(Thanks to Bob for this amazing post on the conduct of Bush administration lawyers and their role in approving torture. A must-read post... - promoted by Jay Stevens)
The names of Bush administration officials who authorized the torture of terrorism suspects are familiar. Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, George Tenet, and John Ashcroft met in the White House and approved specific torture techniques.
These top U.S. officials, and notable others, are liable for war crimes under the U.S. War Crimes Act, and for violation of the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions, which are all part of U.S. law (by the Supremacy Clause). They ordered the torture carried out by the interrogators. The facts underlying these allegations are undisputed, and the legal conclusions are irrefutable.
Cheney admitted it on the teevee and Bush himself admitted, "yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved." The present conflicted and confused stalemate between the Obama administration and Congress on possible prosecution leaves little hope at present that the rule of law will prevail in the face of these former Bush administration officials' crimes. That's tragic, but not the subject of this essay.
Each one of these people has fallen back on the old saw, "I was relying on advice of counsel." And the Bush administration attorneys refute moral, ethical, and most importantly (to them) legal responsibility by saying they just provided the advice, they didn't undertake any criminal activity themselves.
I used to be against impeachment. I felt that to open up a can of worms like that would really contribute to further polarizing this country, and I felt that would be a bad thing. But a couple things are changing my mind.
First, the recent fundraising and PR surge of Ron Paul. It should not surprise progressives that while we might disagree with Mr. Paul when it comes to most domestic issues, we are pretty much in agreement when it comes to foreign policy and international law because of a little document entitled the Constitution of the United States. We are also against the current Bush administration policy of spying on their own citizens.
The second item that is changing my mind is the overwhelming glut of comments on the Web in support of Dennis Kucinich and his bill to impeach the Vice President. What affect would this have on all those who voted for change? I think that there is a simmering going on in this country as we speak. It is below the radar level of the large news conglomerates and it is fueled by sites like this one at both ends of the political spectrum. The "liberal" media is just as complicit and the true liberal and conservative patriots can see that they have no voice.
So what say you? This should be an open thread. I am especially interested in hearing from our favorite trolls. Would you support Mr. Paul? I want your honest opinions. No football game commentaries please. Is it time for real justice?
Bush is once again tearing into Senate Democrats today for indicating they will not support Judge Michael Mukasey's confirmation for Attorney General unless he declares waterboarding illegal.
Mukasey's said reason for holding out, i.e. to protect interrogators, who are simply following orders, from prosecution under international law, I think makes some sense, but the Democrats are right to demand an answer. Senators McCain and Graham have stated that they'll vote to confirm if Mukasey issues a condemnation immediately after taking office, but honestly, given all we've been through, would you trust anybody these guys send us?
Mukasey, who seemed to be sailing along until several days ago, is yet another victim of the administration's illegal and failed policies. He's damned no matter what he says. Bush's assertion that Mukasey "hasn't been briefed" makes no difference. What is there to be briefed on? Either you do it or you don't.
This all goes back to what we learned in kindergarten, folks. Dubya must have been sick that day. Once you betray trust, it's pretty tough to get it back. If Bush really wants Mukasey to be confirmed and if Mukasey really is independent, then the administration will declare an end to waterboarding as an interrogation technique.
But that's not going to happen because apparently international law applies to everybody but us, even though we're the ones who helped write it.
All you liberal haters take a giant step back. I would like to formally thank President Bush for his kind words at His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama's Congressional Gold Medal ceremony yesterday. He implored the Chinese government to welcome "this good man" to Beijing and withstood criticism that he was supporting a separatist. Mr. Bush was adament that this was not a political meeting, but one between two religious men. I was almost moved to tears honestly. I was also reminded that many times, we have the same goals, even when we disagree over the best way to get there. At least we should in theory.
His Holiness has never advocated violence in over 40 years of living in exile, in spite of mass torture of his countrymen and religious persecution. The Chinese government continues to try to undermine his efforts, and he still, after 40 years, replies with the utmost compassion and sincerity. My favorite picture from the day was of His Holiness holding hands as the mediator between Nancy Pelosi and the President, all with a smile. Even though we're at each other's throats sometimes, it's good that we appreciate the freedom we do have. It is also a wonderful day when our country officially honors the efforts of such a brave and kind man.
NOTE: Sorry that it took me so long to put this post up. I have been having trouble getting back into the swing of the lightning-fast blogos. These are just a few thoughts I had during the visit from the leader of our judicial system. If you have similar or different reactions, drop a comment.
I have to confess that I was disappointed in Justice Roberts' actual speech. He talked about advice that he gives to young lawyers and law students. His stories were self-depricating and certainly jokesy enough. But I felt like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should have said something interesting about the state of justice, and instead he gave a bland talk that I have heard one hundred times in law school. Important details make all the difference, and so on. This is really not all that interesting.
Moreover, I did not think that it was aided by his reference to the Montana standard Norman Maclean. He tailored his advice to Montana by comparing it to Young Men and Fire. The gesture was nice, but like I say, the speech itself was a dull truism told countless times to law students, and I cannot imagine being a non-law student with some expectation of greatness. I won't belabor the point. He did end the speech with a fairly funny joke about the judges in hell.
On the other hand, the smaller session that he did before his public talk was much more meaty. He answered questions from students, only--one of my professors thought that this was to prevent an ideological stand by some professor who has been pouring over the same general area for years. I doubt that it would have made much of a difference, since students are often as mired in the minutia as their teachers. Like his performance during his confirmation hearings, Justice Roberts answered all of the questions without resorting to the old mantra: this case may come up before the court. Some people forget that he didn't do much of this during his confirmation hearings because Justice Alito repeated it so bloody often.
The federal investigation into Congressional corruption is approaching a crucial deadline and potential dead end. Feb. 15 is the last day on the job for United States Attorney Carol Lam of San Diego, the inquiry's dedicated prosecutor, who is being purged by the Bush administration.
Her investigation led to the imprisonment of former Representative Randy Cunningham, the California Republican who took millions of dollars in bribes in exchange for delivering lucrative government contracts. But just as Ms. Lam was digging into other possible wrongdoing, the White House decided to force her from office without explanation.
Hmmmn. I wonder...
Ms. Lam has been investigating the dealings of Brent Wilkes, a private contractor and deep-pocketed political contributor who was designated co-conspirator No. 1 in the Cunningham case. Mr. Wilkes developed other cozy relationships. Among other avenues, the inquiry has been looking into rich government contracts secured by corporations and lobbyists with ties to Representative Jerry Lewis - the former appropriations chairman - and his staff. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Mr. Wilkes could be indicted before Ms. Lam leaves office. The question now is whether her successor, as yet unnamed, will pursue the inquiry with the same dedication or will quietly smother it.
The outlook isn't promising.
Possibly more damning than this:
[Attorney] General Alberto Gonzales is refusing to provide Congress with details on these unmerited dismissals. He insists that there's no attempt to quash fresh Republican scandals and says only the "very best" will be named as replacements.
I second the call that this article ends with. Congress should be making this odd occurrence its business. Democrat and Republican leaders in Congress should be asking questions, but not alone. Rather than writing an editorial, the NYT should be digging deeper and asking questions. This way constituents may take more interest--particularly in this climate of anti-corruption--and force their representatives to take action.
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said on the floor was that the administration was pushing out between five and ten more. The administration is replacing these folks for short-term interim appointments--US Attorneys are approved by the Senate. The question is why?
The discussion in the TPM comments about why the administration would be pushing these folks out is interesting. The US Attorney basically has three jobs: head administrator, representative of the US in that district in civil cases, and chief prosecutor in criminal cases. It is unclear why any of these three jobs would be lighting up the Bush Administration's radar, but they sure seem to be.
My question is what is the litmus for pushing these folks out? Clearly, it is not a lack of commitment or neglect, or we would see Mercer's name at the top of that list. You have read some of my analysis of the Bush Administration's views of executive power. One of the reasons might be to solidify this Blood and Iron view as the prevalent legal view, represented by the US Attorneys in the Ninth. That would likely exempt Mr. Mercer, but what does it accomplish?
Thoughts?
Update - So, the TP Muckrakers have dug up a little more on this. Unsurprisingly, the freedom for the administration to take this action is just one more of the insanely bad provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act--more aptly called the USA Legislative Gives It To The Executive For Free Act.
It was an obscure provision in the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act, and it didn't take them very long to use it. The president signed it into law in March of last year -- by June, they were already moving to replace unwanted prosecutors.
Former Arkansas USA Bud Cummins told the Wall Street Journal that "a top Justice official asked for his resignation in June, saying the White House wanted to give another person the opportunity to serve." Cummins was finally forced out in December, replaced with Timothy Griffin, formerly the research director of the Republican National Committee.
I think it's really great that four United States Senators, of both political parties, have made the trip to Damascus to speak with the Syrians, while our Bush and Condi stand strong in their "we don't talk to anyone we don't like" attitude. It says a lot when legislators have to do the job of the executive branch. This week my old pal Arlen Spector(PA) became the first Republican to reach out to the Syrians, in true moderate form. As my Mom has been telling me, in 1960 even when Khrushchev banged his shoe on the podium at the United Nations, we still talked to him. What is wrong with these people? When is Barbara Bush going to walk into the White house and grab this kid by his hair and say, "Listen to your father!"?
My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraggate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.
Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.
Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”
Senator Elect Jim Webb had the graciousness not to punch George Bush when George sought him out at a White House reception and asked, “How’s your boy?” When Senator Elect Webb responded, “I’d like to get them out of Iraq” the Decider said, “That’s not what I asked you. How’s your boy?” To which Maximus Webbius replied, “That’s between me and my boy.”
After 6 years or more of the right calling the left spineless, wishy washy and incapable of protecting their own let alone the nation, along comes Gary Cooper in “High Noon”. After 6 years of a reckless and feckless John Wayne impersonator, here come the Marines in the form of one Lone Ranger.
