The New Republic

Their letter shows Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet, John Deutch, R. James Woolsey, William Webster,and James R. Schlesinger to be pathological liars who support torture. The idea that these investigations into torture at the CIA will limit the willingness of other countries to help the US is utterly ludicrous - the reality is precisely the opposite. European authorities are much less likely to involve themselves in actions which they believe to be illegal in their own countries where they will not be protected by the moral depravity of these signatories. The desire of thes signatories to end investigations into torture almost certainly committed by CIA officials inside the Bush torture regime shows their willingness to betray not only the CIA but the United States itself. They demonstrate just how unfit they were to hold high Government office.

- ndmackenzie

September 18, 2009 at 6:30pm

And what has Obama done? He has resolved to leave Poland and the Czech Republic without missile defenses.

That shows an almost laughable lack of understanding of how missile defense works (or does not work, as the case may be). The missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic were not to be providers of missile defense to those countries. They were to be providers of missile defense, primarily, to the US. Iran is unlikely to be firing ICBMs at Poland anytime soon, you know. Poland and the CR liked the idea (kinda) because the sites would necessitate American troops in their countries and, therefore, an implicit security guarantee against Russian invasion. We were planning to give Poland some Patriot batteries, which would provide them some missile defense. As far as I know, that's still on. Amusingly, we agreed to provide the Patriots in order to persuade Poland to let us build missile defense sites there.

- ratnerstar

September 18, 2009 at 6:46pm

Ratty, I was going to write the same thing, in addition it makes me wonder if Marty even reads his own magazine which has come down pretty strongly in favor of Obama's plan. Besides, I find it highly unlikely that Iran or any rogue nation will target Poland or the Czechs, on the other hand, if the missiles are coming from Russia then we can all pretty much kiss our asses goodbye. As to the missive about the CIA, astounding how Prosecutariol discretion is only good when it supports your own viewpoint. Holder is well within his rights to pursue this investigation and I honestly can't get myself to feel aggrieved for CIA agents who might have committed torture. If I were a member of the jury I wouldn't vote to convict (nor do I imagine any jury would), but for pity's sake, at least let the process work itself out. I have little faith in anything the Bush department did. And if other countries engaged in a criminal conspiracy with us in violation of the Geneva convention, then screw them too. That letter was self-serving bullshit. Hayden, Bush appointee Goss, Bush appointee Tenet, Schmuck Woolsey has been known primarily as a neoconservative Democrat— hawkish on foreign policy issues but liberal on economic and social issues. He endorsed Senator John McCain for president William Webster, Reagan appointee James R. Schlesinger, Nixon appointee Deutch was the only Dem. but as to his keeping secrets: Soon after Deutch's departure from the CIA in 1996 it was revealed that classified materials were being kept on several of Deutch's laptop computers designated as unclassified. 5 Conservative Republicans, 1 very Conservative Democrats, and 2 incompetent boobs, yeah. that is really persuasive.

- blackton

September 18, 2009 at 7:26pm

As the Bush administration spent a lot of time trying to convince the Russians -- presumably with some basis in fact -- that the anti-missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic would not threaten Russia in any way, I am at a total loss to understand why, as Marty claims, the removal of the systems should leave these countries "defenseless." Either the Bush administration was lying, in which case it was a rather dangerous game to play with little profit to show for it, or they were telling the truth, in which case Poland and the CR are no better or worse off than before the idea came up.

- ironyroad

September 18, 2009 at 8:23pm

Blackton I don’t know enough about these things to comment on Obama’s decision regarding Poland and the Ukraine. But I find that part of your post pertaining to Holder’s decision disappointing. The first point is that prosecutorial discretion has already been exercised: “The post-September 11 interrogations for which the attorney general is opening an inquiry were investigated four years ago by career prosecutors. The CIA, at its own initiative, forwarded fewer than 20 instances where agency officers appeared to have acted beyond their existing legal authorities. Career prosecutors under the supervision of the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia determined that one prosecution (of a CIA contractor) was warranted. A conviction was later obtained. They determined that prosecutions were not warranted in the other cases. In a number of these cases the CIA subsequently took administrative disciplinary steps against the individuals involved. “ So your complaints that “Prosecutariol (sic) discretion is only good when it supports your own viewpoint” and that “...at least let the process work itself out” make no sense when the facts of the matter are the very opposite of your complaint. My understanding is that disinterested and not beholden, career prosecutors conducted the reviews and recommended prosecution in at least one instance. The CIA also took some administrative against some whose it actions, the reviewers decided, did not warrant prosecution. The second point is whether you are comfortable with an investigation that only takes up those who were following orders and not of those who gave the orders. But I don’t see you complaining of that lack of investigation and I can’t imagine it being politically possible for Obama wanting the highest precincts of the last administration similarly investigated and I’d give you long odds that that investigation won’t happen. (See for example Jonathon Turley on that, somewhere--too lazy to look it up.) So what’s driving this half baked investigation so many years after the fact and poking around where law and politics and national security all blending into each other? My hunch is that it’s a political calculation meant to appease the left side of the base. The third point is that you may disagree with the letter but you dismiss it without engaging oit by calling it self serving bullshit. The letter makes amongst the following points: 1. Obama has the juice to call off the dogs; 2. The independent review already noted; 3. The arguably redundant investigation is oppressive against those who were the subject of the last go round and creates continuous jeopardy for them; 4. The “politics” of the new investigations by a new administration after years before prosecutorial declination appears to stink and torpedoes the CIA’s morale, particularly those charged with trying to keep America safe. As the letters note, quoting Lieberman’s apt comment: “They must be free, as the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman, has put it: ‘to do their dangerous and critical jobs without worrying that years from now a future attorney general will authorize a criminal investigation of them for behavior that a previous attorney general concluded was authorized and legal.’ Similar deference needs to be shown to fact-based decisions made by career prosecutors years ago.” So what impact will the decision now to investigate have on those agents “in the field?” It can’t be good; 5. Any prosecution will lead to defence demands for disclosure that will hamper CIA efforts “in the field”, will assist the enemy and concern allies who act in cooperation with America on the premise of secrecy . So why exactly are these points "self serving" and so why exactly are they "bullshit", apart from your disagreement with their arguments? My last point is that you may wish to show a tad more humility before writing off relatively distinguished American who, I'd wager ,in good faith did public service, who you disagree with, on such palpably absurd *grounds* such as who appointed them and the ever enlightening “Schmuck”.

- basman

September 18, 2009 at 8:38pm

Marty: Whatsa matta wit you? Didn't you realize that all those guys who signed the letter were pathological liars, schmucks, incompetents, closet right-wingers, or, worst of all, Republicans? The signers do not include three other living former DCIs: Turner, Bush, and Gates. We can dismiss the elder Bush and Gates out-of-hand, since they suffer from the fatal disorder of Republicanism. My impression is that Stansfield Turner lives; whether he still thinks I don't know. Then, of course, we have Obama's head of intelligence, Leon Panetta. According to media reports, he is livid at Holder's action. Since Leon is by all accounts a Democrat, I gather he must be a shmuck, a closet right-winger, an incompetent, or a pathological liar.

- lsernoff

September 18, 2009 at 8:51pm

You seem to be forgetting that those who have loosed the CIA thugs on the world over the past 70 odd years loosed it on the Constitution too. But I'll bet you're one of those "law and order" types who make a careful distinction between enforcing laws that protect the interests of your people and breaking the laws that might be protecting the interests of those you dispise. Fuck the law then, right? Fuck the Constitution too. The hypocrisy is like a vast pool of pus. The CIA has always been an extention of one or another cabel on Wall Street. Sure, they went after the Commies and the terrorists. But they also aided and abetted American foreign policy in ousting from power any and all political factions that dared to stand up to multinational corporations....the ITTs, the Exxons, the United Fruits, the Walmarts, the Haliburtons...that preferred proxy dictators to keep those intent on dismantling the plutocratic autocracies around the globe from dismantling those friends of ours ever intent on sustaining a favorable business climate for those who preferred a business model along the lines of the sweatshop. Tell me, how do you keep the merely bullshit here separate from the out and out lies when you bunk down with the CIA? But come to think of it, how does Obama do it? How, for example, do either of you reconcile it with your alleged loving, just and merciful God? What a moral cesspool the world is. Especially the part reserved for the "civilized" folks who own and operate it. george

- iambiguous

September 18, 2009 at 9:46pm

My understanding is that disinterested and not beholden, career prosecutors conducted the reviews and recommended prosecution in at least one instance. You can't really believe that. How many career prosecutors were canned by Rove and his team. I am not saying these people who did the review were corrupt but they could hardly have been expected to be impartial. I am sure every career prosecutor during WW2 would have had no problem affirming the legality of the internment of all Japanese Americans in prison camps. Sadly, it took until September 27, 1992, (the process was not begun until 1976 with Ford admitting it was a mistake) finishing up with the Civil Liberties Act Amendments of 1992, appropriating an additional $400 million in order to ensure that all remaining internees received their $20,000 redress payments, was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush, who also issued another formal apology from the U.S. government. I am sure every intelligence agency during WW2 were all for the internment, even the Supreme Court authorized it, so our highest court in the land agreed with it. And they were all wrong. But we did let the process occur. Right now these intelligence people want to decide what is legal and illegal. That is not their job. Let me just cover some of these points. . Obama has the juice to call off the dogs; (Republicans screamed that Holder would not be independent, when he does something independently now Republicans are screaming he should be dependent, which is it? Of course Obama doesn't want this, but it is not his call) 2. The independent review already noted; (see WW2, Japanese internment camps, etc.) 3. The arguably redundant investigation is oppressive against those who were the subject of the last go round and creates continuous jeopardy for them; (no, there are statutes of limitations, and for the ones that there aren't, a crime is a crime that they can only be prosecuted for once) 4. The “politics” of the new investigations by a new administration after years before prosecutorial declination appears to stink and torpedoes the CIA’s morale, particularly those charged with trying to keep America safe. As the letters note, quoting Lieberman’s apt comment: “They must be free, as the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman, has put it: ‘to do their dangerous and critical jobs without worrying that years from now a future attorney general will authorize a criminal investigation of them for behavior that a previous attorney general concluded was authorized and legal.’ Similar deference needs to be shown to fact-based decisions made by career prosecutors years ago.” (if you don't ever want to be placed in legal jeopardy don't torture. But if you do torture for the greater good, be prepared to face the consequences. As to whether it is torture, I would rather that be decided by a jury of 12 then a handful of CIA directors, if it even gets that far, at least the American people have the right to know what was done in darkened rooms. As I said, I doubt I would vote to convict, but the process itself can exist as a deterrent) So what impact will the decision now to investigate have on those agents “in the field?” It can’t be good; (pure speculation. I have a friend who works for the NSA who is appalled by torture, and I can't imagine it is good for morale to work for an agency that is known for torturing suspects. Most, I am sure, what to be thought of as the good guys, and not cloak and dagger sinister agents. 5. Any prosecution will lead to defence demands for disclosure that will hamper CIA efforts “in the field”, will assist the enemy and concern allies who act in cooperation with America on the premise of secrecy . (pure speculation. again, I simply don't see how investigating acts of torture will bring this about, and besides no foreign government can possibly be compelled to give up information due to some request by a defense attorney, anyway it wold never, ever go that far.) Simply put, this is housekeeping, I simply have no faith in the previous administration, the ones who actively broke to law or decided on their own that illegal acts were legal just because it was they who were doing it. Shine a light on the fuckers, I don't want to wait 50 years before we come clean. Let Bush and Cheney be judged for their actions while they are still alive (although I am not sure Cheney was ever alive in human terms)

- blackton

September 19, 2009 at 8:05pm

I couldn't agree with you more, blackie. Of course, the CIA can handle a private probe, they are professionals and I bet some of them may secretly welcome it. My only reservation, as I mentioned in another thread, is the timing and the political cost to the new administration. Partisan and selfish, almost GOP-ish, on my part, but I just think that the way Republicans can manufacture political outrage out of thin air, should always be considered before any part of this administration do anything. Though So far, they have weathered the crackpots, so perhaps my fears are unfounded.

