we all have our traditions we believe it best to uphold.In any event, I stop here. I dislike Bill enough that I am not impartial in my opinions.QT

I think Obama is playing this one smart. He’ll let the pot boil enough until the demands for a special prosecutor are too loud for anyone, left or right, to ignore. Then, he’ll “reluctantly” agree to having one appointed. I know that won’t stop the paid propagandists from screaming “witch hunt” over it, but by then, nobody should be listening to them. In the meantime, the memos are just fuel for the fire.Having said that, we are never going to see Bush do a perp walk in an orange jumpsuit. No president wants to be the one who sets the precedent that a president can be criminally charged for decisions made while in office. We may see some lower level officials falling on their swords. Maybe (and this is a big maybe) Cheney will be one of them.

DC-I am crossing all of my fingers and toes for Cheney to fall and shoot himself in the face or something

Be careful what you wish for…

As others have pointed out, Obama isn’t just sitting it out but actually opposing a prosecution. Prosecution doesn’t mean crassly throwing people in he slammer. It just means investigation. That hinges on whether a crime was committed. If waterboarding alone isn’t torture, then we’ve got some apologizing to do to some Japanese families. If waterboarding is torture, then a crime was committed, and ignoring it amounts to ignoring a crime that is ordinarily punishable by death. Imagine the police discovering a cold blooded murder and deciding it’s not worth the political capital to even look into it. Or imagine if one of us simply grabbed a man off the street and tortured him on the off chance that he was a terrorist. The only difference here is that the prime suspects are powerful, and the opposition is essentially saying that some people are above the law.As far as partisan backlash goes, Obama just started his new job, and the right is already talking about starting a civil war. Does anyone think Obama will win points if he pardons Bush? Are we going to get that in writing?