Banana Republic
Written by lilmike on April 24, 2009 – 7:07 pm -
- Image via Wikipedia
Some wag once said that Obama keeps all of his promises; they just have an expiration date. I guess that’s how we got from “President Barack Obama will not pursue the prosecution of Bush-era officials who devised torture policy against detainees” to it “is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general” within a few days. That was a quick turnaround, even by Obama standards. However events and leftie blogs pushed Obama rather quickly after the release of the “torture memos,” which reveal the legal underpinning for what is euphemistically referred to as “enhanced interrogation.”
The timing strikes me as odd considering just a week ago a Spanish court decided to investigate whether to pursue charges against Bush administration officials who provided the legal underpinning for those interrogations. Then low and behold, the Obama administration declassifies those very documents written by those Justice Department lawyers. That could hardly be a coincidence. The message seems to be that the Obama administration will not attempt to protect and may even assist, in international prosecutions of Bush administration officials, and who knows, maybe even prosecute a few themselves.
I took a look at the torture memos out of curiosity and to confirm that things people were saying were in there actually was. I’ve learned you can’t trust someone else’s interpretation. Full disclosure: I didn’t read the whole thing. I just don’t have the legal background to make a determination if the case the Justice Department attorneys tried to make made sense or not, but I was curious about a few things.
First of all, what was the classification of these damn things? Looking at the pdf of the memo, I could see that the pages were all classified Top Secret (scribble scribble) NOFORN, but what was the caveat or code word that was scribbled out? I magnified and tried to see through the blackened areas, but no such luck. Just curious I guess. I was just wondering if it was a cool sounding codeword, Top Secret Maximum Hammer, or just something dorky, Top Secret Loosie Goosie?
Another thing; what was the deal with all the waterboarding? The original leaks described it as the most successful interrogation technique since “good cop, bad cop.” Abu Zubaida supposedly broke after 35 seconds. However page 37 of the memo details something more complicated:
…where authorized, it may be used for two “sessions” per day of up to two hours. During a session, water may be applied up to six times for ten seconds or longer (but never more than 40 seconds). In a 24-hour period, a detainee may be subjected to up to twelve minutes of water appliaction. See id. at 42. Additionally, the waterboard may be used on as many as five days during a 30-day approval period.
…The CIA used the waterboard “at least 83 times during August 2002” in the interrogation of Zubaida…and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM”
So somebody check my math, but that that means either the guidelines for waterboarding are wrong, they ignored their own guidelines, or the number of waterboarding sessions is wrong, since the could not have waterboarded that many times in a month if they followed the guidelines. Or they are counting applications, instead of sessions. It’s too vague to tell.
As far as I know, I’m the first person to discover this, so somebody give a prize or something.
However I’m not the first person to notice the incongruity of it being reported that Zubaida broke after 35 seconds and being waterboarded 83 times in one month. I don’t see how both of those can be true.
But like a 23 minute Arlo Guthrie song, that’s not what I’m here to talk about. OK well maybe a little, but what I am really worried about is the Obama administration deciding to settle scores. Since President Obama is the Attorney General’s boss, going from being not interested in pursuing prosecution of Bush era officials to saying it’s up to the Attorney General is tantamount to giving the green light to prosecute.
Now I am of two minds on this. There is one part of me, the mean, hateful part, that would love to see lawyers have to take responsibility for writing legal opinions, and by taking responsibility I mean forced to pull their orange jumpsuits down in a dark corner of a federal prison and get doo doo raped. I’m not a fan of lawyers as you might notice. Generally, lawyers don’t have to take any responsibility for their poor performance. Their clients do. These lawyers, if prosecuted, certainly would.
Also there is the precedent. Once one administration opens the door to prosecuting the previous administration for policies it disagreed with, every time there is a change in power, the new administration will do the same. In 4 years I could sit back and watch members of the Obama administration be indicted for all manner of crimes. What comes around goes around eh?
But that is only one side. I have a more dominate opinion on this, not one based on score settling, hatred of the bar, or getting revenge on wrongs, real or otherwise, on the current administration at some point in the future, but based on reason, rule of law, and the dangers setting bad precedents.
First of all, I’m not sure there is even a crime here. There may be a crime somehow under Spanish law, but I’m fairly certain there is no Federal Statute against giving a legal opinion that the current administration disagrees with. One can imagine the kangaroo courts if we decide it’s OK to prosecute judges for ruling on a decision that’s been overturned, or a legislator who votes for a law that is later found to be unconstitutional. That would be as criminal as anything those Bush Justice Department attorneys did.
The precedent of one administration getting revenge on the previous one would be a bad one. Senator Leahy’s idea of a truth and reconciliation commission; as if going from the Bush administration to the Obama one is equivalent to eliminating apartheid, or the Nuremberg Trials, is ridiculous. During every election, we always like to repeat the old canard about “the peaceful exchange of power” but how long would that be true if we up the stakes every time political parties switch positions of power? If hundreds of administration officials could expect nothing but indictment if a rival party takes power, are we really not that far from Peron’s Argentina?
It’s one thing to indict and prosecute officials who have actually done criminal wrongdoing, but I’ve noticed from my friends on the left is their tendency to want to criminalize policy differences. They would love to have Bush and Cheney doing the perp walk, weighed down with chains, but ask them what sort of charges its usually something vague, like “war crimes” or just that they were criminals. Their real crimes? Holding different policy positions. Not violating federal statutes. If we try to prosecute attorneys for writing legal opinions, that won’t be justice, it will be punishment. Punishment for losing the election.
Once we cross that particular Rubicon, it’s damage that cannot be undone. Rome could never go back to it’s Republic, and if we allow score settling after every change of power, we won’t be able to go back either.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Released Memos Could Lead to More Disclosures (nytimes.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4deb6ab0-5785-4bd8-a352-ba80aed4d7a7)
Tags: Abu Zubaida, Arlo Guthrie, bradford memo, CIA, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Leahy, Obama, torture memo, waterboarding
Posted in MucheDumbre | 12 Comments »
April 24th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
It will me interesting to know how many enlightened people will be able to tell you what the rubicon is without wikipedias help
April 24th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
[...] Autoline Detroit…. Post from: USA | Barack Obama News Post from: USA | Barack Obama News Banana Republic – muchedumbre.com 04/24/2009 Image via Wikipedia Some wag once said that Obama keeps all of his [...]
April 24th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
it has nothing to do with having a different idea on policy.. and everything to with violating the law..
If the BCS decided that they were going to make a new policy.. and that policy was installing Kim Jong Il as the new POTUS.. Whether anyone agreed or disagreed with that wouldn’t matter.. policy or not, it violates the law.
the lawyers part in this wasn’t just that they wrote an opinion.. it’s that those opinions were used to green-light torture… yes, waterboarding is torture and you’ve said so.
again, any lawyer can write whatever opinion he wants.. but that doesn’t make him the arbiter of what is or isn’t against the law. Had my lawyer told me “Hey, I’ve read case law and it’s my opinion that you can burn your house down for the cash instead of making your payments”.. I don’t think he’s criminally responsible for my actions, but he might be ‘civilly’ and is completely ‘morally’ responsible… I on the other hand, am doing hard time for arson..
Now, I can show the judge my piece of paper with my lawyers opinion all I want but that’s not going to get me out trouble now is it?
your argument that whoever wrote the opinion shouldn’t be held responsible for someone else actions is correct..sorta… at the very least they should be put before the court and asked to explain themselves.. and possible civilly sued by anyone who was the victim of their advice..
These lawyers were brilliant in the way the green-lighted the torture tho.. they can always claim “Hey, I didn’t tell them to do anything.. I just gave them my opinion on the matter.. I can’t help that they then went and burned their house down”.. and their right.. but that doesn’t make it right..
I’m sure Hitler’s lawyers agreed with him.. But that didn’t make it OK..
you speak of not wanting to cross the Rubicon here.. (bite me again Andy, I’m a roman history and Jules C. nut) But you’re crossing it yourself by saying it’s damned OK for one administration to get away with whatever *ahem* ‘policy’.. they want, legal or other wise as long as they have a note from their hand picked lawyer..
I warned you before that your party would not always be in control… maybe now you understand..
so which is it? Do we damn ourselves for outing those in the admin, no matter how high ranking, who broke the law under the protection of a one-sided-biased-legal opinion? Or do we allow all future administrations to do as they wish with their one-sided-biased-legal mind..?
your choice…and you can only pick one.. if it’s was OK for Bush to go about his merry way .. then it’s ok for all others…
or Bush was wrong.. and all others would also be wrong..
wait.. damn. I forgot who I was talking about.. Of course it’s ok for Bush to do it, he was protecting us..besides waterboarding was only torture when we hung the Japanese for doing it to our guys, when we do it.. it’s just a different policy opinion, not illegal..
but the rest of us.. we don’t know whether we want to cross that line or not.. but we’re damn sure pissed that Bush found another way to fuck and divide us once again..
April 24th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Let’s go surfin’ now
Everybody’s learnin’ how
Do some waterboardin’ with me!
April 25th, 2009 at 11:03 am
“We need to look at to make sure exactly what happened is known to the public and to deter any future president from doing like behavior, if it was wrong,” said one well-respected member of Congress. “In that regard, if we can do it in a bipartisan fashion, I think that’s what we should do. Every American benefits when you can control X abuse of power. If this was an abuse of power, then we need to know about it.”
Former Republican Representative Lindsey Graham, February 2001.
This is “outrageous,” “We should at least take a look at what happened and ask ourselves, should we take some action to try to prevent abuses that do occur?”
Sen. Trent Lott (R), February 2001
“Congress has an obligation to find out if this was appropriate,” “[My] panel will obtain ’subpoenas if necessary’”
House Government Reform Committee Chair Dan Burton (R-IN) on January 26, 2001.
The above quotes were in reply to Republican Congressional cries to prosecute Former President Clinton for the pardon of Marc Rich…less than a month following the inauguration of Bush.
You guys have a short memory, don’t you LilMike?
April 25th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
We already know that Pelosi has had memory issues concerning when or whether she condoned water boarding. Let’s just remember that this isn’t a left vs right thing. There’s plenty of criminal blame to go around. Turning it over to the AG was the right thing to do, based on more information.
April 27th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Andy, thank god for Wikipedia, or for those who don’t understand the Rubicon reference, there would be no hope of understanding what my point is, since I wrap it all up in the last few sentences. Case in point: Howey’s comment. He sees the investigation of the Marc Rich pardon as the same thing as pursuing convictions of these attorneys. Considering the bipartisan nature of the outrage against that pardon, I think Howey is the first person who was not being investigated about it who seems to voice support for it the Rich pardon. Another first.
As for ekg, I’m not saying that the legal opinions amounted to a free pass for the Bush administration, but in order to have a serious investigation into whether the Bush administration broke the law (the law as it was understood at the time, not now) I find it unusual to investigate and consider charges against the lawyers, rather than the policy makers. If (and it’s a big one) US law was broken by the conducting of waterboarding, then that has to go up to the national command authority; the President, since he apparently authorized all three instances. Hey I’m a member of the party that doesn’t like lawyers but even I am conflicted over opening a can of worms trying to convict someone based on a legal opinion. There is no telling where that will lead. In contrast, investigating an ex-President seems almost normal. So to your question,
“your choice…and you can only pick one.. if it’s was OK for Bush to go about his merry way .. then it’s ok for all others… or Bush was wrong.. and all others would also be wrong..”
Honestly Bush would be the most culpable, NOT the lawyers, Cheney, Feith, or whoever else is on your liberal hit list.
But I think it would be hard to make a case that he was not operating under his authority as Commander of Chief. I see though, that you are perfectly willing to cross the Rubicon, sword held high, and not worry about the precedent.
April 27th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
I agree that going after the lawyers would be difficult.. and I don’t think I’ve ever said we should.. they’ve insulated themselves on this issue and have only to say “That was just my opinion of the law, not the actual law… “ and case closed..
and I would also agree that GWB is where the road ends… but when doing my
Blog
.. (ha-shameless plug).. I saw this video from ABC
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=4622610
where was GWB? and why was Cheney making the decision to torture without him?
I think that is bothering me more than the actual torture.. b/c we’re talking MAJOR! Policy here being dictated by the VP and then that policy followed by the NSA,FBI,DOD,AG’s office and the State dept.
even if Bush said “Dick you go into that meeting and you decide”.. I am still extremely troubled by it..
April 27th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
And your not going to cross the Rubicon without getting your sandals wet, and there’s no looking back, then you can say…we came, we saw, we kicked some ass!
I was going to say about Howie’s memory, I don’t remember Clinton doing the perp walk in chains, after all that talk of an investigation, like a lot of people have wet dreams about seeing GWB and DC doing as part of an investigation now.
So, since we know in advance, that neither one of these guys is ever going to see the inside of a court room, let alone a jail cell, I agree with Obama and I can’t wait for this distraction to go away because we have more pressing things to do…
April 29th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
That would imply we “move on.” Where have I heard that before?
Update:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/28/despite-reports-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-waterboarded-times/
I guess KSM wasn’t waterboarded 183 times, just 5 times according to the Red Cross. Well that clears up a lot.
April 30th, 2009 at 7:09 am
not really… since they are still getting this part wrong..
The Times and dozens of other outlets wrote that the CIA also waterboarded senior Al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah 83 times, but Zubayda himself, a close associate of Usama bin Laden, told the Red Cross he was waterboarded no more than 10 times.
May 31st, 2009 at 2:48 pm
[...] was the gist of the “Torture Memos” which I had discussed a few weeks ago. The former Justice Department attorney’s, whom President Obama has decided to [...]