- scrubby

September 20, 2009 at 8:21am

… I am not saying these people who did the review were corrupt but they could hardly have been expected to be impartial... This can’t be a good argument without impugning those who did the review. The review was done years after the complained of acts. There is no suggestion by anyone that I have read, except you, of any taint on the independent prosecutors doing the review. The complained of acts took place in 2002. The cases were reviewed by federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia in 2005. They traveled the globe to talk to witnesses, reviewed interview reports and ultimately prepared detailed memos explaining the reasons they did not prosecute agency interrogators and contractors. There is no allegation of pressure from the department of justice to decide the cases in a certain direction. And now its 2009 going on to 2010. And get this according to Washington Post, September 19, 2009: “…The attorney general has played down expectations for the inquiry; he issued a statement last month that "neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow." Although earlier reports indicated that Durham would look into 10 cases, a source said recently the number is much smaller. In all, 24 alleged abuse cases were earlier referred to federal prosecutors by the CIA inspector general, of which 22 were declined, according to a letter in February 2008 from a Justice Department legislative liaison…. Given this contracting scope are you sure you want to analogize from Japanese internment to a decision that goes selectively after a few allegedly rogue interrogators who acted within orders and law set from on high? I want to see a real sign that somebody is going to investigate the opinion drafters and those on high who “conspired with them though I think none of them should be. If you think about it, the internment example is a disanalogy, even though for you it primarily was used to illustrate a timing point. It applied to a broad swath of indentified Americans. It did not involve later reprisal by the threat of prosecution against the internment deciders and implementers. Japan ceased being an enemy and a threat. If you want to consider some form of compensation to affected waterboardees and whomever else, well, let’s talk about it. The true analogy would be a non prosecutorial inquiry into past policies aimed at analyzing why and making policy recommendations. It’s not Obama’s call, you say. Well really it is. Obama isn’t going to go public and yell stop. That’s silly. AGs on macro matters don’t do want the president as a matter of policy doesn’t want. If Ags feels strongly enough about it, they resign. Continuing the call metaphor, it will be, and I think has already started to sound, sotto voce: a contracting investigation, the dawning realization of the political unfeasibility of the investigation—someone just yesterday being arrested in Colorado with active plans to do terror in the new York subways. My bet: it’s going to go away, slowly and inexorably, on Obama’s say so, without his evident fingerprints. A crime is a crime. This tautology is the tail that wags the dog and it contradicts your former argument *for* prosecutorial discretion as do your appeal to statutes of prescription, misconceives the issue and is question begging in the sense of assuming what its conclusion. There is no argument here against that truism. The arguments against the prosecution such as made by those former estimable prosecutors and judges who headed the CIA who wrote the letter and Leon Panetta, who did not, focused—somewhat as noted but further expanded on by me now—on: 1. The techniques were ordered by the president and okayed by the Justice Department. Congress was briefed. Even stipulating the legal opinions were badly flawed, the agency responsible agency for interpreting and enforcing the law said the techniques were "legal” and that alone will make prosecutions really vexed, a factor considered in the first review. 2. The CIA gave the inspector general's report to the Justice in 2004 It did not prosecute any CIA officers but did a contractor who beat a detainee to death, i reported to Jstice by the CIA. What’s changed? A crime is a crime but for one administration to prosecute career officers for acts under a policy of a previous administration is incredibly fraught with problems: one being the precedent using criminal law to settle policy differences at the expense of career officers. As I said, “The true analogy would be a non prosecutorial inquiry into past policies aimed at analyzing why and making policy recommendations”. 3. As noted after Justice declined to prosecute, the CIA took administrative action, including disciplinary action against those officers whose conduct warranted such responses. This is, I understand from some reading, is standard procedure: reports of possible criminal activity must be referred to Justice. If it declines to prosecute, it goes back to the CIA for appropriate administrative action. 4. As noted the threat of persecuting officers, after an already unimpugned review, chills current intelligence operations and depresses morale just what America does not need. It will be a burden on those again to be investigated and their peers will be chastened in to risk adversity. What will mean when they are told “Worry not, "the orders are legally kosher”? And powerfully as I noted, risk adversity will be leavened with cynicism if the focus is only on the officers, and not their uppers. 5. Prosecutions could chill critical international cooperation.. The key here is the ability to be reliable partner and keep secrets. Prosecution undermines that. 6. Obama has decisively changed policies. He himself has argued for the significance to security not to be distracted by looking backward and coping with congressional investigations and grand jury subpoena. (1) And to this you say a crime is a crime, where, as is evident from these arguments, law, policy, national security and war blend and overlap, the boundaries blurred. Let the process go forward: “if you don't ever want to be placed in legal jeopardy don't torture. But if you do torture for the greater good, be prepared to face the consequences”; “As I said, I doubt I would vote to convict, but the process itself can exist as a deterrent.” This is a hodge podge. When you are told by your superiors in a legitimate national organization—the CIA--—who won’t be subject to investigation, prosecution—it’s kosher to do these things, doing them is vital to national security, the President has authorized them and Justice has okayed them after hearing from the OCL, and you do them, it’s gonna’ be warm beer to hear from Blackton, “if you don't ever want to be placed in legal jeopardy don't torture”. And given these dynamics, this process for legitimatizing orders, where’s the deterrent? Next time a superior tells a field guy here are your orders authorized by the president, okayed all down chain of command right to you Mr. or Ms Operative, what will the operative’s deterrence analysis be? It’s not exactly on all fours if I rob a store I go to jail or in other climes get my hands cut off or whatever. If you want to air this stuff for public edification, not something I agree with, leave the political pawned operatives out of it, I say and have sme type of public inquiry. And it maybe that you are giving away your own case by candidly saying you would not vote to convict. Examine why? You will know why and I won’t because I’m not you. But I’d wager that the reasons revealed by that self examination go right to why it’s unwise now to open up this whole can of worms. Defence demands: the defence I imagine will be following orders, the context of the orders, their genesis, and their documentation, plus asking for the broadest disclosure on even the thinnest of plausible theories of good faith relevance to try to make the stakes for the government so high that it will be moved to consider the prosecutions not worth it. Broad right of defence discovery available in your criminal courts is a big reason for the argument for tailored military tribunals. From the same Washington Post article: “…When they rejected the other cases, Justice Department officials cited complications, including a lack of evidence, problems with jurisdiction and "low probability of conviction," according to a letter sent to Senate Democrats, who had demanded information about the investigations. One government lawyer involved in the reviews called the evidence "a mess" and said that material collected on battlefields and in secret prisons was difficult to translate into a criminal case, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt….” And the issue is not as you suggest foreign governments being compelled to give up information, it’s the American government and its agencies being forced to make disclosure including information it has from other states. Finally I would have more respect for the decision to investigate—which I now think is contemptible politics of base placation—if in fact it went into high places. I wouldn’t agree with it but I would be moved to think the decision was principled, however misguided. But Blackton, you know that will never happen as a matter of sheer political reality, which makes the decision to investigate vile, cynical and unprincipled as well as unbelievably foolish. (1) Some of these six points were taken from a piece by Jeffery Smith.

- basman

September 20, 2009 at 1:33pm

ndmackenzie "Their letter shows Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet, John Deutch, R. James Woolsey, William Webster,and James R. Schlesinger to be pathological liars who support torture" The Jew hating mackenzie talking about pathological liars is like Charles Manson talking about innocence.

- jacksondyer

September 20, 2009 at 2:05pm

I lost one already so a brief comment. 1. The techniques were ordered by the president and okayed by the Justice Department. Congress was briefed. (no, not really, just a few select members and what was reported is in dispute). Beyond that, these guys weren't dummies, waterboarding, threatening to rape someones wife, etc. even if someone said it was legal they had to know it was dodgy. Obviously, they assumed they would never get caught or be prosecuted and certainly no one has any sympathy for the worst of the worst. Beyond that, this is not who Holder is after: "The attorney general's decision to order a preliminary review into this matter was made in line with his duty to examine the facts and to follow the law. As he has made clear, the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees," Miller said in a written statement. 2. The CIA gave the inspector general's report to the Justice in 2004 It did not prosecute any CIA officers but did a contractor who beat a detainee to death, i reported to Jstice by the CIA. What’s changed? “As attorney general, my duty is to examine the facts and to follow the law,” Mr. Holder said in a statement. “Given all of the information currently available, it is clear to me that this review is the only responsible course of action for me to take.” The attorney general said his decision to order an inquiry was based in part on the recommendation of the Justice Department’s ethics office, which called for a new review of several interrogation cases. 3. As noted after Justice declined to prosecute, the CIA took administrative action, including disciplinary action against those officers whose conduct warranted such responses. One former CIA official familiar with the cases now under review said that Bush-era Justice lawyers declined to prosecute either because they were not certain they could win conviction or because some of the CIA personnel involved had already been disciplined by the agency. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the cases. To me this does not rise to the level of absolution, Bush could simply have pardoned them on his way out the door. Why didn't he? Maybe because he knows that when the evidence does come out that he will have pardoned actions that would be viewed as criminal. 4. As noted the threat of persecuting officers, after an already unimpugned review, chills current intelligence operations and depresses morale just what America does not need. (the fact is the review is being impugned now, and the rest is just speculation. I don't see how telling CIA agents not to do what the President has already ordered them not to do is going to chill any operation or depress morale, contrary to what many people might believe this was a very, very small minority, most of what the CIA does is normal intelligence gathering. Trust me, the CIA station chief in Beijing ain't torturing any Chinese to get information, the same is true throughout most of the rest of the world, even in both theaters of war) 5. Prosecutions could chill critical international cooperation.. The key here is the ability to be reliable partner and keep secrets. Prosecution undermines that. Okay, give me some examples. Do you think the British will care? They have the state secrets act so they have nothing to worry about. Besides, do you really think the CIA had MI6 sit in? And as to the Iraqis, well does anyone imagine they are a reliable partner. Hell, Bush wanted to install a guy as President of Iraq who was selling secrets to the Iranians. 6. Obama has decisively changed policies. He himself has argued for the significance to security not to be distracted by looking backward and coping with congressional investigations and grand jury subpoena. I don't even care what Obama thinks, believe you me I am more than happy that an AG is standing up against him, even if it is politically dicey. Good lord, after Alberto Gonzalez and his crew (only fundie Christians need apply) I long for an independent AG. If anything, I think the department should be far more independent, kind of like the Fed. That way we would never have a Gonzalez or a John Mitchell again. Finally, you are angry that it will only go after the low hanging fruit and not the higher ups, but the hit to their reputations is important as a deterrence against Bushian arrogance.

- blackton

September 20, 2009 at 8:47pm

Blackton let me respond to you trying not merely to repeat myself. Saying the same thing over again my give me the illusion of being persuasive but only at the expense of boring you and trying your patience. I find myself shifting the ground of my argument somewhat here, but that's okay It’s kind of hard to argue against, admittedly, examining the facts and following the law, but this comment, I find, just reinforces my argument: . “ ‘As he has made clear, the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees,’ Miller said” I continue to ask why this is wise policy, so long after the fact, if it’s been done already, without any impugning of that investigation? But my focus now is the assumption in the quoted statement that the opinions from OLC are to be taken as lawful. For that assumption seems necessary to the decision not to prosecute “anyone who acted in good faith within the scope of the legal guidance given” by that office. That assumption, if it is warranted, undermines your argument that those who waterboarded, made certain highly offensive threats etc. had to know what they were doing was “dodgy”. They were, it seems, acting within the scope of the OLC’s now-stamped-kosher guidelines. The guidleines allowed for waterboarding for example. But the argument always has been till now at least that torture is unlawful and those who did it, ordered it, ordained it, authorized it--moving up the chain of command here-- broke the law. Now all that ordaining, authorizing, ordering is taken as lawful since compliance with OLC guidelines will not give rise to prosecution. So the whole issue has been emasculated as evident in the quoted statement. What happened to going after torture? My guess is that the political unfeasibility of taking on substantively the previous administration meaningfully had to be balanced with placating the base and this water downed inquiry, a brazen but limp political act, is what you are left with, placation on the backs of guys in the field who already were investigated. If I was really bothered by the last administration’s sanctioning and implementing of water boarding as torture, for one example, I’d be up in arms at such an attenuated poke by Holder even as the poke's own scope seems to be contracting daily as noted in the Post. Better nothing, I’d think, than letting Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, other uppers, the OLC lawyers and whomever all else off the hook while we pound on the backs of those in the field—“the low hanging fruit” as you caustically put it. (To be clear, as I say, I don’t favour anyone going after anyone, but if I did I’d be outraged by the sheer hypocrisy of this limp investigation.) None of this is any deterrence to "Bushian arrogance" I don’t think. The lesson I’d take from this as a policy maker, OLC lawyer, high ranking something, cabinet something, whomever, is that the guys in the field, the low hanging fruit, the grunts if you will, will bear the burden of my arrogance, criminal wrong doing, as long as I have it papered with opinions from OLC and with proper formalities all down the “chain of command”. No?

- basman

September 21, 2009 at 3:30pm

thanks basman, interesting reply, and like you said I don't want to retread over the same ground so I will focus only on one statement: The lesson I’d take from this as a policy maker, OLC lawyer, high ranking something, cabinet something, whomever, is that the guys in the field, the low hanging fruit, the grunts if you will, will bear the burden of my arrogance, criminal wrong doing, as long as I have it papered with opinions from OLC and with proper formalities all down the “chain of command”. The chinese have a statement: "sha ji jing hou" or "Kill a chicken to scare the monkeys". Even if the higher ups escape, it is doubtful that the grunts in the field will so readily follow such orders. "My guess is that the political unfeasibility of taking on substantively the previous administration meaningfully had to be balanced with placating the base and this water downed inquiry, a brazen but limp political act, is what you are left with, placation on the backs of guys in the field who already were investigated." Anyway, I am not just a half a loaf kind of guy, I will take even a slice of justice. Reportedly there are a number of cases that should be prosecuted that was pushed aside wherein prisoners died. Justice delayed is not always justice denied. Not all of these prisoners were KSM types, some were completely innocent, being sold out to Americans like a few Uigher transients going from China to the Middle east in search of jobs, along what was the former silk road. Finally, these guys all could have written an article requesting Bush pardon all of the offenses, which would have stopped all proceedings from going forward, they didn't and Bush didn't because they didn't want to get their hands dirty. They want to have it both ways by having it all ignored.

- blackton

September 21, 2009 at 5:56pm

Blackton thanks for your reply. Give me a bit of time to let some work dust settle and I'll respond to you.

- basman

September 22, 2009 at 10:48am

Okay Blackton I read your last post more carefully. Nothing to add really to what I have said. So we can agree to disagree and thanks for the interesting exchange. I liked this: "sha ji jing hou" or "Kill a chicken to scare the monkeys".

- basman

September 23, 2009 at 11:16am