« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Turley: We Need A Special Torture Prosecutor, Not Some Lame Commission
Jonathan Turley, the media-friendly George Washington Law School professor, who's an outspoken advocate of curbing executive power, gave a bravura performance on MSNBC's Countdown last night, on the subject of possible torture prosecutions.
Arguing that investigations aren't just necessary but long overdue, Turley made two important points that have been getting a bit lost in the rapid-fire debate lately.
First, he said, there's a huge difference between an investigation conducted by Congress or a bipartisan commission, on the one hand, and the appointment of a special prosecutor by the Justice Department, on the other. The former approach is likely to repeat the mistakes of the 9/11 Commission, in which Washington insiders largely ensured that there were no major political repercussions. Only the latter approach, he said, will ensure genuine accountability.
Second, Turley lamented the way that the Washington debate has lately centered on the issue of whether the DOJ lawyers who wrote the memos -- John Yoo, Steven Bradbury, and Jay Bybee, among others -- will face prosecution. But a full investigation, of course, should focus on those who ordered the polices -- including, if necessary, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, and others -- not just the lawyers who produced the legal rationale for it.
Of course, Turley's advice will almost certainly not be followed. But it's worth keeping his views in mind as a baseline of what, in an ideal world, should be happening.
Watch:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Josh
Zachary
Professor Turley is correct. Yoo, Bradbury, Bybee didn't come up with these rationalizations out of the blue. They were trying to put the cart behind the horse because the torture had already begun. It was done because they thought it would cover their asses and be kept secret forever. Those appointees in the DOJ , from Gonzales on down who had a hand in formulating these egrigious memos, in the DOD from Rumsfeld down through Feith, and the CIA, Tenet down to the last appointee. Those grunts convicted because of Abu Ghraib have to at least feel some gratification that those who ordered this abortion are being exposed and may face charges.
April 22, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even a bipartisan commission is not necessarily apolitical, which is what this investigation needs to be. They have a vested interest in making sure buried bodies stay buried. A special prosecutor is not completely apolitical either, but it's a hell of a lot closer, and at least avoids the inherent conflict of interest in a political commission.
April 22, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
This man speaks with the principle of a founder. What happens to be so difficult as following the law that were set down by the principles of the constitution. These laws have existed for centuries and have always made us whole.
But it is as if the don't exist any more. I'm confused.
Love listening to this man. He is right on!
April 22, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Going after the lawyers would be in keeping with the time-honored strategy of getting the lower-down members of a conspiracy to flip on the higher ups. The interrogation would be something like this:
Question: Was there good justification for your positions in these memos?
Answer: No (much verbiage excised here)
Question: Well then, why did you write these memos to support these illegal positions?
Answer: Because I was following orders from (insert name here).
The ensuing plea agreements would, of course, include disbarment and leaving any positions of trust (such as the federal judiciary). No impeachment necessary.
I agree with Turley that a legislative commission would get tied up in "bipartisanship" to the point that the authors of the policies would be protected.
By the way--have you ever noticed that special prosecutors since Nixon have all been Republicans? When they are investigating a Republican (say--Iran-Contra), having a Republican special prosecutor shows that it is not a partisan witch hunt. When investigating a Democrat (say--Whitewater), having a Republican special prosecutor shows that it is not a partisan whitewash. Go figure. That's my recollection--counter examples welcome.
April 22, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
We had a special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame case, and he indicted the only lower-down member who could be counted on not to flip. He essentially ignored Armitage and went to great lengths to allow Rove to retestify and avoid perjury charges.
April 22, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink