Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Ron DeSantis, the grand wizard, oops, governor of FL.

One of our two political parties is a cult whose leader admires Vladimir Putin.

“Just close your eyes and kiss the girl and go where the tilt-a-whirl takes you.” ~OzarkHillbilly

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

Conservatism: there are people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

There are more Russians standing up to Putin than Republicans.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

“woke” is the new caravan.

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

FFS people, this was a good thing. take the win.

Let there be snark.

Democrats are back in array!

Beware of advice from anyone for whom Democrats are “they” and not “we.”

Dead end MAGA boomers crying about Talyor Swift being a Dem is my kind of music. Turn it up.

Speaker Mike Johnson is a vile traitor to the House and the Constitution.

This isn’t Democrats spending madly. This is government catching up.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

You are here: Home / He Came Through

Reader Interactions

199Comments

  2. 2.

    Comrade Mary, Would-Be Minion Of Bad Horse

    Some people are criticizing the redaction of CIA officers’ names, but I’m fine with it. All the other details are there, and it’s the right thing to do.

    If there are prosecutions of Yoo and others — my gut and heart want this, my head doesn’t know if this will torpedo a lot of energy and political capital — while CIA officers get away scot-free, that’s not right. "Just following orders" didn’t work then and doesn’t work now.

    But just because the names are redacted now doesn’t mean that nothing will ever happen to these officers. Redaction != global pardon.

  3. 3.

    Stoic

    Yeah, but he’s already promised not to prosecute. Full disclosure is an empty gesture when we find out the extent of the crimes done in our name.

  4. 4.

    Cris

    Simultaneously, and certainly with the intend to placate angry intelligence officials, Attorney General Eric Holder has "informed CIA officials [though not necessarily Bush officials] who used waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics on terror suspects that they will not be prosecuted," and Obama announced the same thing in his statement.

    COLE thanks for supporting BUSH LITE !!! !! eleven!!

  5. 5.

    Comrade Mary, Would-Be Minion Of Bad Horse

    Oh, wait …

    In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.

    Fine. Fine, I guess.

    I think one difference might be that it’s one thing to prosecute the soldiers and guards of a country with whom you had been at war. It’s another to prosecute your own country’s civil servants, leasing to rebellion or mass resignations from others. Rock, hard place — but it still sucks.

  6. 6.

    Soylent Green

    Yeah, okay, Mr. President, this is a time for reflection, not retribution, sing kumbaya and visualize whirled peas and all that, but christ on a bed of arugula with a nice sesame-tahini dressing, aren’t we going to make anyone at all suffer any consequences for their actions?

  7. 7.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    Yeah, we’re always asking how we keep this shit from happening again in the future and one way is to make it clear yer secret memos will be made public by the next administration.

    Whose balls do I have to gently hold in my mouth to get a teabagging thread?

  8. 8.

    Krista

    Well, Greenwald is happy about it, and he’s not willing to cut Obama a whole lot of slack.

    I do like this, though:

    "informed CIA officials [though not necessarily Bush officials] who used waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics on terror suspects that they will not be prosecuted,"

    It is morally wrong for anybody to torture, but as far as prosecutions go, it would set a rather messy precedent to say "Well, the last bunch of guys at the DOJ told you this was perfectly legal, but we’re saying it’s not, so you guys were idiots for listening to them. Too bad for you."

  9. 9.

    Llelldorin

    To be fair, he promised that CIA officers "relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice … will not be subject to prosecution."

    He didn’t say word one about the people who wrote that legal advice.

  10. 10.

    El Tiburon

    I think Obama’s greatest fear is having to pardon (or not) Bush or Cheney at some point in the future.

    Having to face this decision could destroy his Presidency.

  11. 11.

    joe from Lowell

    I trust that the people who so confidently told us he would not release them, and that the decision about whether or not to release them was the defining moment of his presidency, are going to engage in some deep introspection about why they were so wrong, and realize that their judgment of Barack Obama has been skewed, rather than simply moving the goal posts, dismissing the significance of this action, and finding some other act to so confidently lecture us about.

    Or, they can be dishonest, unprincipled d-bags.

    I don’t want to hear any f*cking Who lyrics for at least a week. Got it?

  13. 13.

    TenguPhule

    It is morally wrong for anybody to torture, but as far as prosecutions go, it would set a rather messy precedent to say "Well, the last bunch of guys at the DOJ told you this was perfectly legal, but we’re saying it’s not, so you guys were idiots for listening to them. Too bad for you."

    To go Godwin: This excuse never flew with the Nazi prosecutions.

    We have a whole chapter and verse about illegal orders in the military and I presume the CIA.

    No excuses.

  14. 14.

    Miriam

    I am incredibly relieved that they released the memos. I really didn’t think they would. I really think there needs to be prosecutions, but this is a good first step.

  15. 15.

    poopsybythebay

    Good for him–I had a feeling he would do the right thing. So I guess this makes the 999,999th time the WSJ was wrong. I assume the CIA losers were the anonymous sources for the ….he is leaning toward not releasing them salvo from this morning. I also assume ALL of the Murdoch publications are now an arm of the crooks and/or the Republican party.

  16. 16.

    Cat Lady

    Obama threaded a needle here, and I accept that. This decision was giving me heartburn all day, because it’s a tough one. Obama makes soothing noises to please the Villagers, and allows damning information to be released in accordance with requests made under the law. Imagine the pressure behind the scenes exerted by the culprits and their minions, which are still burrowed in. The screws are tightening on those guys, and the chips are falling where they may.

  17. 17.

    El Cid

    I think Obama’s greatest fear is having to pardon (or not) Bush or Cheney at some point in the future.

    I never thought of that. That’s a creepy scene.

    Still, I am very relieved that these torture policy memos were released. They’re not very comforting to read when you see that U.S. policy makers are discussing exactly how to apply and discuss the application of stinging insects in boxes to prisoners, but you gets yer good news where you can come by it.

  18. 18.

    joe from Lowell

    To go Godwin: This excuse never flew with the Nazi prosecutions.

    Actually, it did. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of German soldiers were acquitted after offering that defense for the acts they performed with their own hands.

    What the Nuremberg Tribunal held was that "I was just following orders" is not a valid defense for people whose actions involved giving orders to other people.

  20. 20.

    Comrade Jake

    I understand some of the frustration over the promise not to prosecute the dudes in the CIA, but I think that’s actually not such a bad balance to strike here. I’m sure some people will compare this to the defenses offered up at Nuremburg or some such nonsense, but I think that’s going to seem more hysterical than anything else.

    Obama did what I would describe as 95% of the goddamn right thing here. Let’s give him some credit for that.

  21. 21.

    Comrade Mary, Would-Be Minion Of Bad Horse

    I’ve been waiting for this topic to come up on another busy blog. Nothing yet, but it should be good once it gets there.

    Maybe I should go for a bike ride.

    @joe from Lowell: I did not know that. I obviously have been slacking on my history.

  22. 22.

    rob

    @ El T

    True that- nothing like a pardon or not pardon of a former President by a Prez of the different party to turn this whole country on its head. Let’s just move forward. From this day forth, the USA does NOT torture.

  23. 23.

    Dork

    I’m not sure I ever understood this:

    "A" is illegal. Suddenly, a bunch of legal profs write a letter saying "Uh, nope, A is no longer illegal". So the Pres then runs with that letter and can do as much A as he wants?

    Doesn’t this just set a precedent that any Pres can disobey any law as long as his buddy hands him a note written on fancy legal letterhead saying he can?

    This doesn’t jive with my def of a democracy.

  24. 24.

    gopher2b

    "The maximum allowable duration for sleep deprivation authorized by the CIA is 180 hours, after which the detainee must be permitted to sleep without interruption for at least eight hours."

    The memo goes on to describe how to keep someone awake for 7.5 days. You do this by chain them to the ceiling so that they have to stand or sitting on a stool that if you fall asleep you would slip off. The detainees are either naked or in adult diapers (the purpose of the diaper, of course, is not to humiliate but merely for the sanitary well being of the detainee).

    Torture. Period.

  25. 25.

    Violet

    @Llelldorin:

    To be fair, he promised that CIA officers "relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice … will not be subject to prosecution."

    He didn’t say word one about the people who wrote that legal advice.

    Yes, exactly. I do not think we’ve heard the end of this as far as those who gave the orders were concerned.

    Good for our President for doing the right thing.

  26. 26.

    gopher2b

    @Violet:

    Keep in mind, it’s not just "legal advice." These memos carried with them the effect of law…..like if a judge had written them.

  27. 27.

    Xanthippas

    Yeah, okay, Mr. President, this is a time for reflection, not retribution, sing kumbaya and visualize whirled peas and all that, but christ on a bed of arugula with a nice sesame-tahini dressing, aren’t we going to make anyone at all suffer any consequences for their actions?

    Give us names and some tar and feathers, and we’ll take care of that part.

  28. 28.

    Roq

    Chill about the low-level officials stuff. That’s nothing new. Do we want Just A Few Bad Apples Redeux? No. We want the people who are really responsible for this.

    Having these memos could end up being a really important part of bringing prosecutions, and everyone knows that. That’s why the bad guys fought so hard against it. Obama is not Bush Lite.

  29. 29.

    Violet

    Urgh. The blockquote button seems to have gone haywire. The sentence about legal advice isn’t mine, and even on edit shows to be in the blockquote tag. What the heck?

  30. 30.

    mr. whipple

    I trust that the people who so confidently told us he would not release them, and that the decision about whether or not to release them was the defining moment of his presidency, are going to engage in some deep introspection about why they were so wrong, and realize that their judgment of Barack Obama has been skewed, rather than simply moving the goal posts, dismissing the significance of this action, and finding some other act to so confidently lecture us about.

    Won’t ever happen, because that would be the end of the endless columns and rants questioing Obama’s character.

    Instead, they’ll say this is an empty gesture because he’s too craven to prosecute. Watch.

  31. 31.

    Bill Teefy

    Maybe I am getting to old to want revenge for everything. I am less concerned that somebody get fired or somebody goes to prison than I am with the whole affair being misconstrued into some form of, "nothing to see here."

    Ted Stevens turned in his conviction into, "see I was vindicated because they are not going to re-try me for my crimes."

    OJ gets to say, "Hey, I was found ‘not guilty.’"

    I was once a Republican but when the wing of the party that claimed, "Nixon was not a crook," took power and removed every contrary voice I realized I would rather be a DFH.

    They worked so hard to make what Nixon did "OK" that you pretty much had to eat a live baby on television to wake people up. And now after, "Bush was not a crook," the goal post is, eat 4,000 live American babies, 250,000 live ‘other’ babies and torture a couple of hundred people. So forgive me for not clapping too loudly.

  32. 32.

    Xanthippas

    Keep in mind, it’s not just "legal advice." These memos carried with them the effect of law…..like if a judge had written them.

    Well, sort of. The CIA certainly treated them that way, but they really were provided to cover the "good faith" requirement for exception to prosecution. Which means that we should prosecute these people, and see if that argument stands the test in a court of law.

  33. 33.

    djork

    I’m glad he did this. While I don’t really like the agents getting away with it (not a fan of the Nuremburg defense), I do understand why Obama isn’t keen to take on the CIA right now.

  34. 34.

    demkat620

    So, we are not going to prosecute the people who did the torturing? But what happens to the people who ordered this? This was not a spontaneous organic act. This was systematic and came pretty close to being codified under Bush.
    Do I have that right? Or is it everybody walks.

  35. 35.

    Steve V

    The question, or problem, of course is whether the principal media response will simply be the usual "omg, did the president just make us weaker?" I’m afraid it will.

  36. 36.

    gizmo

    The release of the torture memos today pretty much convinces me that there isn’t much chance that Obama and Holder intend to go after high officials in the Bush administration for their war crimes. If one was serious about prosecuting Bush / Cheney / Yoo/ Addington et al, you would want to keep lower-ranking people in the CIA scared stiff and worried that they too might be charged with crimes. That way you’d have some leverage to get informative testimony out of them– you could do some plea bargains in exchange for critical testimony against the higher-ups. By excusing all CIA personnel, the Justice Dep’t. has lost a major tool for prosecution.

    I think it’s time that those of us who were so supportive of Obama start looking at things in a different light. Imagine that G.W. Bush is President, and he has just announced that he is:

    * Doubling our military presence in Afghanistan

    * Handing out $2 trillion to the crooks and incompetents who ruined our financial system

    * Excusing CIA security operatives for their war crimes at Abu Ghirab and Guantanamo

    * Asking for even more authority to engage in wiretapping private citizens

    My guess is that most of the people who hang out in the liberal blogosphere would be going batshit crazy if this stuff was happening under Bush– but because we’re so delighted and relieved to have a new President, we’re cutting him a lot of slack. I’m not expecting Obama to work miracles in just 90 days, and I acknowledge that he is faced with a huge mess to clean up, and all sorts of thorny foreign and domestic problems– but I’m not impressed with his commitment to fundamental legal and Constitutional principles, and I wonder if he has any sense of what his legacy will be? If I were in his shoes, I wouldn’t want the history books to report that when confronted with evidence of horrific war crimes, I chose to sweep it all under the rug and move on. By simply going around and declaring, "The United States Does Not Torture," Obama is doing his best to avoid fulfilling his sworn duty to the Constitution and the rule of law.

    He also seems unaware of the unfortunate precedent that he is setting. Suppose that we have a Republican administration back in the White House in a few years, and they engage in serious war crimes again– Obama and the Democrats will be in no position to raise objections, because they couldn’t find the courage to prosecute war crimes on their watch.

  37. 37.

    angulimala

    I dont blame people for being pissed, but it might be the best deal we can realistically get.

  38. 38.

    gopher2b

    @Xanthippas:

    No, I was stating that as a basis for going after Bush lawyers. Opinions (i.e. memos) written by the Office of Legal Counsel are binding on the Executive Branch. Otherwise, its just some dude’s opinion about what the law is and I would have a problem sending someone to jail for expressing their opinion.

  39. 39.

    Joshua Norton

    Give us names and some tar and feathers, and we’ll take care of that part.

    You all get the names. I’ll be happy to pay for the tar and feathers. I’m sure it’s deductible.

  40. 40.

    Cat Lady

    Obviously I want to see Bush and Cheney in leg irons. But I really, really want to see Rumsfeld frog marched to court so he can try to explain how the unconscionable shit described in the memos is no worse than his long days at the office.

  43. 43.

    Joe Beese

    [[ Under international law—the Geneva Conventions, the Convention against Torture, and basic precepts of customary international law—the United States has a positive obligation to investigate and prosecute persons alleged to have committed torture and other violations of the laws of war. – John Sifton (emphasis added) ]]

    Obama has now violated international law as clearly and decisively as Bush. Well done.

  44. 44.

    Krista

    I think Obama’s greatest fear is having to pardon (or not) Bush or Cheney at some point in the future.

    Hard to say what he’s got up his sleeve, at any rate. The politics-fu is strong in this one, and it could all be part of a larger plan to fry up some of the bigger fish (as it were).

    It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out.

  45. 45.

    dbrown

    @gopher2b:

    I have been around DA’s, lawyers and judges a long time and never heard that a lawyer’s opinion (even if in the JD) is as good as a judge and stands as law – if so, why do we have judges? If this is documented please reference; if opinion, add to the list as such and not as fact.
    Thanks

  47. 47.

    gopher2b

    While we’re throwing out kudos….how about the aclu for pursuing the case. I have tons of problems with that organization but when they do this kind of stuff….that’s honoring the forefathers.

  48. 48.

    joes527

    @joe from Lowell:

    I trust that the people who so confidently told us he would not release them, and that the decision about whether or not to release them was the defining moment of his presidency, are going to engage in some deep introspection about why they were so wrong, and realize that their judgment of Barack Obama has been skewed, rather than simply moving the goal posts, dismissing the significance of this action, and finding some other act to so confidently lecture us about.
    Or, they can be dishonest, unprincipled d-bags.

    This has been another tricky day. Obama has shown himself not to be someone to fiddle about. I’m not a fortune teller, and sometime I can’t explain things very well, but please, please, please understand this is a turning point for my generation. Sometimes I wonder what I’m gonna do, but the real me knows that, though time is passing, by the end of this administration we’ll be dancing in the streets.

    Oh, and by the way — Eminence Front

  49. 49.

    John PM

    The key phrase in the statement

    relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice

    is "good faith. This memo was from a lawyer at the OLC with over 20 years experience to the hear lawyer at the CIA, also with over 20 years experience at that time. The good faith analysis starts and stops with this thought experiment: "Would I want the Chinese to employ any of these techniques against captured American airmen?" If the answer is no, then you cannot have the "good faith" necessary to rely upon the OLC memos.

    Jay Bybee needs to either resign or be impeached from the Ninth Circuit and be disbarred.

    John A. Rizzo, the acting general counsel for the CIA, needs to be hauled before a Congressional oversight committee, fired and disbarred.

    I think Bybee is the weak link here. He needs to be squeezed until he spills everything he knows about Bush and Cheney from 2001 to 2003 (when he became a judge).

    John Yoo needs to be fired from teaching at Berkeley and disbarred.

    David Addington needs to be disbarred.

    Alberto Gonzales needs to be disbarred.

    F-cking lawyers! Didn’t intended to cause grave bodily or mental injury, my -ss!

  50. 50.

    Laura W

    @Violet: It’s the rule, not the exception around here. We all have our own workarounds, I’ve learned — some complicated, some simple. I find just throwing in paragraph tags at the end and beginning of every new paragraph usually takes care of it. End the blockquote where you want it, but be sure to use the "p" liberally inside.

    Along with: "WTF? Why am I being moderated?" (Answer: for using the 5-letter word that refers to plural footwear)…this has to be the most frequently asked formatting question here. And then there’s that s0c ial ism thing too. Someone should just put up a little sidebar thingey with tips for navigating the top five most annoying "features".

    My current fave: "You don’t have permission to edit your own comment." This pops up unpredictably and arbitrarily within seconds of your first post attempt, even when you think you have 4:55 to edit your comment to perfection.
    Hope this helps!

  51. 51.

    Sasha

    Actually, its potentially brilliant to declare not to prosecute CIA grunts. No low-level scapegoats to be quickly tried and the matter forgotten.

    If any outrage builds demanding that someone swing, it’ll be going up the chain of command rather than down. And there’s a lot more rungs up than down.

  52. 52.

    Joshua Norton

    In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.

    I thought that the "I was only following orders" defense for war crimes was settled in Nuremberg. Perhaps that’s the principle they’re trying to suppress. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

  53. 53.

    sparky

    I think it’s great that he chose to release the memos. Note the verb.

    But–and I think this is not just Obama’s problem, but ours–the people who wrote these memos are not just flunkies. They occupy what are considered responsible, mainstream positions in society. We are in real, non-trivial trouble here if these people maintain their positions. Keeping them from prosecution or public rebuke is the equivalent of saying if the executive does it it’s not against the law, no matter what the action is. In other words, without sanctions there is nothing to stop someone from doing this–except more broadly–next time.

    It will be interesting to see if we are still a nation of laws or an empire.

    Edit: What John PM said. Although many people may think they are similar, at the end of the day, lawyers are not marketers who can claim laws have no content. They take an oath and are officers of the court.

  54. 54.

    Ash Can

    I can’t help seeing the promise not to prosecute CIA officials in the same light as granting someone immunity from prosecution in return for providing information on other crooks. Maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part, and maybe nothing will actually come of it in this way. After all, I’ll be the first to admit that this whole torture/"looking forward" issue isn’t unfolding exactly the way I’d like it to. Nevertheless, I have yet to see anything from either Obama or Holder that convinces me that the door to some/any prosecution of the bastards in charge has been closed once and for all.

  56. 56.

    Polish the Guillotines

    @demkat620:

    So, we are not going to prosecute the people who did the torturing? But what happens to the people who ordered this? This was not a spontaneous organic act. This was systematic and came pretty close to being codified under Bush.
    Do I have that right? Or is it everybody walks.

    No. At least not yet.

    The biggest problem in prosecuting people for this is the collective political will to do so. If the facts are damning enough, public opinion may reach critical mass. I think that’s what he’s aiming for with this release. Right now it’s not 100% clear these things will even be investigated with any rigor, let alone prosecuted, but this first sampling might jump-start the process.

    We’ve all seen how reluctant the press has been to even use the word torture to describe what took place. I’m not so sure they’ll be able to do that anymore.

    We should probably consider this as Phase I. Hopefully some sharp journo will connect the dots between these memos and the recently leaked Red Cross report.

  58. 58.

    gopher2b

    @dbrown:

    Because the executive branch, as a constitutional office, is on slightly different standing than your local DA’s office.

    OCL memos are binding legal precedent on executive branch employees. As far as a CIA agent is concerned, the Supreme Court could have told them it would be legal.

  60. 60.

    AL

    A great move on Obama’s part. I don’t fully trust him but I think deep down inside his heart is in the right place. Hats off to ya.

    The GOP’s outrage over this is going to be more sickening than funny.

  61. 61.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    I have been around DA’s, lawyers and judges a long time and never heard that a lawyer’s opinion (even if in the JD) is as good as a judge

    This is beyond dumb. When you seek a legal opinion, you go to a lawyer. A judge will tell you, if you seek legal advice from him, that he cannot be your lawyer, and instruct you to consult with a lawyer.

    A lawyer is bound to give you sound legal advice. Lawyers can be sanctioned for giving bad advice.

  66. 66.

    John PM

    @Paul L.:

    Such as the advice of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section for the Sen. Stevens’ case that it is standard practice to intentionally hide exculpatory evidence and create false evidence to provided to the defense.

    I know other people on Balloon Juice have more experience responding two you, but I have one response to your statement: Any such advise from the Public Integrit Section was given under the Bush Administration. It was the Obama administration that decide to not re-try Stevens based upon the misconduct of Bush Administration prosecutors.

  67. 67.

    Lola

    This is good news. If Glenn Greenwald is praising Obama you know he did something right. Yet some bloggers don’t want to give Obama credit for anything. Jeralyn of Talk Left had a diary at Daily Kos today complaining about how Obama was not releasing the memos and the FOIA didn’t work. She even pulled out the "that’s not change I can believe in" line. I wonder if she and the Open Left crowd will acknowledge how wrong they were. I doubt it.

    I’ve seen people online argue that Obama should have had Bush and Cheney arrested as soon as he was sworn in. Can you imagine? Obama has to balance passing health care, fixing our economy, managing two wars, and trying to slow down global warming. He doesn’t get to deal with torture in a vacuum or even in a good economy. He has to handle all of these things at one time. So yes I applaud him for this step toward transparency.

    If the netroots can create enough momentum in the future for trials or an investigation, great, I will march beside anyone. But freaking A, I want health care this year. Bush and Cheney will be still be around in the next couple years. I don’t think prosecution should be Obama’s top priority this year.

    American’s don’t like self-reflection and we seem to have no sense of collective shame (see: Native American kill-off and slavery). Our Congress gets more worked up about blow jobs than torture. That is what Obama is dealing with.

  68. 68.

    Joshua Norton

    You want DOJ to prosecute people for following legal advice from DOJ?

    I want the DOJ to prosecute the people who TOLD the DOJ what to "think", and the principal policy enablers like Gonzales and Yoo and Addington who then wrote it.

  69. 69.

    mcc

    It was pointed out upthread that there is a bit more nuance to things than that.

    I can’t help but think that maybe there are just some things that shouldn’t be "nuanced".

  70. 70.

    Krista

    If any outrage builds demanding that someone swing, it’ll be going up the chain of command rather than down. And there’s a lot more rungs up than down.

    From your keyboard to the FSM’s ears….

  72. 72.

    cyntax

    @Ash Can:
    Expanding on that a bit, I really don’t want to see some Abu Ghraib style going after the lower-ranks first BS. All that does is insulate the people who gave/approved the orders in the first place.

    If we’re willing to go after the people at the top and they get convicted, then maybe the operatives and field personnel. But the top of the chain of command has to be held accountable first–they’re the ones that set this in motion after all.

  73. 73.

    Comrade Jake

    @mr. whipple:

    Instead, they’ll say this is an empty gesture because he’s too craven to prosecute. Watch.

    That appears to be where Greenwald is headed, despite giving Obama props just a few hours ago:

    The more one reads of this, the harder it is to credit Obama’s statement today that "this is a time for reflection, not retribution." At least when it comes to the orders of our highest government leaders and the DOJ lawyers who authorized them, these are pure war crimes, justified in the most disgustingly clinical language and with clear intent of wrongdoing.

    Probably we’ll be back to Obama=Bush in another week or so.

  74. 74.

    Wisdom

    Nothing like the reality of a few security briefings to make a new President want to cover his own ass. Thank God we had a leader, a supporting staff and a loyal military who knew what had to be done and followed through. I say this full well knowing Obama would have never been electable had Bush not stopped additional attacks. We would be living in a police state now and no one would dare risk turning the country over to a Democrat.

    I think Obama realizes that now. Making some good decisions, at least here and with the pirates. With Bill, they would still be out there. Carter would have probably given them yachts.

  76. 76.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    @Joshua Norton:

    Hooboy. Good luck with that.

    You want DOJ to prosecute people who "told" DOJ lawyers what to think and to serve up bad legal advice.

    ( rolls eyes )

    I think you need to get your pitchfork adjusted, a couple of the tines are a little sideways there.

    DOJ Attorney Quick Reference Card:

    181(a): If you are found to have given bad legal advice, quickly find somebody who told you to do it and blame them. Then prosecute that person.

    Welcome to the Mad Hatter’s Court of Jesters.

  77. 77.

    Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)

    Patience, folks. Obama has been in office for what, about 80 days? We should all know by now that he rarely throws a touchdown pass, but he always moves the ball down the field.

    But Mother of Jabbering Jeebus: cramming a human being into a box and dropping insects into it? Hanging someone from the ceiling, naked, and keeping them awake for 7 days? I feel sick…..

  78. 78.

    kay

    @Lola:

    I think they have been and continue to be unfair to Eric Holder. I don’t know what Holder did to deserve this presumption of bad faith. I felt as if they started gathering "evidence" of the evil intent of Eric Holder the moment he was confirmed.

    It’s almost worse when they portray him as some sort of dupe. I just don’t buy it. I don’t think there’s anything in his long career to justify this level of suspicion.

    He should get some credit for 25 years, some assumption of ethical and legally sound thinking, until we have more to go on. I am willing to listen, but I think I need more than a couple of pleadings, and 8 weeks.

  80. 80.

    John PM

    Ambinder just posted the following:

    Senior administration officials have made it clear to me: neither President Obama’s statement nor Attorney General Holder’s words were meant to foreclose the possibility of prosecuting CIA officers who did NOT act in good faith, or who did not act according to the guidelines spelled out by the OLC.

    I think we can expect in the coming weeks and months that certain CIA interrogators will begin talking about what they did and start pointing the finger at others higher up the food chain. Frankly, I think there is no way that any CIA interrogator who perpetrated any of these torture techniques can claim good faith.

  81. 81.

    cyntax

    @Comrade Jake:
    Yeah saw that when I was over there earlier checking out the comment threads. And though they don’t want to give Obama much credit for doing this, the commenters seem fine crediting this one to GG. And to be clear, I think keeping a light shined on this is an invaluable thing and GG does deserve credit.

    But I also think everyone’s hunkering down into their preferred positions on this one. It’ll be the rhetorical equivalent of trench warfare for the duration.

  82. 82.

    mr. whipple

    Probably we’ll be back to Obama=Bush in another week or so.

    Um, I think he’s already back to that point.

  83. 83.

    Paul L.

    It was the Obama administration that decide to not re-try Stevens based upon the misconduct of Bush Administration prosecutors.

    The defense and Judge discovered the misconduct after Bush left office.
    If Brenda Morris is a Bush Administration prosecutor and not a Justice Department career prosecutor, how come she was still in change of the case after Bush left office?
    Is Patrick Fitzgerald a Bush Administration prosecutor?

  84. 84.

    Violet

    @Laura W:

    LauraW, thanks for the tips! I’ve run into the weird comment can’t be edited "feature" too. Nice to know it’s not just me. I didn’t know about the plural of footwear, so thanks for that.

    Nice to know it’s not just me.

  85. 85.

    John PM

    @Wisdom: #74

    I am continually on pins and needles waiting for the release of the details of all the attacks that the Bush Administration stopped since 9/11 (other than the anthrax attacks). Why are the Bush folks so modest. It must be killing Cheney to not talk about all of these successes.

    They are probably waiting to release all the details along with the Whitey Tape and the true copy of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate.

  86. 86.

    sparky

    @Wisdom: maybe my standards are too low, but i thought that comment was rather overstuffed with trollwin. i would have added something about Nixon teabagging Mao, though.

  87. 87.

    Calouste

    @John PM:

    I think we can expect in the coming weeks and months that certain CIA interrogators will begin talking about what they did and start pointing the finger at others higher up the food chain. Frankly, I think there is no way that any CIA interrogator who perpetrated any of these torture techniques can claim good faith.

    Seems to me that Obama and Holder see this as a way to have some CIA operatives convince themselves that it is better to spill the beans than be prosecuted.

  89. 89.

    Lola

    @kay:

    I agree. Holder strikes me as someone of integrity. The people on Open Left and Talk Left seemed to hate him from the beginning because he was not for legalizing marijuana and he enforced drug laws they disagree with.

    Obama has appointed very good lawyers to his team and many were ferocious critics of Bush. We still need to get them all confirmed, but these are not Yes People who will do whatever their Prez or VP tell them to do. These are people with enough integrity to stand up for what is right. They deserve the benefit of doubt for the next few months while everything is still being sorted out.

    This administration is still so young and I am proud of what they have accomplished so far. If Obama stays this busy for the rest of his term he will have set America on a much better path.

  90. 90.

    Hugh

    This is in part a cross post…

    Glenn Greenwald is less hard on Obama than most commenters in Matt Y’s first post on this topic, which is very interesting given that Greenwald is not shy and that this is one of his major issues. His opinion appears to be evolving as he goes through the memos however so this could change.

    This thread has a whole different feel to it.

    The fact that Obama released these memos, which are horrifying, is remarkable to me the more I think about it. The memos beg for prosecution. I’m thinking it is quite possible many in his administration are hoping for enough of a firestorm as a result of this release for them to have the political cover to act. I really don’t see how they could be truly closed to the idea of prosecution and still release these memos.

  91. 91.

    Laura W

    @Violet: It’s never "just you" on BJ. Some of us just bitch and whine more loudly than others.
    Or so I’ve heard.

  92. 92.

    Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)

    @Paul L.:

    If Brenda Morris is a Bush Administration prosecutor and not a Justice Department career prosecutor, how come she was still in change of the case after Bush left office?

    "What makes the Hottentot so hot? What puts the "ape" in apricot? "

  95. 95.

    anonevent

    @Lola: Take your first first paragraph, the first sentences of each of the next two paragraphs, and your last paragraph, and I completely agree with you. I think he has enough time to do it, if he has the will of the people. He ran on ending Iraq, beefing up Afghanistan, and fixing the economy. He did not run on prosecuting Bush, and as much as it is a crime, it’ll take the will of the public to prosecute a former President (see Clinton lying under oath and what that got the Republicans). I wonder with others if that is why he released these.

  96. 96.

    mcc

    To be fair, he promised that CIA officers "relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice … will not be subject to prosecution."… He didn’t say word one about the people who wrote that legal advice.

    Indeed. And I guess the ten thousand dollar question here is, why? Was that careful omission for a reason?

    If the final decision of the white house is to ignore the grunts who implemented the lawbreaking, and focus on the people who created an environment where lawbreaking would occur… well, that would be the dead opposite of, and a far preferable alternative to, how the government reacted to (say) Abu Ghraib.

    But does the white house intend to focus on this at all?

    What, if anything, happens next?

  97. 97.

    Comrade Jake

    @Hugh:

    The memos beg for prosecution. I’m thinking it is quite possible many in his administration are hoping for enough of a firestorm as a result of this release for them to have the political cover to act.

    If a firestorm comes, it’ll have to come from the left. The media’s barely going to touch these memos, and the right will go in the other direction.

    I seriously doubt the admin is hoping for a firestorm. They might not be too disappointed if it comes, but counting on it? No way in hell.

  98. 98.

    Gus

    Let’s just move forward.

    Uh-uh. We’re either a country of laws or we’re not. "Let’s move forward" has been the Republican mantra every time they’ve been forced to admit they fucked up.

  99. 99.

    passerby

    @gizmo:

    The release of the torture memos today pretty much convinces me that there isn’t much chance that Obama and Holder intend to go after high officials in the Bush administration for their war crimes.

    Take into consideration that the torture was a crime in violation of international treaty. The US Justice system is not the only legal entity that has an interest in the information contained in these released memos.

    The whole world can get a glimpse of what’s in these documents. News of this can easily reach the International World Court in The Hague. All is not for naught.

  100. 100.

    Comrade Jake

    @cyntax:

    Yeah, I mean, contrast it with this place. Someone practically tells Cole his cat is a fat shit every other thread.

  102. 102.

    KG

    @70: wait, the FSM has ears? well, that changes everything.

    Also, I really hope there is some crazy ass DA or US Atty out there that just decides to file a criminal complaint against these assholes. I can’t work for the government, what with the drug history and innate problem with authority, but this is one of those few times I wish I was a government lawyer rather than just a lawyer. Don’t worry, I’m sure it will pass.

  103. 103.

    anonevent

    @Wisdom: I wouldn’t have responded, but the response just sounded funny in my head. When the North Koreans proposed restarting their enrichment program during Clinton’s term, he parked Navy ships outside the country until they thought otherwise. When they tried it again during Bushes turn, Bush’s only response was to yell "Stop!!" in his best Graham Norton voice.

  104. 104.

    bloodstar

    I’ve read the first two memos and right now I am shaking with fury and revulsion for what was done to the soul of our country. Like it or not, if we don’t prosecute the people who signed off on this insanity, the stain will stay with us forever.

    Bad people or not, there are other ways to protect America, and really if the fuckers want to say they did it to protect the country, then they can fucking rot in jail knowing they ‘did what was necessary’.

  105. 105.

    schrodinger's cat

    @70: wait, the FSM has ears? well, that changes everything

    .
    I don’t know about FSM but the Ceiling Cat has ears and a tail
    OT:
    BTW what do people think of the Ed Show? I have to say I liked Schuster’s program much better.

  106. 106.

    KG

    wow, I just skimmed through one of the memos. That’s shoddy lawyering at it’s highest level. I especially like how they basically run with the idea that the detainee being an al Qeada operative changes the analysis.

  107. 107.

    dmv

    First, I give Obama huge props for releasing the memos. I was, admittedly, worried that he wouldn’t, especially with the talk going around about the Koh & Johnsen nominations stalling in the Senate as a threat against Obama’s releasing them. I’ve seen Democrats give up too many times when threatened. But he released them. Thank you, Mr. President!

    Second, I find it difficult to credit the "good faith" argument. The memos themselves reveal that these "techniques" were already being used by CIA, just apparently not to the extent that they wanted to. They sought legal cover from OLC in these memos. Seeking legal cover does not amount to good faith. Not to me, anyway.

    Third, the folks on the legal side (Yoo, Bradbury, Bybee, et al.) must face some kind of action, whether criminal law or disciplinary sanction. That Jay Bybee is a sitting judge on the Ninth Circuit is a disgrace. And every day he continues as a lifetime member of that court is a disgrace, to our entire judiciary and to our legal system as a whole. It’s truly disgusting. I hope his colleagues treat him with the appropriate scorn and disdain that his "service" warrants. (And servile it was.)

    Fourth, if we were to take the "let’s not dwell on the past" argument seriously, every prosecutor, federal, state and local, would instantly be out of a job. That anyone could seriously attempt to use that line as an argument for not prosecuting those responsible for these crimes is an insult to our collective common sense. I mean, please. That’s not even close to an adequate response. If you want to remove prosecution from the toolbox in this instance, give us some credible reasons. Make a credible argument, at least. Do not, do not give us hand-waving rhetoric.

    At least, that’s all I ask.

  108. 108.

    gwangung

    If the political winds aren’t blowing his way, Obama isn’t going to push forward on prosecution. If he has a battering ram of public support and opinion behind him, he will.

    Because, no matter what you think, prosecuting a former President is going to be bloody, messy, long and awful. And you’re bloomin’ dunce if you think ANYONE should do it without overwhelming public support on their side.

  109. 109.

    poopsybythebay

    @Paul L.:
    Because Obama and Holder have decided to keep Fitzgerald on as a US Attorney and they both decided to keep the Bush US Attorney’s and prosecutors on staff until they found proper replacements. Also, they did not want to do what Clinton did and fire them en masse.

  110. 110.

    schrodinger's cat

    Good for Obama for releasing the memos, I was truly shocked when Bush was elected the second time, felt like I was living in the Bizarro world. It is good for the truth to finally see the light of day.

  111. 111.

    dmv

    @ kg 108:

    I think the case for prosecuting Bush himself is much more tenuous and unlikely to hold up. The case for impeaching him, I thought, was very strong. But impeachment is a political solution, not really designedly a criminal sanction.

    The people who animated this shit-pile, though, I think the case is strong. By which I mean Addington, Yoo, Bybee, Bradbury, et al.

  112. 112.

    passerby

    "In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution."–Barack Obama

    Intention does not = guarantee nor does it constitute an Executive Decree. Obama is a lawyer. He knows this. Is he letting the rank and file fish off the hook in pursuit of bigger fish?

  113. 113.

    gopher2b

    I just read the snippet posted on Greenwald regarding putting an insect in the confined space with Zubaydah because he appeared to fear insects. It should not be a stinging insect, however, but something like a catepillar.

    Full stop.

    For a moment, reflect on the fact that the fate of thousands of Americans were in the (many) hands of a catepillar. The Bush administration in a single sentence.

  114. 114.

    J. Michael Neal

    The memos themselves reveal that these "techniques" were already being used by CIA, just apparently not to the extent that they wanted to. They sought legal cover from OLC in these memos. Seeking legal cover does not amount to good faith. Not to me, anyway.

    Nice to see that someone spotted the same hole left in the assurance that I did.

  115. 115.

    Comrade Jake

    @dmv:

    Second, I find it difficult to credit the "good faith" argument. The memos themselves reveal that these "techniques" were already being used by CIA, just apparently not to the extent that they wanted to. They sought legal cover from OLC in these memos. Seeking legal cover does not amount to good faith. Not to me, anyway.

    I agree, but I see nothing in Obama’s statement which makes it clear the people who were doing this before the OLC memos were provided are off the hook. I think one lawyerly way to interpret the situation you’ve described would be to claim that those people are precisely not clear.

  117. 117.

    Laura W

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    BTW what do people think of the Ed Show? I have to say I liked Schuster’s program much better.

    Sucks. Now I have two hours to fill between Tweety and KO. Used to only have one. (Which I use to catch up on Stewart/Colbert on tape from night before.) Now I’m back to Bri Bri Williams and Chucky T. at 6:30. It’s really messed up my evening groove.

  118. 118.

    passerby

    @passerby:

    Is he letting the rank and file fish off the hook in pursuit of bigger fish?

    …and is it possible that these smaller fish could be helpful in providing vital evidence to catch these big fish?

  119. 119.

    Comrade Mary, Would-Be Minion Of Bad Horse

    I like Schuster, too. On paper, I’d be more likely to approve of a populist more than a smartass, but Schuster, despite some missteps (that "pimping out Chelsea" remark was pretty thoughtless), is also capable of some damn sharp questioning.

    Ed bloviates and preens and just leaves me cold.

  120. 120.

    TenguPhule

    @joe from Lowell

    Article 8. The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.

  121. 121.

    Ella in NM

    "They (the CIA torturers) were just following orders".

    Meanwhile, an 89 year-old accused Nazi prison camp guard’s family is pleading he not be transported to Europe to face life in prison, some 60 years after the fact. Why is it we can hold him accountable but not our own lawbreakers?

  122. 122.

    les

    @Paul L.:

    The defense and Judge discovered the misconduct after Bush left office.

    Congratulations. You have established a new personal record and a significant intertubes milestone for irrelevance and vacuity in commenting. I didn’t think you had it in you.

  123. 123.

    TenguPhule

    I say this full well knowing Obama would have never been electable had Bush not stopped additional attacks.

    Neglecting of course that Bush failed to stop 9/11 & Anthrax mail.

  124. 124.

    Elie

    Lola, Comrade Jake, kay, Puppykicker, Valvidia, Lowell and others…

    Great comments. I have now resigned myself to the "implacable sunshine of the perfect" that I read here and elsewhere from some progressive commenters.

    That point of view makes a nice companion piece for future civic happiness with those who want anyone from a red state to just secede already and good riddance.

    So between our rotten President and opposition that we just don’t want to bother with engaging…how could things possibly be worse which is why so many are now pining for W. At least he gave their lives meaning…

  126. 126.

    Cat G

    @John PM: Good thinking there John. Here’s another idea: there’s a section in the May 10, 2005 memo by Steven Bradbury titled "A Prototypical Interrogation" (memo is 20 pages) at this url http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html

    The memo is really worth your time. So let’s give each of the lawyers, senior CIA officials, NSC officials, and Defense Dept officials involved in this abomination the opportunity to prove their "good faith" interpretation of the laws and treaties involved by submitting to 30 days of "A Prototypical Interrogation." I’d love to see Alberto Gonzalez then deny that there was torture. Let’s call it "informed consent." Dick Cheney, I’m looking at you."

  129. 129.

    Comrade Jake

    It’s worth keeping in mind: "good-faith" leaves a lot of room for interpretation on the part of the DOJ. Many here are just assuming the admin just let every CIA interrogator off the hook. I’m willing to wait and see some more on this one, just like I was last week when Greenwald was hysterical.

  130. 130.

    dmv

    BTW, I seriously hope someone out there has prepared, or is preparing, a FOIA request to get the "Background Paper" frequently mentioned in these memos…

  131. 131.

    Xanthippas

    I just read the snippet posted on Greenwald regarding putting an insect in the confined space with Zubaydah because he appeared to fear insects. It should not be a stinging insect, however, but something like a catepillar.
    Full stop.
    For a moment, reflect on the fact that the fate of thousands of Americans were in the (many) hands of a catepillar. The Bush administration in a single sentence.

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who caught that. I fully expected to be outraged when these memos came out. That word hardly does how I feel justice. Just read what Greenwald excerpts here.

    The one Greenwald says you should read highlights our utter hypocrisy, but for completely bizarreness I recommend the second "stinging insect" memo.

    I’m not going to type the whole paragraph out, but the reasoning going on in this memo is simply astonishing. "Well, you can’t put a stinging insect in there, but you can tell him that you are, but you must tell him that it’s not one that will actually cause his death." What the fuck is this, the Miranda-warning approach to sticking a guy in a box with an insect?? I haven’t read the full memo, but I’m pretty sure the "predicate act" that Bybee is referring to is the one he defined in the infamous "torture memo" which equates torture with (among other things) mental pain caused by threats of imminent death. So, you can lock a guy in a coffin with a bug, but you can’t make him think he’ll actually die from it so tell him it’s a non-lethal stinging insect and it’s all good.

    And the guy who wrote this is now a federal judge, for fuck’s sake.

    But yeah Comrade Jake, Greenwald’s hysteria is the real problem here.

  132. 132.

    dmv

    As for the "following orders" defense, I think it’s pretty clear that that is no defense at all.

    See Article 2(3) of the Convention Against Torture: "An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture."

  133. 133.

    dmv

    Sorry for 3 in a row, but I think one illuminating aspect of all this is that Susan Crawford, the DoD Convening Authority for military commissions, has said that she will not now, nor ever, convene a commission against Zubaydah because of his mental condition. He’s too crazy to stand trial.

    The memos released today indicate that prior to CIA’s interrogation regime, he was in possession of himself, a cool cat.

    The only intervening facts are: his prolonged detention and his interrogation by CIA.

    It appears that if Crawford is correct (and she should know), we have ipso facto proof of torture in the person of Zubaydah himself.

  134. 134.

    Elie

    Gwangung:
    "If the political winds aren’t blowing his way, Obama isn’t going to push forward on prosecution. If he has a battering ram of public support and opinion behind him, he will.

    Because, no matter what you think, prosecuting a former President is going to be bloody, messy, long and awful. And you’re bloomin’ dunce if you think ANYONE should do it without overwhelming public support on their side.

    Totally agree but the hard fact of the matter is that many of the perfectionist left/progressive don’t seem to care –they are willing to sacrifice the greater and long term good (political capital opportunity cost for paying attention to other things that help folks more materially – like health care, fixing the economy) to extract "justice" at whatever price. That is called "zealotry" – but hell it sells and gets people banging on those web sites…

  135. 135.

    Montysano

    Sullivan beat me to it:

    "You would like to place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us that he appears to have a fear of insects. In particular, you would like to tell Zubaydah that you intend to place a stinging insect into the box with him," – Jay Bybee, judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    "‘The worst thing in the world,’ said O’Brien, ‘varies from individual to individual. It may be burial alive, or death by fire, or by drowning, or by impalement, or fifty other deaths. There are cases where it is some quite trivial thing, not even fatal,’" – George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty Four.

  136. 136.

    gopher2b

    @dmv:

    That is a really good point. They go out of their way in the memo to say that he is pyschologically tough enough to withstand the "interrogation" and now he’s bat shit crazy. Hmm…..

  137. 137.

    Nellcote

    How does one go about disbarring someone? Do you have to be a lawyer? Can concerned citizens present a petition to the respective state bars?

  138. 138.

    dmv

    @Nellcote 136:

    Bar Counsel for the state bar in which the lawyer’s admitted has to, basically, "prosecute" the case (it’s not a criminal proceeding, though). But anyone can file a complaint against a lawyer, I’m pretty sure. And complaints are how bar counsel decide to investigate/prosecute.

    Or the court can order disbarment on its own motion.

  139. 139.

    Joshua Norton

    How does one go about disbarring someone?

    It’s up to the individual State Bar associations. And there was never a less populist bunch. They usually try to bend over backwards to NOT disbar anyone. There’s a lot of dues money involved, and they don’t want to lose more than they have to.

  140. 140.

    sparky

    @Elie: You are right: we have a different set of priorities. Having health care in a police state is not high on my list. Why? Because in a police state whatever the state gives you it can take away–and you have no recourse. In other words, you are discussing the benefits of living in a certain kind of state, and assuming that that set of facts will stay stable. I am not, nor, frankly do I think anyone who has paid attention lately should make that assumption (sorry, garbled syntax). If that makes me a zealot, so be it.

  141. 141.

    John PM

    @Nellcote: #136

    Anyone can file a complaint, although the procedure depends upon the state where the lawyer is admitted. Disgruntled clients file complaints all the time. The complaints are then reviewed by a panel of lawyers and non-lawyers and a decision is made whether the complaint has merit. If it does, then usually a hearing is held where the attorney can present a defense. At least that is the procedure in Illinois (as has been told to me, not from personal experience (knock on wood)).

  142. 142.

    Ella in NM

    @cyntax:

    Sorry, I wasn’t clear in that comment–I am not saying he doesn’t deserve to be tried, just how hypocritical it is to not apply the same standards to our own country we support applying to others.

    @HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker:

    I’m not sure I follow the logic of what you said.

  143. 143.

    Elie

    Sparky:

    Oh yeah, that’s what I want — ‘health care in a police state’. Push that nob all the way over, Sparky ol friend. That’s right. Hell, why not just break the damned nob off…

    Just wondering, is that the companion piece to "Spring Time with Hitler? "’snark’

  144. 144.

    Xanthippas

    Okay, I’m not sure if my comment has been moderated or if I’m just an idiot who lost it. If this ends up getting double-posted, then I guess both are true. Anyway:

    I just read the snippet posted on Greenwald regarding putting an insect in the confined space with Zubaydah because he appeared to fear insects. It should not be a stinging insect, however, but something like a catepillar.
    Full stop.
    For a moment, reflect on the fact that the fate of thousands of Americans were in the (many) hands of a catepillar. The Bush administration in a single sentence.

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who caught that. I fully expected to be outraged when these memos came out. That word hardly does how I feel justice. Just read what Greenwald excerpts here.

    The one Greenwald says you should read highlights our utter hypocrisy, but for completely bizarreness I recommend the second "stinging insect" memo.

    I’m not going to type the whole paragraph out, but the reasoning going on in this memo is simply astonishing. "Well, you can’t put a stinging insect in there, but you can tell him that you are, but you must tell him that it’s not one that will actually cause his death." What the fuck is this, the Miranda-warning approach to sticking a guy in a box with an insect?? I haven’t read the full memo, but I’m pretty sure the "predicate act" that Bybee is referring to is the one he defined in the infamous "torture memo" which equates torture with (among other things) mental pain caused by threats of imminent death. So, you can lock a guy in a coffin with a bug, but you can’t make him think he’ll actually die from it so tell him it’s a non-lethal stinging insect and it’s all good.

    And the guy who wrote all this is now a federal judge.

  146. 146.

    cyntax

    @Ella in NM:

    I think it depends what your intention about mentioning the guard was.

    I read it as an indictment of the "just following orders" defense and an affirmation of going after the interrogators. And in response to that, I was pointing out that until we try guys like Yoo, the architects of this, it doesn’t make sense to worry about the guys who carried out the orders. Further, I’d look to Abu Ghraib as an example of how going after field personnel can insulate the higher-ups.

    On the other hand, if you meant more generally that our willingness to hold others accountable for what they did (Goring or the guard), should hold sway in this case–yep, I’m with you on that.

  147. 147.

    sparky

    @Elie: Actually, you did say that. I think health care is important too. But that’s assuming it’s in a functioning republic. An unaccountable executive is a pretty clear sign of something other than a republic. And that’s what we have without some kind of sanctions for activity by the executive that breaks federal law, the US constitution and at least one treaty.

    Let me put this another way: everything is NOT all right just because we have somebody better than Bush in the White House. As the proprietor here has said many times, do you really want to go back to Bush–or worse, a competent version? Because without limits on power, that’s what you are going to get. And when that day comes, guess what, all the benefits in the world aren’t going to help.

  148. 148.

    Elie

    Sparky:

    And I bet you have healthcare and a roof over your head too. You know where your next meal is coming from. The bourgoisie never have to worry about those damned trade offs, do they? The ‘revolutionary trials’ will be held from the comfort of our living rooms, right?

    You state that the relative safety of the status quo cannot be assured under this administration, presumably because it is so suspect that they apparently will plan for health care to be provided to all citizens but at the point of a gun – because that is who they are.

    Alternately, you are willing to jeopardize the success of achieving that important benefit for millions without it so that you can be right on an issue that would mean enormous upheaval and disruption to achieve – even if it were achievable – which is doubtful. And it would be a good thing — no doubt — but there is just way more at stake than that one issue and we have and this administration has a broader mandate for a lot of serious initiatives than bringing George Bush and Cheney to trial right at this moment. YOU weigh that importance as a priority over the wellbeing of the many. I think that the correction of our laws for the future is important, but I will not give up healthcare and economic and civic stability for the many to achieve your narrow and potentially empty revenge. We can’t undo what they did. All we can do is fix the law going forward to prevent its abuse but even if convicted, would those convictions, at the steep price we would pay to achieve, be worth one cent of health care for someone without it who needs it? Its just not worth that trade off to me, all due respect to your righteousness.

  149. 149.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    that our willingness to hold others accountable for what they did (Goring or the guard), should hold sway in this case

    So, you are willing to draw an inapt ine of equivalency from this case to monstrous mass murder on a grand scale?

    You know, just to make a point?

    And this absurd point is ….what? To be taken as overriding the public statement on this matter?

    That’s the kind of foolishness I had in mind at #42.

  150. 150.

    Tattoosydney

    @John PM:

    F-cking lawyers!

    On a tangent to the topic – This article in the Sydney Morning Herald about the current situation in Fiji is very interesting.

    The current unelected government has dismissed almost the entire independent legal heirachy of the country, and is appointing new ones (presumably more friendly to its aims). The root cause was a decision by three appeal judges that the government was unconstitutional.

    The current interim Attorney General of Fiji, and therefore presumably one of the main facilitators of the gutting of Fiji’s legal system is a man I was at university with, who was a fine, gentle man and a very smart lawyer. I can’t find any explanation for his participation in this process which doesn’t appall me.

    Without attempting to excuse his conduct (or that of the men who wrote the appalling torture memos), I find myself fascinated by the process by which presumably smart lawyers can be (willingly or unwillingly?) coopted into evil acts.

    As the article concludes:

    History is riddled with lawyers who have answered the call to prop up illegal regimes. The unnerving thing is they can do that just as ably as serving the interests of legal ones.

  151. 151.

    cyntax

    @HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker:
    Sorry but I think you’re attributing someone else’s analogy to me. I didn’t bring up the Nazis and I didn’t say anything about whether the comparison was apt or not.

    Personally, I think it’s problematic for exactly this reason: people can get caught up arguing about whether the scale of the atrocity is equivalent or not.

    But whether you think bringing Nazis into the argument is instructive or not isn’t, in my opinion, the point. What I think is important is holding people like Yoo accountable for what they did. As I’ve stated further up the thread, I’m most interested in seeing the architects get punished.

  152. 152.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    At about the :12 min point in Countdown, see the John Dean take on this. My hunch is that he has it about right, in sum, although I am not sure about the thing he said about halfway through his segment to the effect that "you can’t have CIA operatives asking for legal opinions ….."

    Not sure I get that, or heard it right. I am not sure why asking for a legal opinion in a matter like this is not acceptable … or maybe he means that having the operatives, as opposed to a CIA chief, ask for the opinion, is the problem.

    Dean is a person I listen to in order to check myself in cases like this.

    Olbermann seems to have gone off the deep end with this thing with his Special Comment. I just don’t agree with him at all.

  153. 153.

    Ella in NM

    @cyntax:

    I agree– we start at the top, then work our way down to those lower level people who really had a choice, had the power to decide, even if they were rank and file. And personally, since I am a professional from both fields, I believe any medical or psychology professionals who propped up a torture victim so as to facilitate their ongoing interrogation should, and the very least, lose their right to ever practice again.

    I am very torn about how you allow people to do the kind of purposeful acts of cruelty and even murder back into the loving arms of a civil society. I know we asked people to perform these acts in "defense of their country", but it wasn’t in the context of self-defense or a military battle. People who do this shit always have that little space, that moment in time to stop and say "no-I won’t do this". And yet, I never want to see another prosecution of a dimwitted girl who posed for ugly pictures because her adulterous boyfriend talked her into it. And held up as justice. That would be worthless.

    Bottom line is, we shouldn’t have to be talking about this at all in the fucking United States of America.

  154. 154.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    Sorry but I think you’re attributing someone else’s analogy to me. I didn’t bring up the Nazis and I didn’t say anything about whether the comparison was apt or not.

    Your clarification is welcome. I was addressing only the blurb in the blockquote.

    I agree on the Yoo thing. So chances are we just mostly agree?

    Agreeing with me is dicey, you may be struck by lightning later.

  155. 155.

    Laura W

    @HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker: Haven’t checked the site yet to see what’s on tonight’s line up, but I’ve been wondering all day what Rachel (and hopefully Turley) will do with this.
    Probably something.

    Edit on the blockquote referencing issue which has been bugging me forever: Can we not all just link back to the person we are blockquoting/responding to for ease of convo tracking for the thread readers? So often I want to know who is responding to whom and all I have is a blockquote to reference. Then I have to go back upthread and look for those words. What’s so hard about just hitting the gray arrow over the time stamp and then blockquoting the relevant words? Really? Is it some sort of passive agressive "I’m not responding to YOU personally, but just what you said" move?" It’d be a lot easier to track interesting discourse if we helped each other out here with easy reference tools already provided. TIA?!

  156. 156.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    @HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker:

    Following up on the Olbermann thing, I am troubled by two things he is doing:

    One is the "just following orders" rhetoric. I don’t know of anyone who has used that phrase to describe, or defend, anything that hangs from these memos. Did I miss a meeting? Anyway, it strikes me as a blatant attempt to paint the things that hang from the memos as being somehow the equal of Nazi attrocities. That is just a foolish downgrade of the real horror in the Nazi attrocities and an inapt comparison.

    The other, is the idea that because we are not pursuing action against those who may have been led to believe that their actions were legal due to these memos, we are not taking proper action. Seems to me the real bad guy is the fellow who wrote the memos.

    I don’t understand why Olbermann is so eager to blur that line.
    Or maybe I am the one blurring it. Don’t know. I have a stomach ache.

  157. 157.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    we shouldn’t have to be talking about this at all in the fucking United States of America.

    Didn’t you recently say that you weren’t in real America? Or was that another NM denizen?

    I’m lousy with names, so if that wasn’t you, please disregard.

  158. 158.

    Comrade Stuck

    Just thought I’d drop by and see how the Juicer’s are fairing. Sad to see "The Mendacious Troll" still ruling the roost.

  160. 160.

    cyntax

    @HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker:
    I think we mostly agree, and I’m just generally more interested in finding common ground than I am in drawing contrasts. But that’s just me.

    Though Ella brings up an interesting distinction about those follwing orders that I hadn’t thought much about: what to do with the medical and psychological personnel?

    Being a vet, I always retain a little bias towards those being given the orders, but medical personnel assisting in torture really makes my stomach turn. Maybe it’s the image of the medic out on the battlefield, without a gun (supposedly God loves medics and drunks), but it seems like a terrible corruption of medical ethics to enable torture.

  161. 161.

    Xenos

    Totally agree but the hard fact of the matter is that many of the perfectionist left/progressive don’t seem to care—they are willing to sacrifice the greater and long term good (political capital opportunity cost for paying attention to other things that help folks more materially – like health care, fixing the economy) to extract "justice" at whatever price. That is called "zealotry" – but hell it sells and gets people banging on those web sites…

    Oh hell. Concern troll in concerned. Let’s just chuck the constitution, it is not like we were using it or nothin’.

    You talk about overwhelming public support being necessary for prosecutions, but when people try to drum up the support they are just a bunch of fucking hippies for you to laugh at. Please, take your pragmatics and shove it. Argue from principle, argue from law, argue from whatever, but this crap is unbearable at this point.

  162. 162.

    someguy

    Hang the motherfuckers. The CIA officers involved, their chain of command, their lawyers, every motherfucker in the OLC, and the entire DOJ chain of command and anybody in the WH who knew about it, plus anybody who knew the truth and didn’t report it. Better yet, turn them over to Saudi Arabia, or perhaps the Pakistani government, for a human rights trial. Nothing is too over the top in retribution for what they’ve done to this country. Then when that’s done, let’s look at how we can de-nazify the federal government including the military, and make it so that Republicans aren’t able to take over and pull this kind of shit again.

  165. 165.

    sparky

    @Elie: @Elie: Oooh, an attack! Complete with ad hominems! Me so flattered!

    Now then:
    First, you know nothing about me. Zero. If you are nice, maybe you can come over and inspect my countertops. Maybe. (For purposes of this paragraph assume I have countertops.)

    As for your second assemblage, I felt just a bit let down. I would have added more straw and set it aflame; half-measures are no fun. I mean, if you are going to make stuff up, at least go with something dramatic. What kind of gun will the NIH use? A nifty trick (was this page missing from your playbook?) is to take one or two words that i actually used when constructing the straw dude. You know, something like where I said health care would be at the point of a gun. Oh, I didn’t say that? Don’t you think that would have been a teensier bit more effective to rebut my point than make up a fantasy one? No? Suit yourself.

    Oh, and I agree with you that prosecuting people for breaking the law might be disruptive. You know, ending slavery was disruptive too. Guess that was a boo-boo too.

    Wait! I almost forgot–we HAVE TO CHOOSE between your choices! How careless of me. Silly me, I thought the US might be capable of doing more than one thing at a time. But you were as always, correct, since the only valid model of the universe–and political theory and power–is the one you possess. Why don’t you spare us all the suspense and just tell us exactly how everything will go for the next, say 6.75 years? I think it would be doing us a great kindness, and that appears to be what you are all about.

  166. 166.

    Elie

    Sparky:

    One last thing. We may get to where you want to go. But it will be pushed by the people, not by blogistan.

    I want an accountable executive. I donot believe that accountability can be completely litigated, however. It is a civic function resulting from an informed and empowered electorate taking action.

    Right now our electorate is not in great shape, although its better than it was. For eight years we (including me) did not take care of business but waited around for this election and somehow, once we elected the new, better guy, HE was supposed to fix all of it. And not only fix it, fix it IMMEDIATELY, damn it!

    I think we will have to fix it and we own the fix for the right person to be in office and be doing the right thing. I have no problem with putting Obama’s feet to the fire — fairly and systematically.

    But I assert, the Tower of Babel that has become the discourse on the left has been too mixed with more than a little self promotion and demand generation for blogging popularity to drive the identification of the priorities and action plan with the goal of the best outcomes for the most people. As impatient as these commenters are for the perfect decisions and their agendas, I am more impatient and irritated to see any wisdom or realityspeak about real world tradeoffs. That is my beef. I dont trust THEIR agendas and their desire to control without honest acknowledgement of downsides or tradeoffs that they almost never make when laying down their rigid and perfectionistic judgements.

  167. 167.

    cyntax

    @Ella in NM:
    Yeah, hadn’t thought a lot about the psychologists and medical personnel involved in this. Not to give the interrogators a free pass but what you’re pointing to is behavior that’s completely anathema to the very purpose and mission of being in the medical and psychological fields. Definitely more egregious.

    [sigh] Yes, Laura, I promise to use the grey arrow thingee more…

  169. 169.

    Mnemosyne

    @Elie:

    For eight years we (including me) did not take care of business but waited around for this election and somehow, once we elected the new, better guy, HE was supposed to fix all of it. And not only fix it, fix it IMMEDIATELY, damn it!

    This. People seem to think that Obama should be able to dismantle in 90 days the regime it took Bush 8 years to set up. Believe it or not, Obama is not, in fact, a superhero, and it will take him longer than 3 months to fix everything.

  170. 170.

    Elie

    Sparky:

    You are right. I know nothing about you and therefore was wrong to assume that you had anything at all materially. It is not central to my arguments anyway so I apologize.

    It is indeed not an either or…we can do more than one thing at a time. That said, it is incorrect however to say that there are infinite time and resources at any one point and therefore, priorities are what happen. Especially for political capital

    You aptly cite the attack of slavery as a righteous cause — and it was. But it wasnt just one decision, but a series over many administrations and many years (though key decisions were made by individuals). Even after slavery was formally ended by Lincoln, blacks in the US continued to experience second class or worse citizenship and the process of justice necessarily continued using many approaches. It is probably fair to say, that although the legal institution of slavery died in the late 1800’s, that the reality of second class citizenship for blacks required the power of the mass of American people to permanently shift it.

    The analogy to what you want therefore seems quite different. You are seeking a narrow set of actions by the Executive to fix something that ultimately will need the same kind of thing for the fix to work — the people through the electoral and other civic processes will have to make sure to assert limits on the Executive. That is fair, and necessary and in my opinion the only thing that will work long term

  171. 171.

    gwangung

    @Xenos:

    You talk about overwhelming public support being necessary for prosecutions, but when people try to drum up the support they are just a bunch of fucking hippies for you to laugh at.

    If you aren’t writing to your Congressmen and the OTHER congressmen in your state AND writing the press AND more, you’re not doing your part.

    If you ARE—good for you, ’cause we need more of it.

    I’m just pointing out that overwhelming public support means that WE have a part to play–there’s two components to this and we wont have success unless there’s both parts.

  172. 172.

    sparky

    @Elie: well. i see you decided to post something a bit cooler. but of course after my cough response to your prior post.

    so i will try something a bit more low-key. i don’t think litigation is the way to go either. but that’s a different question. no one is talking about doing anything but enforcing existing laws. if you don’t hold people in government accountable then they get to do whatever they want and at the end of the day you are dependent upon their whims. i don’t want to be subject to this Executive’s whims any more than i wanted to be subject to the last one’s.

    now, i can agree that some of the people in blogville have their own agendas. but so what? if they help push matters in the right direction what’s the difference? does it matter? why?

    incidentally, if the bloggers don’t do it, who is going to? mister my wallet is flat friedman? seriously, i don’t see this coming from anywhere else. i don’t like self-righteousness either, but i can tolerate it, just like i can tolerate bad suits on politicians. kinda goes with the terrain.

    i don’t expect to agree with everyone on everything, but we do have to agree on the ground rules. and my point is that right now the ground rules need to be enforced. somehow. i quite frankly don’t know what the best method for doing that would be. perhaps a truth commission–a real one, not a whitewash like the 9/11 one–would be enough.

    O/T–did anyone see Pat Lang’s snippet about Chalabi? Holy crap, the US is like a drunken conventioneer with a fat wallet and some eye drops in his bad vodka appletini. Yikes.

  174. 174.

    Elie

    170 –

    I think the truth will win out but it will take time. Lots of dirt, dead boddies of truth will surface. It will be harder than you think to deal with and way more distracting.

    We have to reestablish our national community that was very nearly destroyed. A full, divisive, dirty, politically incendiary trial is just not feasible right now in my opinion. Take a look around to our environment.

    You have no trust that the opportunity will survive. I don’t think that the facts or the truth will disappear and I don’t believe that the opportunity for justice will evade us. I accept your impatience but alas, must disagree profoundly with your prioritizing this right now.

    Peace

  175. 175.

    TenguPhule

    The other, is the idea that because we are not pursuing action against those who may have been led to believe that their actions were legal due to these memos, we are not taking proper action. Seems to me the real bad guy is the fellow who wrote the memos

    So the question is which is worse, the hands or the brains?

    Fuck that, they’re both equally guilty and deserve to face punishment for their crimes.

  176. 176.

    asiangrrlMN

    Late to the party as always. I am sincerely grateful that President Obama has released the memos. I am one of the zealots, so I think the perpetrators of these egregious acts need to be prosecuted as soon as is reasonably possible. I am not asking for right now, but I am of the belief that the more time this drags out, the more likely it is to be swept under the rug.

    Dick Cheney (and others) worked with Nixon. They learned that if the president did it, it was OK. They came back forty years later to implement these beliefs once again. Now, it seems as if they may get away with it again. It is because of them and their policies that our country is crumbling. It is because of them that we have lost so much in terms of, well, everything. I am with sparky on this that if the president and his administration do not have to follow the same laws that we peons do, then Dick Cheney will rise from his grave forty years from now and do it all over again. The only good thing is that I will probably be dead by then, and I don’t have to watch him take down our country one more time.

    I would like to feel confident that my president and his AG will bring the miscreants to justice. It’s not a revenge fantasy for me. It’s because until that happens, we have no right to expect anyone else to follow the law–either domestically or globally.

    Besides that, these people are sick, sick men (and a few women, maybe). They need to be out of society like any other sociopath (yeah, John Yoo, I’m talking to you).

  177. 177.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    @TenguPhule:

    And as we all know, the most important thing on earth is that everyone gets exactly what he deserves.

    Nothing more, or less. Ever. Anything else is just unsportsmanlike.

    Me, I deserve affordable healthcare, a well tuned piano, and creamed potatoes.

    And iced tea.

  178. 178.

    TenguPhule

    Alternately, you are willing to jeopardize the success of achieving that important benefit for millions without it so that you can be right on an issue that would mean enormous upheaval and disruption to achieve – even if it were achievable – which is doubtful

    We are either a nation of laws or we are not.

    Yes, this is more important then universal healthcare.

    That this is even a question shows how far our nation has fallen.

  179. 179.

    TenguPhule

    And as we all know, the most important thing on earth is that everyone gets exactly what he deserves.

    We have one chance to stuff the genie of unaccountability back in the bottle.

    Or else it will happen again, probably under even worse circumstances.

  180. 180.

    Texas Dem

    Obama deserves a lot of credit for releasing these memos but let’s be honest: there won’t be any prosecutions of either CIA agents or Bush administration officials. Public opinion simply will not support it. If I’m wrong about that and we have a sea change in public support for prosecutions, I’ll be pleasantly surprised. But it’s not very likely. At the end of the day, most folks simply do not want to believe that their government is capable of doing such monstrous things. They will remain in blissful ignorance and denial, aided and abetted by the MSM. Look at how long it’s taken other countries that have moved from authoritarian regimes (Chile, Argentina, Spain) to hold former officials accountable. The timeline here has to be measured in decades, not years. The real value of these memos is for the profound damage they do to the Bush legacy project, which took a serious (and probably fatal) hit today. Historians will be the ones to hold Bush and his cronies accountable.

