Justice Run Amok
But Shelby’s line of inquiry isn’t limited to the Byee and Yoo investigation. Like Sen. Jeff Sessions (who has yet to receive a response to his inquiry), he wants to know if Holder believes that “the president has the legal authority to bring terrorists, former terrorists or anyone who has received terrorist training into the United States and release them into our communities.” And he would like “a copy of that authority.” Once again, Republicans want to know on what basis the Justice Department is going to maneuver around federal law preventing release into the U.S. of those detainees (such as the Uighurs) who had received terrorist training. The president isn’t going to simply wave his hand and claim he’s exempt from following a federal statute, is he? (And of course, Congress has now complicated matters by refusing to fund the detainees’ relocation to the U.S. without at the very least seeing what the administration’s plan looks like.)
And Shelby is not alone in his grilling of Holder. Holder has also come under attack from House Republicans who, in some well-crafted questioning at a recent hearing, went after Holder’s notion that any Bush-era officials can be prosecuted for “torture” absent a showing of “specific intent” — that is, a showing that those administering the interrogation methods had the intent of inflicting severe pain (a standard the Justice Department itself employed in a recent Sixth Circuit case.) The lead prosecutor of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing case, Andy McCarthy, sums up:
The bottom line is, Rep. Lungren skillfully steered Attorney General Holder into the truth: As a matter of law, CIA waterboarding — like the same waterboarding actions featured in Navy SEALs training — cannot be torture because there is no intention to inflict severe mental or physical pain; the exercise is done for a different purpose. When Rep. Gohmert’s questioning made it crystal clear that Holder’s simplistic “waterboarding is torture” pronouncement was wrong, the attorney general — rather than admitting error — tried to change the legal definition of torture in a manner that contradicted a position the Justice Department had just urged on the federal courts. It seems that, for this attorney general, there is one torture standard for Bush administration officials, and another one for everybody else.
All of this suggests that the Obama Justice Department is on shaky legal ground, unprepared it seems to substantiate its legal positions on hot button issues. At the very least the new administration’s promised effort to “depoliticize” the Justice Department is under severe scrutiny. Whether on the administration’s decision to prosecute a prior administration’s lawyers or to release Guantanamo prisoners, Republicans suspect, with good reason, that the Justice Department lawyers are not so much interested in applying the law with exactitude but in extracting a pound of flesh to satisfy the administration’s netroot base. And they intend to force Obama’s Justice Department, part of the most “transparent administration in history,” to explain and justify its behavior.
Moreover, by their line of questioning the Republicans hope to provoke, if nothing else, some concern among the current crop of Justice Department lawyers. What sort of precedent do they want to set and could they in the future be caught in the web of recrimination which they may be setting in motion?
We already know that the advice of the Justice Department with regard to release of the detainee abuse photos has been rejected by cooler heads in the White House. Perhaps those same officials who recognized the danger and unsoundness of the lawyers’ advice to release inflammatory photos will exercise some greater supervision of the Justice Department’s work on the Bybee-Yoo investigation and other matters. From Holder’s responses on Capitol Hill and the performance of the Justice Department to date, it seems the Holder Justice Department is badly in need of some strict oversight.
“And their queries may have the effect of rallying public opinion”
It will rally mostly those already wary of the Barack Obama administration. And that is still worth something. The others could care less. Obama’s support is comprised of secular, self-hating American leftists and people who cannot read the sports section of their local newspaper. The rest of us probably represent only a slight majority of the voting public. This means we must redouble our efforts if we are to save the country. Educating and encouraging each other is of paramount importance.
As Roger Kimball has pointed out elsewhere on PJM, this administration does not believe in a republican form of government, based on the rule of law, where those rules apply to everyone. They haven’t quite gotten their “brown shirts” set-up, but seem to be working hard on it.
So when the witch hunts actually begin, and all public servants are evaluated for political trust-worthiness, who will actually be enforcing real law, who will have the courage to do the right thing when it needs be done?
“Eric Holder is on the hot seat”:
The Bush legacy.
Congressional heros like Sen shelby and Sessions are beginning to fight back. They are playing out of the liberal playbook. Start up as many brush firs as possible to mire down the blitzzkrieg of the liberals. What Governor Perry and the other herioic state governors are doing s the same.
As holder and the administration get caught up in explaining themselves, the people will begin to see all of this for what it is and the people will begin to vote in real AMericans. as Rudyard Kipling said in his wonderful poem “IF” HOLD ON my friends, the conservative, small government revolution is beginning.
Rendition….oh Eric how could you! Why you two-faced lying SOB…you monster you! I’m never going to speak to you again.
Sincerely,
Norman Hsu
Excellent article, Ms Rubin. The seriousness of this outrage cannot be overstated.
What you are describing is fascism: Depriving opponents of freedom of thought. Prosecuting lawyers for giving opinions – that you yourself are using in a contemporaneous case – so that you can vilify the Bush Admininstation. T
This is a grotesque abuse of power.
I would add that the head of the base referred to…
the Justice Department lawyers are not so much interested in applying the law with exactitude but in extracting a pound of flesh to satisfy the administration’s netroot base.
… is President Obama.
It’s Obama doing what he does best – campaigning against George W. Bush. Of course, with the unquestioning support of the MSM, that’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
Not only is the Obama administration on “shaky legal ground” (mainly due to contradicting standards it set up for itself), but Holder seems to be yet another example of an Obama appointee on shaky mental ground, in that he seems to believe that words only mean what he wants them to, and that he can change their meaning in a heartbeat if it suits his purposes.
Everyone should remember that the U.S. Attorney General is the highest-ranking actual law officer in the country, and sets the policies for Federal (and by extension, state and local) law enforcement as a whole. This requires both a good understanding of law, and a disposition that does not countenance doing things on a whim, because it’s convenient, or to fulfill your own or your boss’ (POTUS) vision of “The Way Things Ought To Be” if that “vision” is not 100% in agreement with the Constitution. When AG’s try to legislate, or worse yet, crate entirely new legal “definitions” to satisfy their own or their principals’ agendas, things can get ugly. To see how ugly, consider the results of the antics of two previous holders of the post; John Mitchell and Janet Reno.
Then consider that Holder used to be assistant AG to the latter. And ask yourself, “If that’s his idea of how to do the job, how long before the American people end up wishing he didn’t have it?”
clear ether
eon
Is it still a witch hunt if the witch you’re hunting has committed treason?
That’s a generic question. I don’t assume that Eric Hold has committed treason yet, but there’s a case to be made that some who he represents have.
….some WHOM he represents!…..saw it right when the submit button was goin’ down!
“Really, what is to stop some future administration from pursuing prosecution of Holder as well as other Clinton or Obama administration lawyers for their role in questionable practices?”
Or, even further than that. Whose opinion was it that determined that abortion wasn’t murder? For late term abortions, or those infants “born alive” after a botched abortion and who may have taken a breath on their own, whose legal opinion was it that that’s not considered murder…or torture?
When TeleBama chose to unleash the hounds on the Bush administration for political gain, I wonder if he had any idea they’d also be willing to bite him in the nether regions. I’m guessing Pelosi is wishing she had the country’s interests first instead of her own at this point. Maybe others in the Democratic party will learn from her mistake. If not, I welcome the opportunity to watch them all die by their own political swords.
I smell a “commission” of some sort. Anyone else?
The president isn’t going to simply wave his hand and claim he’s exempt from following a federal statute, is he?
What’s a silly statute (or Constitutional limits on the powers of the Executive?) when The One’s worldview is in play ?
Obama Justice Department is on shaky legal ground, unprepared it seems to substantiate its legal positions on hot button issues.
This arrogant administration (“we won”) seems to feel it has carte blanche to conduct itself according to ideological whim, the “rule of law” just a minor technicality.
We need about a thousand more Sessions & Shelbys, as it has seemed, of late, that an autocratic administration has been rolling over objections and obstacles at will.
Eric Holder is a political opportunist with no backbone or true principles; he is like the trusted poodle of the master, President Obama.
Holder can go ahead I investigate, but he & Obama have already opened a terrible can of worms with unintended consequences which will blow back on both of them at some point.
Is this wise? No.
It’s petty, political payback to the unhinged Left. This will consume Obama’s administration with other “controversies” breaking like a dam.
Bottom (and only) line is that Holder has been proceeding, with the President’s blessing, with the waterboarding/torture fiasco to satisfy the demands of the Left’s puppetmasters, netroots, ACLU, Soros agitators, the entire gamut, which feels let down that prosecution of Bush administration lawyers (ideally, prosecution of Bush and Cheney themselves) isn’t proceeding apace, that Holder’s arguments are being shredded and that Nancy Pelosi has shown herself to be the prevaricating, obsessed creature that she is.
We also need about 1000 more Andrew McCarthy’s
First comes the frying pan, then the fire.
What’s that your frying up? Smells like an Eric Holder. Golly,
look at him squirm and sizzle. Make sure he doesn’t get
too crisp. I don’t like crispy bacon/I mean Holder.
Wow, I hear the kids upstairs shuffling around. They must smell breakfast. I hope there’s enough Holder to go
all around.
(5 minutes later)
Kids, don’t eat too fast. Oh, look, Jeffery’s chewed him up and spit him out. Honey, I’m gonna throw those bad pieces away; where’s the garbage can. Or you can feed them to the dogs.
Honey, on your way home from work, be sure to get extra garbage bags at the store. I plan to make a lot more Obama administration roasts. Well, when you do, don’t forget to recycle. The city dump wants us to carefully separate the tax cheats from the outright liars. Honey, what about the Chris Dodd mortgage frauds, and let’s not forget the outright hypocrites, the “live within your means” creeps who’r spending money our country doesn’t have, bankrupting the kids’ future.
Oh, right, well, I hear they’ll be taken away in a special refuse collector.
Gotta go.
Have a nice day, kids. Study hard.
“Mom, today we’re studying the American Revolution, the 2009 version that’s in the process of getting rid of all the garbage.”
16 RPeepers . . . How quaint and random and utterly nonsensical. I hope you’re paying your own bicycle chain . . . I mean tuition.
Ms. Rubin:
“The president isn’t going to simply wave his hand and claim he’s exempt from following a federal statute, is he? ”
Why not? He’s already cocked a snook at the Constitutional qualifications to hold the office of President, has he?
Where’s his vault-copy of his Hawaii Certficate of Live Birth?
Why does he not release it?
Why has he spent over half a million dollars fighting this simple and eminently reasonable,(not to mention legally mandated) request?
When you can ignore the Constitution and get away with it, what’s a little thing like a Federal statute.
I get a good laugh every day.
Nancy Petrosi wanted to go after the waterboarders-
Now they are circling her… LOL
Nancy!
What did you know and when did you know it?
ROFLOL……
Now Eric Holder-
Yo Eric-
That watch dog is coming back to bite you in the asstubla.
Please don’t impeach these clowns-
Its too much fun watching them hold up their hands and run around in circles.
Gotta go wipe my waterborne eyes.
LOL
Republicans complaining about what they perceive to be abuse of power by a politicized justice department . . . I don’t believe I’ve ever heard anything quite like it . . .if I have I don’t recall . . . I don’t remember . . . it’s not in my memory . . . I have no recollection . . . not that I can recall . . . perhaps a visit to the esteemed Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital bedside will jog my memory. Yes, I’m sure it will.
Rachel – You should be briefing your cases rather than making a feeble attempt at humor. Theis does not augur well for your legal career
whether those now second-guessing their work have “expertise in constitutional law,
~~~~
I haven’t noticed any in this current sham of an administration displaying any particular concern for constitutional law by any method but *lip service*.
12 AThinkingPerson
I’m guessing Pelosi is wishing she had the country’s interests first instead of her own at this point.
~~~~
Heaven’s no. she’s like a small child, wishing she didn’t get caught with her hand in the cookie jar – or better yet, that the adult in the room would leave, so she could continue to raid it to her greedy little coniving hearts content without being hindered.
She may squirm at her actions exposed to the light of day, but I don’t think she’s capable of sincere remorse for them. Yet.
@ #9, Meryl:
Is it still a witch hunt if the witch you’re hunting has committed treason?
The first article of betrayal is the commitment of injury to logic itself. Asking the right questions will smoke the serial fakers out, as long as we have askers as skillfull as Rep. Lungren. This is not ordinary counterintergency, this is counterborking, a new discipline, which is barely getting started.
So far, so good! The masks will come off one at a time. The masquerader-in-chief’s turn will come. You can’t treat everyone else as sacrificial lambs without eventually being smoked out as the traitor-in-chief.
Great questions for Holder.
Holder is a lap dog and is pursuing that which obama wants pursued. Kinda like calling the cops when some one cheated you on a drug deal. Holder didn’t call the cops on himself? Not the Holder I knew.
“sheesh:
Republicans complaining about what they perceive to be abuse of power by a politicized justice department . . . I don’t believe I’ve ever heard anything quite like it . . .if I have I don’t recall . . . I don’t remember . . . it’s not in my memory . . . I have no recollection . . . not that I can recall . . . perhaps a visit to the esteemed Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital bedside will jog my memory. Yes, I’m sure it will.”
Sheesh already, Sheesh:
IIRC, it was Hillary hermself who popularized the selective amnesia tactic. She was clocked at several hundred such responses in her own testimonies under oath a long time before GW even ran for POTUS. Since she has been called by the left the most brilliant womyn ever in the history of the human race, I guess IQ and memory are not much related.
This whole post is about hypocrisy. Good to see you agree that it happens with lefties too.
What one needs to remember is that this act of indicting a previous office holder isn’t a new thing. The Roman Republic was notorious for it. At least until one of the previous office holders decided he didn’t like it. Then they had the Roman Empire after a few hundered thousand Romans died in there civil war.
It all comes down to one thing. If an office holder knows he is going to be prosecuted when he leave office then it is in his best interest to never be the “previous” office holder but the perpetual office holder.
The “usual suspects” ie the liberal pit bulls that love to post here should take a breath and realize that at least in this case we want EVERYONE to be prosecuted (or not) to the same standards, the Clintonites, the Bushites and the Obamanites. There should be a lot of very afraid politians right not. And an even more frightened country.
#3 Don:Witch Hunts? You mean like in the cases of Scooter Libby and Karl Rove?
#4 VIVO:” Eric Holder on the hot seat: the Bush legacy”.Wrong Vivo! The Obama administration is the Bush legacy,this is the opposite of the Bush legacy:Conservative Republicans fighting a stalinist thug!
It wasn’t too long ago, only several years in passing, when the nation’s first Madam Speaker was the new “Iron Lady” and could do no wrong. She was hip, happening, and on top of her cognitive name game; Bush bad, Obama good. Boasting of cutting in line—apparently the line for achieving political power without ever experiencing a shot fired in military anger, hardly a first—indeed, now the third in line for President, Nancy Pelosi, the Italian Mare, now looks like a Polk Street chicken hawk without a nose bob prancing in platform shoes at Finochios. Seeing is believing, but apparently the gal didn’t know torture when she saw it—apparently “water boarding” is culturally similar to San Francisco’s “golden showers,” among other confusing North Beach spanking delights. In the aftermath, when hoisted on her own petard for not recognizing torture when actually seeing it during a CIA briefing, she probably wishes she had hip waders now, at least for running the Bay To Breakers with the other drag queens, because selective hormonal amnesia just isn’t working. Doubtless, that’s why the CIA lied to her about torture, or so she claims, but I suppose it could be menopause too. We shouldn’t be too hard on her—she is a gift that keeps on giving for authorizing torture without knowing it. After all, some liberal journalists, prone to cultural deprivation, had to first try out water boarding before definitively calling it torture, which is not something that can be said for Sadam’s acid bath enemas. Any volunteers, Dan Rather for instance? Apparently for reasonable persons not living in San Francisco, water boarding is a gray area only fully appreciated in the rest of the world where socialist states still actually torture. However, for doing much less than authorizing torture, former republican House Speakers and senate leaders were cashiered from their positions, but I suspect the “Iron Lady” will survive, doubtless because of panty privileges. PS: I’m not the Don in number 3. What’s real?
Eric Holder,,, everything I see and hear from him smacks of a serial racist and a political hack. This is a man who wouldn’t recognize the US Constitution if you hit him in the nose with it.
With him it’s all either politics, or racism.
Great pick, O-vomit!
Govinoff @24
Thank you for added comments and a great new word, “counterborking”.
That is exactly what is needed–a whole…lot…of counterborking.
I was relieved to see the questions contained in the Congressmen’s correspondence. It’s about time these kinds of inquiries are made (and publicized).
oxymoron of the year…..OBAMA’S TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT?…..”witch hunt”..yes..with a purpose…demonize…then satisfy the maniacal left….”pound of flesh”…yes…diet of the left….uva65
Meryl @32
The tea parties are good venues for the public unveiling of various fallacies. CNN and others will probably trumpet something like “Hordes of counterporkers and likewise self-proclaimed counterborkers are invading our public parks under the stolen banner of patriotism to overwhelm the custodians of national hope, with all kinds of unsensitive and racist arguments”.
The APBC (American Porkers and Borkers Coalition) is too absorbed in its childish slogans to realize it’s up against the genuine progressive principles spelled out in the US constitution. Modern progressivism does not measure up to the wisdom of the founders.
The case awaits prosecution, a process to be carried out by those who love America, tea partisans of all stripes (and stars), one argument after the other.
Holder’s the guy who signed a contract with Gov Blagojevich worth $300k to prove Don Stephen’s Rosemont wasn’t a mobbed up town so our Gov could give Rosement a Casino license.
Holder will try to prove anything.
#15 tanstaafl: Great link. It isn’t often one can find an article that effectively breaks down legalese into understandableze.
If the professor is correct, and the handling of Holder during that hearing was “counterborking,” then I suggest the rest of the Reps. start observing this technique and applying it “liberally” (snark… pardon the sarc) on their partisan colleagues.
There’s a relatively new device used by polygraph examiners these days. It’s a pad that the respondent sits on. In that pad are sensors that are triggered every time the respondent tightens their sphincter and gluteal muscles. This is the body’s natural reaction to attempted deception. We do this, whether we want to or not: it’s automatic, like breathing.
I imagine a sphincter sensor would have been working overtime recently, had Pelosi and Holder both been sitting on one.
I am patiently waiting for someone, anyone, to point out that the actions taken at Abu Grahib were not known or condoned at the time of their doing by the Administration. They were and are separate from any questions of alleged torture and waterboarding performed by the CIA with Administration knowledge.
Questions concerning the latter should be directed to Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats.
It is an ugly dishonesty on the part of the Nation’s Chief Liar to attempt to pin the Abu Grahib abuses on Bush etc when in fact even the prison commander was held not responsible. It was not sanctioned or even known of by the Bush Administration.
What next? Holding Bush to task for the nation’s traffic violations ? Hate knows no reason or bounds.
Great piece. It is now abundantly clear that Obama has place politics above the business of the country. His appointments are consistantly demonstrating that they have no business in the White House. They are either completely incompetent, or they have conflicts of interests with the appointment they have been granted. Most ethical administration in history indeed.
This is not the most ethical administration in history. The lack of transparency is mind numbing.
Why has O-Vomit spent over a million dollars in legal fees to prevent anyone from seeing;
a.) the vault copy of his birth certificate.
b.) transcripts of his grades (GPA) at Columbia.
c.) anything published at the Harvard Law Review.
You figure it out for yourself, where there is smoke, most likely you will find fire.
America needs to learn to recognize today’s racism. The mother of today’s modern racism is cultural indifference, the father is Affirmative Action. Put the two together and the most pitiful thing you can be today is an educated white male.
‘sway it is…
Last week’s House committee meeting with Holder demonstrates just how dangerous this administration is, and how i’ts open war against our Defenders.
These are snippets from a CSPAN trascript of the hearing . three different GOP Reps questioning Holder about waterboarding Gop rep
GOP Rep 1: Okay. You have made the statement publicly that you believe that water boarding is torture, is that correct?
Holder >> That’s correct.
Gop rep>> If that’s the case is it currently the position of the united states when we submit our navy seals and other special operations military personnel to water boarding as a part of their training, that we are currently subjecting them to torture?
Holder>> No. Not in the legal sense. I think that’s a fundamentally different thing. We’re doing something for training purposes to equip them with the tools to perhaps resist torture techniques that might be used on them. There’s not the intent to do that which is define as torture which is to inflict serious bodily or mental harm.
