Partisan Witch Hunt Coming
This is incredibly, truly incredibly, bad news:
President Obama on Tuesday left open the door to creating a bipartisan commission that would investigate the Bush administration’s use of harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects, and he did not rule out taking action against the lawyers who fashioned the legal guidelines for the interrogations.
Mr. Obama, who has been saying that the nation should look ahead rather than focusing on the past, said he is “not suggesting” that a commission be established.
But in response to questions from reporters in the Oval Office, he said, “if and when there needs to be a further accounting,” he hoped that Congress would examine ways to obtain one “in a bipartisan fashion,” from people who are independent and therefore can build credibility with the public.
Now, it has to be clear that Obama did not in any way say he will order such an investigation himself. Not yet at least. But he is opening the door to it, which is enough for liberal blogs to throw a party. They prayed (secularly of course) for year that such a commission would be established. Now that Obama is no longer dismissing the idea out of hand, some of them get even more passionate than they already were.
Not all are thrilled, however. Newshoggers’ Steve Hynd criticizes the Obama administration for:
That last part is perfectly in accordance with what Rahm Emmanuel (belated spindoctors to the contrary) plainly said just the other day, as well as Robert Gibb’s telling statement yesterday in answer to a question about why Bush administration lawyers are not being held accountable. “The president is focused on looking forward. That’s why”. All these statements have one thing in common, as Norman Geras puts it: “it’s like water off a duck’s back – as if the politics were everything and law and morality of no account.”
The very idea of prosecuting lawyers for writing legal memos and opinions in which they argue that enhanced interrogation techniques are legal is outrageous. There was serious debate about this matter both in and outside the administration. Everybody weighed in. Serious people said it was allowed, other serious people said it was not. But there was never the intent to break the law: rather, there was discussion about how the law should be interpreted and about what constituted torture.
Let’s hope that Obama and Holder will not follow up on today’s remarks. It would be terrible if they did. A major witch hunt would ensue, resulting in partisan politics as never before. If you thought the last eight years were bad, wait what happens when Democrats declare a legal war on Republicans.
Meanwhile, John Hinderaker points out that Obama and Holder may have a completely different goal: to discourage (conservative) Republicans from seeking office. It is an interesting take on the controversy, but I think wrong nonetheless. Frankly, it seems to me that Obama is afraid to alienate the liberal base by refusing to launch an investigation or by speaking out against it publicly.
The question is whether he will let himself be pushed into a corner by them, or whether he will truly focus on the future instead of the past.
“They prayed (secularly of course) for year that such a commission would be established.”
*Some* of them have even committed their brains, their sweat and their long experience in judicial matters to argue for the position. That may have helped. Considering the arguments *against* allowing investigations, they didn’t have a tough task.
I am not afraid and I wish you didn’t have to be either. It is a shame that a swath of left-wingers have managed to give you the impression they are willing and capable of ruining the hard and vitally important pursuits of justice that will ensue. I agree with this impression as for some individuals. They’ve given you plenty reasons to think that way, but that still doesn’t make your argument solid.
Truth is truth – I will not accept anyone changing it. This is complex. This is exploitable. But the only things that cannot be sacrificed in the pursuit/defense of truth, justice, life, human freedom and human property are: truth, justice, life, human freedom and human property.
These investigations will not once *necessitate* a sacrifice of any of those five principles, and we all know it. I care for the processes that will ensue – because the results are nothing unless the processes are airtight – and I won’t cheer them on unless I am sure that all verdicts and proceedings are as pure and solid as the values they seek to defend. This is a morally vital task, and it must not become something shameful.
I am very very happy. No rationalization and scary terms can change that one single degree. This decision is impeccable, and I am so glad that I can enjoy it rather than be worried. Obama was the right choice – he realizes that in a sheer dichotomy between a good quality and a bad quality, no mere quantity of political hacks, partisans or warnings about witch-hunts make an ounce of difference. The metaphysical is more important than the physical, if a prioritization must come to pass. It is not the fault of us who want justice that the cowardly people who engineered this whole program of torture made it difficult and arduous for us to find them.
“Mr Obama had said he would not use anti-torture laws to prosecute CIA personnel who relied in good faith on legal opinions issued after 9/11.”
Yeah let’s not have your conscience be the final bar on what you do to defenseless people. Still, I guess Obama can’t let investigations go that deep. It would be complex and left-wing and right-wing talkers would make things impossible.
“An investigation would be acceptable, he said, “outside of the typical hearing process” and with “independent participants who are above reproach”.”
Oh but those witch-hunting partisans will find a way! By *hating* enough we may succeed in immolating vital documents through pyro-kinesis.
“I do worry about this getting so politicised that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations.”
Yeah, things haven’t gotten off to a great start, from what I can see. We must stay away from left-wing and right-wing nutjobs. This is too important to muddle.
Oh boy, I can sleep easy tonight.
“The very idea of prosecuting lawyers for writing legal memos and opinions in which they argue that enhanced interrogation techniques are legal is outrageous.”
And yet Nazi lawyers were found guilty and executed at Nuremberg for that exact same thing.
“There was serious debate about this matter both in and outside the administration. Everybody weighed in.”
Bullshit. Ignoring the facts – that the Bush administration kept its techniques and the justifications for them secret until after they had been leaked – won’t help your case.
“And yet Nazi lawyers were found guilty and executed at Nuremberg for that exact same thing.”
Be warned – you should have pointed out that this precedent should only be considered as just that – a precedent that merely happens to involve the Third Reich. No one wants That Rule to rear its ugly head.
From what I can see Obama is not supposed to exert any pressure on the DOJ. In that regard Emanuel and Gibbs placed undue weight *in the other direction* when they said that prosecutions should *not* come to pass. They have not tried to spark any witch-hunting or abused their office in order to instigate prosecutions – on the contrary they may have spoken out of line against such proceedings. Obama just cut through it all with the right decision – it’s in the DOJ’s court. He’s not supposed to “open” or “close” the door about this in the first place. Greenwald, however, slams the door shut here:
“Decisions about prosecutions are meant to be apolitical. Those decisions are about vindicating equality under the law, not about forging bipartisanship by placating the political party of the criminals and ensuring that our political elites continue, in the name of “harmony,” to retain their license to break our laws with impunity.”
Heh, I guess Peggy Noonan started walking too quickly.
“And yet Nazi lawyers were found guilty and executed at Nuremberg for that exact same thing. Be warned – you should have pointed out that this precedent should only be considered as just that – a precedent that merely happens to involve the Third Reich. No one wants That Rule to rear its ugly head.”
This is important – are you sure the cases are similar enough to say a precedent is in place, and are you sure that relevant laws haven’t changed since then? We need to make sure no one fudges this in any facet or aspect.
I just worry that Obama’s other plans will be derailed now that he’s done the right thing. Both left-wingers and right-wingers have made this issue about something more than it is for a while now. The more rabid phalanx of the right-wingers have made it a point of pride to have no one in the previous administration accountable for anything, while those equally focus-lacking on the left seem to think it a be-all and end-all to get someone “CHIMPEACHED!!!!!2!” Yeah, as if that is going to retro-actively make up for the fact that you lost to the guy twice for being so confused and self-assured. Get real and stay out of this, I say.
Godwin’s law is now in effect!
Godwin’s Law would only apply if Nuremberg wasn’t the main legal precedent. Which it is.
For this issue, one Nuremberg case forms the key precedent: United States v. Altstoetter, also called the Reich Justice Ministry case. That case stands for some
simple propositions. One of them is that lawyers who dispense bad advice about law
of armed conflict, and whose advice predictably leads to the death or mistreatment of prisoners, are war criminals, chargeable with potentially capital offenses. Another is that cute lawyerly evasions and gimmicks, so commonly indulged in other areas of the law, will not be tolerated on fundamental questions of law of armed conflict relating to the protection of civilians and detainees. In other words, lawyers are not permitted to get it wrong.
Bush’s failed 8-year run as president deserves no less than a thorough investigation into the the abuses it spawned. What Bush forgot during those terrible years was the fact that he was our employee and he was being held to an exceptionally high standard. Whether or not we voted for him, he was supposed to uphold the Constitution and represent us, the people. He failed miserably. By blithely looking the other way and allowing Cheney and Co. to run roughshod over the Constitution, Bush must now face the prospect of being held accountable for the outcome of his irresponsible behavior. Embarrassingly, the Spanish government seemed to understand the importance of getting to the truth before we did. Now that Obama finally sees that part of ‘looking forward’ means dealing with past, the U.S. can finally cleanse itself of the stench of the Bush years and once again find itself on the high road.
Regardless of how one feels about these memo’s and this potential investigation, will we ever get out of the cycle of new administrations/congress investigating previous administrations. I can still recall the Iran-contra investigations regarding Bush 41 and the “residual” reports/investigations regarding Clinton after 2000. Will we regain the ability to see the previous, opposite party administration as “wrong” but not criminal. I understand folks will see this issue as worthy of a criminal investigation. I’m simply pointing at a larger phenomenon going on here. Politics should not degenerate to tribalism
“The very idea of prosecuting lawyers for writing legal memos and opinions in which they argue that enhanced interrogation techniques are legal is outrageous. There was serious debate about this matter both in and outside the administration. Everybody weighed in. Serious people said it was allowed, other serious people said it was not. But there was never the intent to break the law: rather, there was discussion about how the law should be interpreted and about what constituted torture.”
Prosecuting lawyers for their legal memos is no more outrageous than prosecuting the driver of the getaway car in a bank robbery. In fact, the lawyers’ job in the torture crime wasn’t just ensuring the getaway, it wwent further by convincing the tools doing the bankrobbery that what their bosses ordered was indeed to be followed, enabling the crime thereby.
Whether there was the intent to break the law is what must be found out. I find it hard to imagine that these lawyers really did consider their memos to be in line with legal standards. But this must be found out by investigating into the issue, by analysing the legal validity of the memos and their adherence to legal standards and comparing them to what these lawyers should have known and written if they had applied their best abilities to follow and interpret the law. And interesting in this context will also be an investigation into the kind of pressures and incentives applied to these lawyers to twist the law this way.
Lawyers aren’t above the law any more than politicians. If they knowingly aided war crimes by giving legal opinions that are not in line with the legal standards they must follow, then they are just as guilty of crime as anyone else actively enabling and abetting the crime.
“Let’s hope that Obama and Holder will not follow up on today’s remarks. It would be terrible if they did. A major witch hunt would ensue, resulting in partisan politics as never before. If you thought the last eight years were bad, wait what happens when Democrats declare a legal war on Republicans.”
Hand the prosecution over to non-political prosecutors – people who may have voiced their opinion on torture before, but who are not so deep into politics that it could be assumed they would let either political side get away with crimes. Despite the existance of such terrible lawyers as Bybee and Bradbury, not all good lawyers follow a political agenda.
Wow, you really earned your moniker there. But I think the bank robbery analogy is definitely too provocative and incongruous.
Salamo- how is it then that defense lawyers for every single criminal who faces trial aren’t similarly charged with aiding and abetting the crimes?