« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Sen. Bond: Holder 'Gave Me Assurances He's Looking Forward' On Torture Prosecutions
Sen. Kit Bond told the Washington Times today that Attorney General nominee Eric Holder privately "gave me assurances he is looking forward" on the issue of prosecutions of former Bush officials who authorized torture or operatives who carried out the policy.
The paper paraphrases Bond's remarks this way: that "Mr. Holder assured [Bond] privately that Mr. Obama's Justice Department will not prosecute former Bush officials involved in the interrogations program."
But Bond's quoted remarks are not quite so clear cut:
[Bond] added, "I was concerned about previous statements he made and others had made. He gave me assurances that he would not take those steps that would cause major disruptions in our intelligence system or cause political warfare. We don't need that kind of political warfare. He gave me assurances he is looking forward."Mr. Bond also said, "I believe he will look forward to keep the nation safe and not look backwards to prosecute intelligence operators who were fighting terror and kept our country safe since 9-11."
Holder said at his confirmation hearing two weeks ago that "waterboarding is torture." And while President Obama has voiced a preference for looking "forward as opposed to looking backwards" when it comes to potential prosecutions, Holder's unequivocal statement on waterboarding raised the possibility that a full-scale investigation is required.
Indeed, Senate GOPers were so spooked by Holder's statement, they held up his nomination over the issue. This morning, the Judiciary Committee approved Holder, by a vote of 17-2.
Josh
Zachary
Hey, I'm "looking forward" to the prosecution of war crimes, too. Let's get 'em started!!
-- ARG
January 28, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"looking forward" actually sounds to me like Mr. Holder is saying he can hardly wait till he has gotten the case investigated so he can bring charges. But then, I suppose we can expect someone like Kit Bond to ignore the obvious need to prosecute these horrible people who have besmirched America's reputation. then of course, there is our departed (not from this world though) Alberto Gonzales, who is prognosticating that he would not be prosecuted. I am thinking that is a bunch of deep thought out wishful thinking!!!! Every last person who had ANYTHING to do with that disgusting torture that was so prevalent during the Bush years - I mean from the highest to the lowest, should be prosecuted!! NO exceptions!
January 29, 2009 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, once these guys are indicted by the Hague, Obama and Holder can safely say, "Hey, we have to look into this matter now. It's not about political score settling. It's about the rule of law."
Maybe we need those international indictments first.
-- ARG
January 28, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
frankly, considering the degraded state of american 'justice', i am banking on the international community to hold these bastards accountable.
January 28, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, God, no more caving and kowtowing to the shameless thugs of the GOP. Let's hope this isn't true.
January 28, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch. Not good. If this is true and Holder does not follow through with investigations I will officially retire from the Democratic Party and the wonderful world of politics.
As if to add insult to injury - get a load of this:
"Obama lawyers set to defend Yoo"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18063.html
January 28, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama’s lawyers aren’t the first at Justice to have to stand by a prior administration’s legal work — whether they agree with it or not — merely in the interest of protecting U.S. government prerogatives."
You don't make policy through bad lawsuits.
January 28, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can speak to this, because I am a Department of Justice attorney.
I will keep it short and sweet.
Just because you don't like Yoo does not mean that Padilla has a cognizable cause of action against a Department employee for providing legal advice in the course of his work to someone not Padilla. I suspect you have neither read the complaint, nor read beyond the Politico article.
We defend the rule of law, for you and me. Sometimes doing the right thing by the law means defending characters people don't like.
If the Department prevails in this motion, as it should, that is not tantamount to approval by the judicial system of the Bush Administration's policies on torture. There may be valid causes of action, both civil and criminal, to address any wrongdoing. But this ain't one of them.
I do not work on the case. I am not in the Division handling this. I note that for the record.
January 28, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, good explanation of how America is supposed to work, and thanks for your service (it's ok to say that to folks who aren't in the military, ya know).
January 28, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I were Holder, I would go back on my word, just because Bond tried to play me in the public.
January 28, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well he never promised anything, so he doesn't have to go back on his word. This is a tried an true political stunt. Won;t limit the Justice department one bit.
That said, prosecuting guys on the line for what higher ups put them up to is not a good idea.
January 28, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
They could have resigned and maybe that would have changed the policy. I am not into "I was just following orders", even for the lower level guys. If they broke the law, they should all go to jail!
January 28, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I guess the question is if they knew they were breaking the law, since apparently some people told them explicitly what they were doing was legal. The guys who knew it was not legal but conspired to make it seem legal are the real problem.
And by the way, we ask our intelligence and covert military type to do things that are letter of the law illegal all the time--stealing stuff, breaking and entering, whatever. You aren't going to tell me we should prosecute them too.
January 28, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, this tactic is as old as Washington.
(in private)
Bond: Prosecuting CIA officers and former Atty's General would be a disaster. I am totally against that.
Holder: We are looking forward to making a policy that works fro the American people.
(In public)
Bond: Holder promised me he wouldn't do the thing I am against (to himself, hah I trapped him cause if he does do it in the future the public thinks he is a liar. I sure screwed him. Yeehaw.)
Holder: (silence) (to himself: that Bond dude is a prick. I wonder how freaked out this is going to make my liberal friends. I mean I usually don't announce policy through the mouth of raving right wingers, but I wonder if they can tell the difference. Well judging by the headline in TPM, maybe not. Then again I don't really read TPM, I am way too busy, the guy writing this is just making it up. This not my actual voice)
January 28, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure TPM is already on top of this, but could y'all put a call into to the appropriate people to see if they are willing to confirm what Bond is saying?