Gop rep>> My question is, if we’re causing them to undergo water boarding, even under the guise of training them, aren’t we subjecting them to torture if you have defined water boarding as torture?
Holder >> No. It’s not torture in the legal sense because we’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally.
later..
GOP Rep2 Whether water boarding is torture you say is an issue of intent, if our officers when water boarding had no intent to do permanent harm and, in fact, knew absolutely they would do no permanent harm to the person being water boarded and their only intent the office get information to save people in this country, then they would not have tortured under your definition, isn’t that correct?
Holder >> No, not at all. intent a fact question. Fact specific question.
GOP Rep2>> What kind of intent were you talking about?
Holder>> What is the intention of the person in doing the act was it logical that a result of doing the act would have been to physically or mentally harm the person.
GOP Rep2>> But i set that out in my question, the intent was not to physically harm them, because they knew there would be no permanent harm, there would be discomfort but no permanent harm. They knew that for sure. So, is the intent, are your saying it’s in the mind of the one being water board whether they felt they were being tortured or is the intent in the mind of the actor who knows beyond any question that he’s doing no permanent harm, that he’s only making them think he’s doing harm?
Holder>> The intent is in the person who would be charged with the offense, the actor as determined by a trier of fact looking at all of the circumstances. That’s ultimately how one decides whether or not a person has the requisite intent. I’m saying that to a judge so i’m saying that with due respect.
GOP Rep2>> …if your intent and, in fact, you knew without any question there was no harm being done, then there’s no torture, correct?
Holder>> No. I wouldn’t say that.
and later..
gop rep3>> well, but for waterboarding, there is absolutely no evidence in your department or by anybody in your agency that you control that we would have received this information that there were two planned attacks on america and but for waterboarding, they did not occur.
holder>> well, actually, you do have testimony from somebody who was formerly a member of the organization that i now head, that is an fbi agent that’s part of the justice department. he testified in the contrary way yesterday.
gop rep3>> so we would have gotten this information anyway is your position?
holder>> i don’t know if we would have gotten it anyway but i certainly know that i have great faith in the techniques that the fbi uses and the testimony of that fbi agent yesterday also consistent with interactions i’ve had with retired intelligence officers from the military who have indicated that you don’t have to go to techniques such as waterboarding in order to get good useful intelligence from detainees or from suspects.
gop rep3>> so you would take the risk that we wouldn’t get this information because you’re so hell-bent on not using waterboarding?
holder>> i would never put the american people at risk, nor would i put what is great about this country and that is the values that defines us and separates us from the very people who we are trying to fight. that is something also that i will not put at risk. the safety of the american people and who we are as americans.
gop rep3>> so you would use whatever means was necessary to not put americans at risk?
holder>> i will use means that are consistent with our values. george washington in 1776, when he won the battle of trenton at christmas told the people who were taking british prisoners that regardless of how the british treated our prisoners, we will not treat british prisoners in the same way. we are better than that. that’s our founding father.
gop rep3>> i understand that. i will yield back my time.
holder>> that’s i think where we should start. george washington faced with a similar question came up with that answer.
gop rep3>> that’s a completely different scenario. this is preventive medicine and people have been apparently saved by waterboarding and it’s not the same as the situation that you mention. i will yield back.
holder>> we’ll have to disagree about that. .
The entire Obama administration needs strict oversight.
Nothing they have done so far gives me much hope for the future.
Hopefully their house of cards will soon collapse.
First the Bush admin. claimed that it was not torturing.
Then, when it was forced to admit that it did torture, it claimed that it was totally legal and necessary.
Then, when it was forced to admit that although it did torture and although it knew that torture was illegal, we shouldn’t hold anyone accountable because they didn’t think what they were doing was illegal, they did it to save the country, and that they only did it to terrorists anyway, so what’s the problem?
Then it became evident that the Bush admin. tortured not just terrorist, but also common criminals who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Then it became evident that the Bush admin. tortured in order to get Iraqis to confess to a non-existent link between Saddam and al-Qaeda.
Then it became evident that the torture did not prevent any specific attacks.
So now that they have a full carton of eggs dripping down their faces, the people responsible for these crimes have two options:
1. Gracefully assume responsibility for their heinous actions, apologize to the American people, create a bi-partisan commission to create legislation to ensure that such actions do not occur again, and then sit down, shut up, and let America move forward.
Or,
2. Look for a Democrat to blame. Stomp around like an infant, pointing fingers at anyone and everyone to distract from your own culpability, accuse everyone else of being guilty as well, and claim that any torture trial that doesn’t also include Congress, all previous Congresses in history, all previous administrations in history, all previous White House lawyers and the entire roster of the ’86 Mets, then it is just a sham trial. Even if this feigned outrage doesn’t stop a trial from happening, at least it will bring everything to gridlock long enough for the GOP to stall, hold America hostage, and do a crapload of behind-the-scenes legal wrangling to ensure that the authorizers of torture will slink away free of charges, while the lowly aides, agents and soldiers take the fall.
Obviously, the GOP is choosing option 2. It thinks that it can just play the outrage/gridlock game long enough to either intimidate Congress and the Justice Department to call off any investigation, or pull the Democrats into a Mutually Assured Destruction event in which everyone will be found guilty.
This option fail for a few reasons:
1. The preponderance of forthcoming evidence is showing that the CIA lied to Congress, not the other way around. The CIA has lied to Congress before, and so there really is no justification for automatically jumping to the conclusion that Pelosi is lying. She may be, but, hard as it may be for you folks to believe, she may be telling the truth, and the CIA documents that claim she was briefed are so flimsy and filled with chronological errors that they do not prove that she was briefed.
2. Just because Pelosi is guilty doesn’t mean that the Bush administration is not guilty. To the contrary, any guilty verdict for Pelosi is an automatic guilty verdict for the Bush administration, because for Pelosi to have lied about torture meant she knew about it. And if she knew about it, obviously the authorizers in the White House knew about it and lied as well, both to congress and the American people.
3. Torture is illegal because Reagan signed the U.N. convention against torture in 1988. This means that those who authorized torture before that convention was signed cannot be legally prosecuted under U.S. law. This means that the only administrations that could currently be prosecuted for torture are Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama. Is it possible that other administrations tortured as well? Possible, but where is the evidence? Since there are so many leaked torture pictures and memos flying around right now, wouldn’t it be more than likely that had a previous administration also tortured, there would be a parallel paper trail?
Wouldn’t the Clinton waterboarding memos surfaced by now, or wouldn’t someone have written the book on Reagan’s secret torture bunkers?
Or were the previous administrations just much tighter ships, and didn’t suffer from such leaks of torture evidence?
Not very flipping likely.
The longer this continues, the more evidence will be revealed. And the more evidence is revealed, the worse and worse it will get for the GOP.
Speaking of specific intent… why did Clinton pick Egypt as the destination for terrorist suspects when it was clear and well known that Egypt uses torture as a means of interrogation? Was it so that he could deftly and with plausible deniability avoid exactly what is happening to the Bushies? I’ve hear one canard about this saying that if its not done by our people and we have a written statement from the Egyptians stating that they won’t torture anyone then it’s OK…if they torture them.
Robert Hurley,
B man, you used my favorite word, augur, not to be confused with auger, taught to me by a B-17 WWII pilot.
Perhaps a wordsmith such as yourself could let Telebama know in the most forceful terms that words do mean something.
Diction matters. For example, when Obama promised a transparent administration, I’m sure he thought he was saying transient or transpicuoius.
Regardless, your choice for President, at this point in time, is extremely disappointing. In my view, he’s corrupt, calculating and clandestine in every manner shape and form. I’ll not feel the constitution is safe, secure and in good hands until Barack and his accomplices are led out of the White House in handcuffs.
It’s quite the train wreck of an administration I should say.
So, tell me if my personal note to you strikes a responsive chord. Looking forward to hearing that you contacted Obama, and he’s confessed to, let’s see, what’s the charge? Yes, here it is. Reckless endangerment of the best country on earth. Tah tah. Rachel
Burnng at the stake is torture. Disembowelment is torture. The Rack is torture. The Iron Maiden is torture. Drawing and Quartering is torture.
Waterboarding is not in that league.
Psychological damage is a nebulous concept. Signs of its “existence” are bereft of hard evidence. They depend on the detection of second-order effects. Allowing this to creep into the definition of torture is the source of the controversy.
IT allows people like Ob and Holder to tap dance their way around the base question- did it do any permanent damage, and was it worth it?
I say we waterboard Holder until he tells us what kind of mustard he uses. That’ll be all the ammo we need.
When Holder was asked a question (something to the effect of) “what is your legal definition of a terrorist”, he could not come up with a suitable response. In fact, he disliked his oral response so much that he offered to come up with a better definition in writing.
It is curious how complex legal and moral issues can be so certain and obvious to Holder, when the definition of a single word poses such a challenge. Not that defining “terrorist” is particularly easy, but its definition would usually be the basis of a logical or legal argument pertaining to terrorists. I guess the political ramifications of a substantive definition of a terrorist were too much for Holder to compute.
45. Bud: “Burnng at the stake is torture. Disembowelment is torture. The Rack is torture. The Iron Maiden is torture. Drawing and Quartering is torture.”
You’re right, that’s what we call “M-U-R-D-E-R.” And no, waterboarding is not in that league. That’s why we call it “T-O-R-T-U-R-E.”
47. Mike: . . . “It is curious how complex legal and moral issues can be so certain and obvious to Holder, when the definition of a single word poses such a challenge.”
OK, define “torture”
sheesh
Holder just did. It is defined by the intent of the person visiting an action upon the recipient.
sheesh:
You completely missed the point. Try reading my post again. If terrorism or torture is difficult to define, how can Holder and Obama have such clear convictions about them?
If you know what torture is, don’t be rhetorical, define it. Does your definition come in conflict with your political beliefs?
This dude is a dead ringer for Detective Harris on the old Barney Miller show …
Don (30),
That’s a lot of San Francisciana for the folks out there who reside east of the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. Hmm, do you think there might be a Pelosi presence at a blue-muse version of the Up Your Alley Fair, with a “fair” translation of the San Francisco handshake to a San Francisco purse snatch, perhaps? Or would that be on Medea Benjamin’s turf?
At any rate, Pelosi sure got caught with her hand in the cookie jar.
Title 18, Sec 2340
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
Individuals unable to tell the difference between George Washington and a terrorist are now morally outraged and think interpreting this clause in a way they do not approve of is a criminal act.
Their moral authority is not what they think it is.
Ms. Rubin asks, “Really, what is to stop some future administration from pursuing prosecution of Holder as well as other Clinton or Obama administration lawyers for their role in questionable practices?”
I think there’s an answer to that: the “future administration” would be Republican, and what’s to stop it is its adherence to law. The lawless and arrogant Dems rely on Republican respect for law to run amok, just as the rest of the world relies on America to police it while allowing various rogues to run amok.
29. deguello:
“The Obama administration is the Bush legacy,this is the opposite of the Bush legacy:Conservative Republicans fighting a Stalinist thug!”
Nonsensical, paranoid and avoiding reality. Too much coffee?
41. Mike:
“The entire Obama administration needs strict oversight.”
That’s what congressmen and voters are for. You sound like a Republican trying to enlarge government again. Shows how CONFUSED you guys are.
42. Pastor of Muppets:
Well put! Hope people read your enlightening writing.
45. Bud:
“Psychological damage is a nebulous concept. Signs of its “existence” are bereft of hard evidence.”
The CIA, Al-Qaeda, or whoever did a good job on you . . .
My,my,what will Attorney General Obama-Holder do next? Let them prosecute Jay Bybee and John Yoo,and then Obama-Holder will be on trail instead. Sadly,what will proabably happen is that Obama attack-pack like ACORN and the Obama arm-pit smeller politicans and media will bring them down while Obama plays Solon and the Messiah.
Its unbelievable that we have allowed a cast of racist Marxist criminal garbage like Obama and Holder into power. I pray our active duty military leaders question everthing that comes out of the Obama administration.
58. retired full colonel:
“It’s unbelievable that we have allowed a cast of racist lying criminal garbage like Bush and Cheney into power.”
vivo: proof (Not rhgetoric)?
60. davod:
Here’s your proof: read everything written with the names Bush & Cheney in articles, news, government documents, blogs, etc., then form an opinion.