home

Newsweek: AG May Probe Bush Torture-Era Policies

Newsweek has a long feature article on Attorney General Eric Holder.

Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter.

[More...]

But wouldn't that go against what Obama wants?

Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. "I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," he says. "But that can't be a part of my decision."

Holder began examining the Bush interrogation policies in April:

As he pored over reports and listened to briefings, he became increasingly troubled. There were startling indications that some interrogators had gone far beyond what had been authorized in the legal opinions issued by the Justice Department, which were themselves controversial. He told one intimate that what he saw "turned my stomach."

So, will he act on his instincts? The article concludes:

in late June Holder asked an aide for a copy of the CIA inspector general's thick classified report on interrogation abuses. He cleared his schedule and, over two days, holed up alone in his Justice Depart ment office, immersed himself in what Dick Cheney once referred to as "the dark side." He read the report twice, the first time as a lawyer, looking for evidence and instances of transgressions that might call for prosecution.

The second time, he started to absorb what he was reading at a more emotional level. He was "shocked and saddened," he told a friend, by what government servants were alleged to have done in America's name. When he was done he stood at his window for a long time, staring at Constitution Avenue.

< Saturday Morning Open Thread | Cheney Linked to Planned Covert CIA Program >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    They won't do anything (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 05:57:28 PM EST
    Maybe Holder will resign in protest, but Obama won't tolerate too much passion for torture accountability.  Just too unpleasant for too many Republicans.  If it made Dems or progressives uncomfortable, he'd do it in a heartbeat.

    But I'm just cynical right now.

    If Obama wants the US to have ANY (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 06:22:50 PM EST
    credibility on human rights issues around the world, there has to be an investigation.  Has to be.  Or else we will spend the next 4 years wincing every time Obama lectures countries like Ghana on their human rights record and the need to adhere to the rule of law.

    The problem is that I think Obama sees himself as having turned the page on all that ickiness from the Bush years - look forward, people! - so for him there is no disconnect.  So what if he's using the state secrets privilege to block disclosure of illegal surveillance - that is just so yesterday.

    I just don't think a credible argument can be made that we are a nation of laws - even with Obama at the helm - as long as he is willing to (1) ignore the illegal actions of the past and (2) continue the policies instituted in the past.

    Will be interesting to see if Holder carries this through to where it needs to go.

    I'm sure that there will be a prosecutor (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 07:00:50 PM EST
    if that's what the polling, being done now, tells Obama to do.

    That's how I read the "couple of weeks" until a decision is made.  I mean, it's not like the Constitution is going to change in a couple of weeks, or the moral principles of the thing.

    I can just picture the Obama administration... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ctrenta on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 09:25:51 PM EST
    ... and the Democratic Party leadership freaking out over this. They don't want to stand up for principle because they think it will hurt them in the mid-term elections.

    Obama doesn't want to get into this kind of stuff because he has other legislative priorities and Holder's quest will be "a distraction."

    Yeah right. That's the same excuses Obama and the Dems used not to pursue investigations into impeachment.

    Fighting for the future of democracy and the health of our political system takes the back seat in comparison to representing the elites and their interests.

    Chomsky et al. were right.

    Well in fairness (none / 0) (#22)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:12:35 PM EST
    I don't think even the strongest supporters of say tribunals think it could be done without destroying any chance at future health care reform. etc, as well as likely costing Democrats control of Congress they just regard a GOP landslide in 2010 as a price worth paying.

    Parent
    Sounds like a lot of mealy-mouthed excuses (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 12:05:22 AM EST
    to me. But hey, if you really believe that not investigating and prosecuting some of the most outrageous crimes the U.S government has ever committed is acceptable than there's not much to discuss. As for only being able to choose one or the other -- either health care reform (which we are obviously NOT going to get) or accountability for war crimes -- that's a fallacious argument. I seem to recall Obama saying he could walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Parent
    Not true (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by ctrenta on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 09:26:59 AM EST

    Suring the 1073'-'74 legislative session, the Congress passed many historic bills and STILL had investigations into impeachment. If they can fight  cold war, maintain an occupation in Vietnam, and pass meaningful legislation all in the same year, then who's to say the Democrats can't pursue war tribunals? The Dems can walk and chew gum at the same time. Now they are taking the long, harder, and dumbest ways out. way out of the mess. Not good.

    Parent
    Um, let me explain what happened... (none / 0) (#35)
    by ctrenta on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 09:16:48 PM EST

    I was falling asleep at my computer, thought it was all legible, and hit "post." After I woke up, I realized I saw what I wrote and I was obviously  in another state of mind. Let me try again what I wanted to say:

    During the '73'-'74 legislative session, the Congress passed many historic bills and STILL had investigations into impeachment. If they can fight the cold war, maintain an occupation in Vietnam, and pass meaningful legislation all in the same year, then who's to say the Democrats can't pursue war tribunals today? The Dems can walk and chew gum at the same time. Now they are taking the long, harder, and dumb way out of the mess. Not good.

    Congress knows how to multi-task. Calling this a distraction from other so-called priorities is just an excuse from doing the work they should be doing in the first place: holding those who break the law accountable.

    Parent

    From this Holder quote in the article (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 06:23:25 PM EST
    I get the impression that Holder's opinion is that the idea of "enforcing the nation's laws" is not part of Obama's "world view and values", and that although Holder thinks he has to enforce the laws, that he thinks doing so is also in opposition to his own personal "world view and values"...

    "You have the responsibility of enforcing the nation's laws, and you have to be seen as neutral, detached, and nonpartisan in that effort," Holder says. "But the reality of being A.G. is that I'm also part of the president's team. I want the president to succeed; I campaigned for him. I share his world view and values."


    A Stretch (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 06:33:54 PM EST
    But you could squeeze that out of what Holder said. More like that the President has to pick his battles, while the AG has more of an obligation to straddle rule of law and doing something that could shut down the government without anything to show for it.

    Think the GOP Ken Starr BS.

    Holder's Quote:

    Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform.

    but, if newsweek has any credibility, it looks as if Holder is going to go for it. GOod for him if he does. Erasing the BUshCo stain is tantamount, imo, whitewashing the stain is BS.


    Parent

    It could also be (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 07:05:20 PM EST
    another attempt at quieting and co-opting the war crimes prosecution movement. They were more than a little successful at quieting and co-opting the anti-war get out of Iraq movement, so they know it works.

    But that might be granting them a little eleven dimensional chess capability, I suppose.

    My cynicism is near boundless these days...

    Parent

    These Days? (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 07:11:14 PM EST
    My cynicism is near boundless these days..

    I don't know where you have been, but seems to me that cynicism for most of us started a very looooong time ago, at least political cynicism.

    And I know that neither of us had much hope for either HRC or Obama..  Although I do like the change in air freshener quite a bit.

    BushCo was over the top, imo.

    Parent

    BushCo is still over the top, and (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 07:14:28 PM EST
    it would be a good thing if ObamaCo wasn't more and better at being BushCo most of the time.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 07:26:56 PM EST
    However disappointing ObamaCo is, it still doesn't touch BushCO, not even close, imo.  

    The country is more conservative than most here, and Congress and the Executive Branch reflect that demographic, imo. Otherwise, they would be out of a job, in most cases.

    Parent

    Well, consider that (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 07:41:31 PM EST
    if McCain had won and then spent the past six months doing all the crap Obama's been doing (and not doing) since inauguration... just think how horrible that would be.

    Leftblogistan would be up in arms yelling louder all over the front page every day demanding impeachment and prosecution and blood.

    And the mainstream media? They'd be carrying on just as they have been this year.

    Parent

    That article lost me (none / 0) (#12)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 08:01:02 PM EST
    when it started refering to American Military personnel as "assassins and death squads" without any back up- I mean words have meanings and "death squad" in particular has a meaning.

    Parent
    Not surprised. (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 09:10:31 PM EST
    It would have lost me too, if those words were anywhere at all in the article.

    You feeling ok?

    Parent

    You don't know much about (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 09:13:57 PM EST
    Lt. General Stanley A McChrystal, and JSOC, do you.

    Google is your friend.

    Parent

    Dream On (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 08:03:38 PM EST
    The GOP would not even have considered any change in Health Plan. THe Iraq withdrawl would have been scratched, we would have troops in Iran (bomb bomb bomb Iran).

    Flame wars with Russia, maybe throwing some gasoline on the fires of Georgia.. Ukraine.. etc.  China? Pakistan?

    And what else, oh right, creationism in the classroom, stacked SC  to repeal everything moderately tolerable, ROE, Bowers.. etc.

    New federal sodomy laws, debtors prison for the poor, occasional martial law when the fundies do conscription parades in towns near you. Permanent wiretapping for all... Biometric chip implants as a national identity card mandated for all given at birth.

    A revival of the civil war? Maybe.. who knows. And of course the big topper, Palin as president.

    Parent

    Not necessarily true Squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ctrenta on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 09:21:49 AM EST

    The Iraq withdrawl would have been scratched

    They're still going to maintain troops and they're leaving the number of bases still in the country. There's also the gargantuan U.S. embassy, which means we're not going anywhere.

    Parent

    Yeah, I Know (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 12:06:07 PM EST
    But on July 1, the troops moved out of the cities and are no longer wanted. Violence is down as a result, fingers crossed it stays that way.

    If McSame were in charge the troops would still be in the streets, inciting violence, and flaming Iraqi citizens, imo. IOW the SOFA would have been ignored by US Presidential decree, imo.

    Parent

    And none of that (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 09:05:37 PM EST
    has anything to do with what I asked  above.

    Parent
    Shh... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 08:07:59 PM EST
    man, we're supposed to have forgotten the past 8 years and thus think that a moderate Democratic is the same as a Republican- "Gush and Bore" vote Nader not more of the same and all of that stuff.  Seriously, Obama has disappointed on some things but delivered on a lot of others and to pretend that it would be the same with McCain just demonstrates an incredible inability to process recent history.  

    Parent
    I think you're (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 08:51:32 PM EST
    missing the point. The problem seems to be that when Obama acts just like Bush people on the left just let him roll over them and spit on them whereas if Bush had done it they would be up in arms. Why should Obama treat people like you with disrepect? You continually let him get away with it. It's what happens when you dont have an allegiance to issues. It's the same behavior that the bushbots perfected for 8 years. The GOP'er's always screamed about any type of government spending until Bush came along and all of sudden they were okay with it. We're not diverging from the last 8 years or changing anything much. So far Obama has signed prepackaged legislation or let the GOP write economic packages that now his economic advisors are saying were based on poorly formed models. Geez, give me a break. Inepititude from a Dem isnt any prettier than ineptitude from a Republican.

    Parent
    What "a lot of others"? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 08:52:32 PM EST
    Lets see (none / 0) (#21)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:10:30 PM EST
    Withdrawl from Iraqi cities
    Leadbetter Act
    NIH funding and reorganization
    Stem Cell funding
    Lifting Global Gag Rule
    SCHIP
    Cap and Trade
    He's moving on Health Care Reform
    Gitmo while stalled has begun to empty a bit - Uighur's specifically
    Re-inforcement in Afghanistan
    Increased Fuel Efficency Standards
    etc.

    Parent
    This thread again (none / 0) (#28)
    by JThomas on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 11:04:26 AM EST
    just proves that for the anti-Obama gang on here, he could never satisfy them,period,because he is not Hillary.
    By restoring the proper arms-length relationship between the White House and DoJ, Obama has put Holder in position to decide himself how to proceed on this matter, and yet, folks on here are hammering Obama for not being Bush-like and ordering Holder on how to proceed.

    As it is said, if Obama walked on water, the anti-Obama gang on here and in right wing world would say...''see,the guy can't swim,what a bum''

    Parent

    "Let's not be sheeple" (none / 0) (#23)
    by Spamlet on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:59:36 PM EST
    One thing is particularly clear: any pro-Obama partisan who lectures others on the need to be patient with Obama, or to believe Obama knows best when it comes to whether and when to act on the issues of torture and detention - well, anyone who argues that position should now know that they own responsibility for Bush-era lawless cruelty, along with the Obama administration. Now more than ever, let's not be sheeple.



    Parent

    Not so sure if (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 09:49:50 PM EST
    "The country is more conservative than most here."

    But the Senate, where Idaho and California are equals sure makes it seem so.

    Parent

    But Then (none / 0) (#25)
    by daring grace on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 08:19:11 AM EST
    California periodically surprises as it did last year with Prop 8...

    Parent
    I meant (none / 0) (#32)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 01:25:51 PM EST
    that a Conservative state like Idaho, who's entire population could fit into one of Los Angeles's buildings has the same number of Senators.

    Parent
    Timing could be interesting (none / 0) (#5)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 06:59:00 PM EST
    While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter.

    If HCR stays on schedule or close, the announcement could come after? I mean if he's really conflicted with O's agenda and dealing with torture . . . .

    I just don't know what to think anymore . .  :-/

    Parent

    More work for Jeralyn (none / 0) (#29)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 11:27:09 AM EST
    18 USC § 2340A [1] provides:
    ◦ "Section 2340A. Torture
    (a) Offense. - Whoever outside the United States commits or
    attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or
    imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death
    results to any person from conduct prohibited by this
    subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any
    term of years or for life.
    (b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activity
    prohibited in subsection (a) if -
    (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United
    States; or
    (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States,
    irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged
    offender.
    (c) Conspiracy. - A person who conspires to commit an
    offense under this section shall be subject to the same
    penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties
    prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the
    object of the conspiracy."

    18 U.S.C. § 1111-1117 implement the felony murder rule.

    Abed Hamed Mowhoush, Abdul Jameel, Fashad Mohammed, Manadel al-
    Jamadi, Nagem Sadoon Hatab, Abdul Wali, Habibullah, Dilawar, Sajid Kadhim
    Bori al-Bawi, Obeed Hethere Radad, Mohammed Sayari and Zaidoun Hassoun were tortured to death as a result of their claims. That makes them eligible for the death penalty. More work for Jeralyn. The question is, would she defend them if appointed?

    Sheepish (none / 0) (#30)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 11:53:50 AM EST
    should have been "tortured to death as a result of their crimes.", not claims.

    Typos, tpyos typos.

    "appointing a [Special] prosecutor" (none / 0) (#33)
    by Sumner on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 01:32:51 PM EST
    How about Bruce Fein?