  181. 181.

    Elie

    asiangrrlMN
    I respect what you and Sparky have laid out…its not that I don’t — its the balance as I said ad nauseum about those realities and the realities of other needs…that is the only difference — in priority.

    That said, I go back to various threads that allude to the public support necessary to do these really hard things — things like TRIALS and PUBLIC COMMISSIONS are like mega SUVs to fuel consumption aka the political capital it takes to get a verdict and then what do you do with that verdict when folks in a downturn need jobs, and homes and healthcare…

    I also must address what Mr (or Ms) Sparky said about the progressive blogs with self serving agendas. He said basically, who cares, lets use them. OK with part of that. But these folks project a reality like 6 zillion folks (that they have personally organized), are ready to go to legislate and POLITICALLY support stuff — and many times they are a community of one (or perhaps their fellow blog hosts and a few fan club members). That is NOT the same thing as a grass roots movement pushing for something and therefore I make a distinction about the relative self serving nature of their commentaries and action plans. While there is no disagreement that the discussion and highlighting of the issues is important — the HOW important is not irrelevant

  183. 183.

    Mary

    I think it is wrong to say the CIA sought cover for their activities and that therefore they were not acting in good faith. My understanding is that the torture program started in Richard Bruce Cheney’s shop and that he and his consiglieres, Addington and Libby, told the CIA to torture. They then moved the levers of government to make it happen and ordered the CIA to perform torture while making it look like the CIA asked for it.

    The CIA is embarrassed by the release of these memos, of course. But I truly believe that Obama will work to make sure the blame is assigned primarily where it belongs. And we know where that is.

    I also think that the release of these memos indicates the tremendous strength of Obama and is a shot across the bow of the bad actors who are working to destabilize his government as we speak.

    Whoever said that we are going to be dancing the happy jig at the end of Obama’s two terms is surely right.

  184. 184.

    jill

    Obama deserves a lot of credit for releasing these memos but let’s be honest: there won’t be any prosecutions of either CIA agents or Bush administration officials. Public opinion simply will not support it. If I’m wrong about that and we have a sea change in public support for prosecutions, I’ll be pleasantly surprised.

    I’m confused by the reaction. He released the memos after being called Bush lite all week, but he’s now worse then Bush after releasing the memos. Keith’s special comment was all over the place tonight.

    I agree there isn’t public support for prosecution to happen. That’s why if anything to actually going to happen it’s going to have to be more then just Obama doing it all. For 8 years this has gone on and we want Obama to fix it….yesterday. He needs public support for it. Doing what some want would be the end of him doing anything else for the country. Do people realize that the meme that "Bush kept us safe" is actually out there and many people believe it? These people who were tortured don’t matter to a lot of Americans, as sad as that is.

  187. 187.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    @TenguPhule:

    Well, I tend away from the melodramatic. I like melodrama but only when I am using it as a weapon.

    Anyway, the people have all the control. They can elect better presidents anytime they set their minds to it. Look at the one we got now. That could be the start of a trend.

  188. 188.

    wilfred

    The entire war was a war crime that has resulted in the destruction of hundreds of thousands of lives.

    The implicit message then and now was "They’re only Arabs and/or Muslims" and there is rarely justice when the vicitm is an Arab or a Muslim.

    The conviction of one Hatley doesn’t mitigate the victims of these practices, of whom there were thousands, not dozens.

    Americans are always quick to forgive themselves; Arabs get shoved into boxes with insects.

    As for Obama, he’s a house man. You know how many Afghan children have been killed in drone attacks that he has continued to authorize?

  189. 189.

    Elie

    186 – You are right Wilfred — he is not Yahweh able to stop all killing and right the Universe..

    But can you work with who he IS to help move us forward a bit.? THAT is the question. Or will you consign us to NO NO NO unless you have perfection?

    If you were looking for the former, you are bound to be disappointed. But then I say, shame on you…

    The latter is where we can work it. The purists will want something else and so you can wait for that — and by the way, WORK for that…

    Lets talk about reality for those remaining… CAN do, not WANT TO DO SOMEDAY – MAYBE

    I hate empty lip service.

  190. 190.

    Tonal Crow

    @HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker:

    You want DOJ to prosecute people who "told" DOJ lawyers what to think and to serve up bad legal advice [line break]( rolls eyes )[line break]I think you need to get your pitchfork adjusted, a couple of the tines are a little sideways there.

    So, in your view, the DOJ cannot (or should not? or will not?) prosecute anyone who is in DOJ’s chain of command for following "advice" that they ordered the DOJ to concoct? Wheeee! So Obama can order an opinion that "justifies" having teabaggers immobilized, wrapped in pink burkas emblazoned with 76 distinct insults to Allah, and airdropped into South Waziristan, have it done — and get away with it? Kewl. This gives a whole new meaning to "When the President does it, it is not illegal".

    [Is it even vaguely possible to have someone fix this blog’s terrible blockquote behavior?]

  191. 191.

    Mnemosyne

    Here’s the other thing for those who want action NOW NOW NOW!!

    Gerald Ford listened to the people who insisted that something had to be done immediately to "reconcile" the country to Nixon’s actions so we could all move on from the trauma, so he did the quickest thing: he pardoned him.

    Do you really want to try and push the administration into quick action given that we know from recent history that doing so only means we get fast action, not necessarily the action that’s best for the country?

  192. 192.

    Tonal Crow

    @Elie:

    One last thing. We may get to where you want to go. But it will be pushed by the people, not by blogistan.

    Blogs don’t write themselves. "The people" write them.

  193. 193.

    Tonal Crow

    Elie:

    You are seeking a narrow set of actions by the Executive to fix something that ultimately will need the same kind of thing for the fix to work—the people through the electoral and other civic processes will have to make sure to assert limits on the Executive. That is fair, and necessary and in my opinion the only thing that will work long term.

    One of the "civic processes" required to "assert limits on the Executive" is for "the people" to push for the prosecution of those who purported to authorize tyrannical conduct. True, such prosecutions are one of several tools that might be used to deter such conduct. But they are an important one, not least because they frame the issue as a serious one worthy of serious effort by serious people. Finally, no one is saying that prosecutions will, of themselves, "fix" anything; we are merely saying that prosecutions are an important part of the eternal vigilance through which we guard our Liberty.

  194. 194.

    Beej

    Call me hopelessly naive or just plain looney, but every time I hear Obama address the question of prosecuting Bush administration officials, I get the feeling that he’s holding back, evading. This is a guy who has pretty consistently said what he meant and done what he said. If he really had absolutely no intention of investigating or prosecuting the Bush criminals, I think he would say so, clearly and concisely. The fact that he doesn’t leads me to believe that maybe there’s more going on than meets the eye. Obama wants to pass health care, energy, and education initiatives. That’s going to require a huge investment of time and political capital. Could it be that he doesn’t want to spend that capital on an investigation and prosecution right now? I think it may be another story after his programs make their way through Congress. And I wouldn’t be surprised if, in some corner of the Justice Department, there are some folks who intend to spend the next 18-24 months compiling evidence and making the case against Bush, Cheney, and the rest of their criminal cabal. Or maybe it’s all just wishful thinking on my part. I guess we’ll see.

  195. 195.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    So, in your view, the DOJ canno

    Nope, not my view. I have already stated my view. But I won’t condemn you to actually reading the whole thread, something I myself rarely want to do.

    My view is that the people who engineered the toxic legal opinion are guilty of malpractice. That would be the former AG and his boss. And Bush too, since I assume Cheney was calling the shots.

    However, in this context, justice is wrapped in politics, and I don’t think that there is political oxygen for pursuing the matter at the present time. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be down the road.

  196. 196.

    Thankovsky

    @Beej:

    These more or less reflect my thoughts, as well. I think Digby might be onto something here: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-its-done-by-digby-does-everyone.html

    However, I have to wonder if by releasing the memos they aren’t at least obliquely asking for the public to "make" them do it. They could have kept them secret, after all. If there were significant public pressure as well as pressure from congress, they would have enough cover to launch an investigation with the assurance they aren’t going to go the Bad Apple route.

    This would obviously be optimal, and quite frankly, it seems like this has been a recurring facet in Obama’s strategy throughout this ordeal: suggest that he’d really, really like to release these memos/prosecute these thugs/etc, buuuuuuuuuuuut he doesn’t think the public’s angry enough, so let’s move on. And the public inevitably says, "Hey, wait a minute, we’re TOTALLY angry enough! Grrrr!", and Obama says, "Well shucks, I guess I’d better do it, then!"

    It seems to be a pretty successful strategy so far, and I think it will work especially well in the near future, once the public becomes more aware of these memos’ rather ghoulish contents.

    At any rate, I’m impressed with how he’s playing this so far, and I’m more convinced than ever that Big O’s strategy is going to pay off enormously.

    Oh, and incidentally, everybody on the internet who claimed that Obama is no better than Bush before he released these memos? Kill yourselves, please. Your analysis was so unbelievably off-base that I don’t want you to remain in the gene pool.

  198. 198.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    @Thankovsky:

    Perhaps. But next year. Not this year. The New New Deal rests on what happens in the next few months. I have been reading up on what Roosevelt had to go through in his first term, and …..

    ack

  199. 199.

    Thankovsky

    @HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker:

    That may well be, but there IS a school of thought that claims that Obama could be able to get more of his progressive agenda accomplished under the cover of the larger issue of the economy. I’m not saying that school of thought is correct – I’m about as on the fence on that topic as one can be – but I think it at least begs the question, "What’s the most efficient way for Obama to accomplish what he needs to accomplish?" Obviously, the economy is issue #1, and attacking other issues mustn’t come at the expense of dealing with that largest of issues, but that said, who knows. Maybe there’s a way we would kill multiple birds with one stone.

Comments are closed.