January 28, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems foolish to either ask for or give such an assurance. If clear evidence of wrongdoing comes to light: either new incidents, or new evidence about known cases, how could the Justice Department not prosecute?
January 28, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a difference a preposition makes. He said he gave me assurances he is looking forward "to" the issue of prosecutions not "on". Damn that pesky hearing aid....
January 28, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
My thoughts exactly. Just two little letters.
January 28, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama Administration has been hoisted so far up on that pedestal that they have miles to fall, but Obama was put there becasue of what he said during the campaign.
Obama must decide whether he represents 90/95% of the public or the gang that caused this economic tsunami we're in. He can't represent both.
As I said before, after 4 years, Obama will be a candidate for Mt Rushmore or he will be known as the greatest snake oil salesman to sit in the oval office.
January 28, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Extremism in the description of virtue is an annoying vice.
January 28, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This report seems like a lie. After all, Cornyn would have voted for Holder if he promised this because that is his stated reason for voting against Holder.
Holder cannot really give a legal opinion on cases has has not read and evidence he has not seen. This is all hearsay reported in a conservative rag. I am not at all convinced.
January 28, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
See this emptywheel thread:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/28/did-holder-promise-no-prosecutions/
January 28, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding and incorrect reading between the lines going on.
Holder said publicly, on the record, that no person was above the law, and that waterboarding was torture.
It is well-known that:
1) Some, but not all "enhanced interrogation" was illegal.
2) Not all unlawful acts are prosecuted
3) Not all actors involved in unlawful acts are prosecuted.
I suspect that what Holder is saying is that if legal opinions were issued by those in charge, and intelligence officers on the line followed those opinions, those officers would not be prosecuted (so long as they provided complete and accurate information about who gave what orders, and when, and they stayed within the bounds of the orders given). Following orders and legal advice may or may not be a valid legal defense, depending on the specific law(s) broken but it may have enough of an equitable element to convince authorities not to prosecute
On the other hand, this does not mean that those who wrote the legal opinions, approved the legal opinions, or ordered the legal opinions are safe from prosecution. If a lawyer directs someone to act in an illegal manner, or if someone directs a lawyer to issue an incorrect opinion, or if someone in a position of authority orders someone else to act in an illegal manner, none of those people can claim as a defense that they acted in good faith. They can be prosecuted either as accomplices, principals or conspirators. The individuals that did the hands-on torture may avoid prosecution, but Woo, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Ashcroft, Addington, Cheney and anyone else involved should not be assume they are going to be so lucky.
January 28, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is starting to sound like Rummys "known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns..."
Can't somebody just grow a pair and come out in public and say we're gonna burn these torturing bastards and slap 'em in the slammer right next to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
January 28, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, that's Yoo, not Woo.
January 28, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prosecute Yoo? Woo hoo!
January 28, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This news saddens me. Eric Holder will be dishonest and corrupted from the moment he take his oath since he is already pledging NOT TO up-hold the Constitution and our laws.
George Bush and Dick Chaney have won and destroyed our Constitution and country.
Bottom line, the US no longer has any Justice System at all.
I really thought we had a hope with in the new administrations, but to be proven so wrong so fast is heart breaking.
I cannot support this.
January 28, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAHAHA!
Good one!
Oh, wait. You were being _serious_?
you're an idiot.
January 28, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Perhaps the MSM should ask
1) If a Republican Senator (Mr. Kit Bond) is interfering with the DOJ - isn't that a crime? or
2) If he is an out right lier or
3) The Dems should censure Mstr Bond or
I heard Sessions say today that Eric Holder had Clinton give a pardon to a terrorist in the same sentence as Marc Rich? WTF. What terrorist?
January 28, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the Justice System to function, it must be trusted, and if the first act of the Attorney General is to make a deal wherein he will not prosecute certain infamous crimes, how can anyone trust action taken by such an organization. I am one of those people who believe that if you take an Oath then break it, that is a greater crime than murder. Sounds ridiculous, but if you stop and think about it, our whole nation as a state is based upon our elected leaders and employees rigidly abide by their oaths to the Constitution. If they do not, the glue that binds us is gone and will lead us to nothing but chaos and perpetual violent revolution. When I swore my Oath, I meant it, and I still feel bound by it.
Taking an Oath with no intention of living to it is the lowest boundaries of no integrity. And excusing it as, well he can do this evil to fix others is BS, because the things he is being blackmailed into ignoring is at the foundation of the American character. To "look forward" in a case like this, leaves this country morally bankrupt and nothing moral worth defending.
About your insult instead of discussion, like, "Why do you think it is not okay just to forgive torturers and murders?". Go F&@k yourself.
January 28, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now that we know that Bond was making it up, you wanna apologize to Holder?
Does the oath of office require every crime be prosecuted? Every single crime? Just wondering where hysterical knee-jerks like you draw the line.
January 28, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have nothing to apologize about. I was speaking that if he would take the oath without intent to perform then what I was saying applies. We all need to be this passionate about the integrity of oath and let them know it before they take it. This way, they just might take it seriously.
For my money, I care less about someone's political party as long as they are staunch adherents to their oath to the Constitution. Nobody for any political bent can cause any serious damage to our Republic if they just obey the tenets of the Constitution.
It makes me feel better is this Bond guy is lying, I really hope that Eric Holder is a man of his word, the Justice Department needs to regain its "justice" identity and shed its current "politcal enforcer bureau" identity.
January 28, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
BOND IS A LIAR!
January 28, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink