Glenn Greenwald: A torture inquiry that tasks a special prosecutor with looking exclusively at interrogators who overstepped John Yoo’s memo remains an awful compromise.
Kevin Drum: Ginning up public support for health care reform works better if you put some effort into selling it.
Back to grant writing.
Zach
Well, we know that forced nudity and sleep deprivation were used by CIA and contracted interrogators on Abu Zubaydah before the “torture memo” of August 1. We know that temperature control was used before August 1, although in less detail than the other two methods. We know that the torture was directly ordered by the White House before it had legal cover provided by subsequent analysis. Ergo, Holder can prosecute James Mitchell, unnamed CIA interrogators, Dick Cheney, and anyone else in the White House decision making process on this front under these guidelines.
Holder (and Obama) have already rejected Yoo’s arguments as specious. They’re contemplating forgiveness for those who operated within guidelines established by the memo. Those who operated outside of existing law and practice before August 1, 2002 aren’t saved by this reprieve. In fact, they knew that they likely overstepped United States law so they tortured in Bangkok and Bagram. Assuming that torture at black sites is interpreted to be illegal by this Justice Department under US Law (as it existed before the detainee treatment act), Holder can still prosecute a good number of decision makers.
Punchy
To avoid crushing disappointment, I’ve already resigned myself to believe that we’ll get neither torture investys nor health care reform. This way, if it happens, I’ll be estatic, but when it doesn’t, I’ll just keep moving on.
Face
Holder can still prosecute a good number of decision makers.
He can, but won’t.
Tsulagi
That, and the probability of my winning a Powerball lottery likely have about the same odds of occurring.
If Holder does limit an investigation and potential prosecution solely to interrogators, he will be carrying water for Bush, Cheney, and the rest of that admin like Yoo. Just more politician ass covering, and another Obama admin validation for the unitary executive.
kay
I have a question. Holder is going to try some of the detainees. One of the problems he has is this: Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) refuse to allow those convicted to be held in federal prison in the US. He can’t go forward until that is resolved.
I read lots and lots on the issue of the absolute imperative nature of trying the detainees, and the urgency of that. Holder says he has 20 he’s about ready to try in federal court.
I’m wondering why no one is or has pressured Congress to drop their ridiculous and purely political opposition to imprisoning those tried and convicted in the US?
That seems like an issue that a concerted and serious political lobbying effort could actually impact.
Or is that now Holder’s problem?
Persia
IMO, it’s purely a capitulation.
jenniebee
You overlooked this masterpiece on Sadly, No, which snarks about a Freeper call for a million man
marcharmed assault on the Corridors of Power to demand… wait for it… a repeal of the 17th amendment.I honestly had no idea that they had such strong feelings about the direct election of Senators, but something new every day, right?
Balconesfault
I was wondering, reading Greenwald’s article, if going after those who overstepped Yoo’s memos is a good way to keep pushing the extremity of the memos out into the public dialogue.
If you actually do try to prosecute any “rogue” agents – those agents and their lawyers are going to base a defense on the idea either that someone above them directed their conduct, or that the language in the Yoo memos actually did authorize their conduct.
If that happens – the defense teams will have done much of the heavy lifting for Holder.
Tax Analyst
kay said:
“I have a question. Holder is going to try some of the detainees. One of the problems he has is this: Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) refuse to allow those convicted to be held in federal prison in the US. He can’t go forward until that is resolved.
I read lots and lots on the issue of the absolute imperative nature of trying the detainees, and the urgency of that. Holder says he has 20 he’s about ready to try in federal court.
I’m wondering why no one is or has pressured Congress to drop their ridiculous and purely political opposition to imprisoning those tried and convicted in the US?
That seems like an issue that a concerted and serious political lobbying effort could actually impact.
Or is that now Holder’s problem?”
Because the bed-wetters among us iz skeered thet teh terrirists mite excape an’ tehn cutt derre hedds awf az tehy sleep. So the Congress-critters need to reassure said wetters that tehy will protect their precious heads from invasive terririst abrasion and other dastardly deeds.
Now recognizing that you have a legitimate and serious question, I have to ask, in all seriousness, just who do you think is going to mount this “…concerted and serious political lobbying effort (that) could actually impact.”? Because it seems to me that such an effort would involve such things as “nuance” and other non-soundbite stuff – vs the usual shrill voices.
srv
Socialist.
Well, it wouldn’t be a bad thing. I mean, either get rid of the Senate (why do you hate democracy?) or have a single-term representive representing the state government (why do you hate federalism?). But turning the Senate into a bigger beauty contest than the House was just dumb.
mclaren
Hey, at least they’re going to investigate. It’s gonna be reeeeeeeeeeal hard to whitewash this one. “They only gouged one of the prisoner’s eyeballs, so it wasn’t really torture…” Good luck with that one, guys.