« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Senator: OPR Torture Report Likely To Be "Devastating"
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) went on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show last night, to talk about the fallout from the release last week of the Bush administration's torture memos. And his appearance added to the growing sense that pressure is mounting to hold the memos' authors accountable.
Whitehouse, who sits on the Senate Judiciary committee, did temporarily pour a little bit of cold water on the spate of calls to impeach Jay Bybee, the author of one of the memos, who is now a federal judge. He said that it's "certainly possible" that Bybee should be impeached, but that first, we should wait for the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to release its long-held report into the authorship of the memos.
But he added that the report's release "can't be more than a few weeks away," and that he has "every reason to believe it will be a devastating opinion."
And he seemed eager to downplay President Obama's prior statements that he favors looking ahead, saying that Justice Department lawyers will decide, on a case by case basis, whether there's enough evidence to charge Bush officials.
Watch:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Josh
Zachary
Will people back off this insane idea that Obama is "obstructing justice" now?
April 21, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is obstructing justice. Until he allows DOJ to appoint an independent counsel to broadly investigate all war crimes that will remain true.
As for this case by case basis stuff, sure you can't convict everyone of the same exact thing, but there has to be probing investigations or else there won't be too many conviction on what is readily available now.
Back to the obstruction point, though. If Obama holds forth with his "don't look back" position, even refusing to call what happened torture, then he is basically doing the same thing Ford did when he pardoned Nixon. Some hailed it, and still do, as a great unifying move that allowed the country to move forward, but I think it was one of the greatest presidential mistakes of all time as it gave carte blanche to future presidents like W and Cheney to do whatever horrible things they wanted without fear of being held accountable. Odds are, we will never ever see either of them convicted for squat. And so it goes, on and on...
If Obama's current position holds sway, we'll be revisiting all of this again in the future with yet another criminal administration.
April 21, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ridiculous.
You don't obstruct justice by refusing to prosecute
You don't obstruct justice by disclosing the underlying crime and then declare it not your intention to prosecute
Disagree with the policy or not but contrary to the canard the Olbermann Show is perpetrating (not if you listen to Turley carefully!) ..there is no obligation to prosecute a crime, any crime
It is called prosecutorial discretion
April 21, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I might agree with you that Obama's NOT obstructing justice. But his meme of looking forward and not to the past is a little disturbing for the head of the executive branch in charge of enforcing our nation's laws. ALL CRIMES ARE COMMITTED IN THE PAST. If you don't look backward you never prosecute crime or the criminals that commit them. I'm up for sparing the authors of the memos, at least until after we get the hack, tool, traitors that requested writings to support their illegal agenda. Then we'll give all writers' wrists a good slapping at least.
April 21, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I came to this conclusion on my own, without Olberman's assistance, thank you very much.
Don't forget that Obama is not merely (merely, ha) refusing to prosecute, but he is also withholding virtually all of the evidence in his possession. He is actively inhibiting prosecution in those two regards, and I believe that amounts to obstruction of justice. Holding Bush et al responsible would be justice.
In effect, again, he is doing as Ford did and basically declaring that Presidents are above the law. Heaven help us if we never learn this lesson. Didn't we have a revolution some time ago over a little matter of unaccountable kings committing crimes and telling us what to do?
April 21, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, time will tell. If we start to see real investigation, preferably independent ones outside of the DOJ, and then convictions, I'll take it all back. In the meantime, it appears Obama is of the opinion that it serves no purpose to "look back" and he is acting accordingly.
April 21, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know where you get all that hyperbole.
What Obama just said is that information is still being collected & declassified, and that also he expects Holden to assess matters. The worst thing he could do is make this appear a partisan witch hunt.
It blows my mind there are some people who consider themselves poltical junkies, and still haven't realized such an obvious thing: Obama will never come out publicly and call for anybody's head or pressure the process!! That would be totally inappropriate, ruin the DoJ's credibility, and just plain stupid.
(DUH!)
Remember Obama campaigned on de-politicizing the DoJ?
April 22, 2009 4:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you seem to forget, is that Obama is still a politician first. His talk about "not looking back" and "moving forward" should be taken with a grain of salt. The overwhelming fact that he has chosen to declassify these memos should give you some insight into the direction he is headed. His "Moving forward" talk to me is his way of disarming his critics and the fearful republicans who see this as a threat. I, like you, want to see justice served, but I agree with his current underhanded approach of not giving firebrand speeches about holding people accountable, but is rather keeping his evenhanded, respect-for-all political approach.
April 22, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, but when we're talking about allegations of war crimes, don't you think prosecutorial discretion is a bit more limited?
April 21, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to treaties to which the US is signatory, the US is AFFIRMATIVELY OBLIGATED to prosecute the crime of torture. That means it isn't a matter of choice.
However, the choice, the decision, is not the president's to make. That is up to the DOJ.
And or up to Congress.
Obama is AUTHORIZING the release of CLASSIFIED information that, cumulatively, may build political pressure for prosecution which ultimately cannot be resisted. Doubtless we'll see more as the in-house evaluation of documents proceeds. That evaluation is going on as we speak in not only the DOJ, but also in several other departments, such as CIA and NSA.
These must be very careful reviews, and they do legitimately take time.
April 22, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daily Kos has this from the NLG today that seems to take on your "prosecutorial discretion" meme pretty nicely.
"The prohibition against torture is a jus cogens norm. Jus cogens are defined as norms “accepted and recognized by the international community of states as a whole ... from which no derogation is permitted…” In international criminal law, the legal duties that arise in connection with crimes designated as violations of jus cogens norms include the duty to prosecute or extradite, the non-applicability of statutes of limitations, the non-applicability of any immunities up to and including those enjoyed by Heads of State, the non-applicability of the defense of "obedience to superior orders" and universal jurisdiction over perpetrators of such crimes. Other jus cogens norms include the prohibitions against slavery, genocide, and wars of aggression."
Ouch.
April 21, 2009 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. And Obama wants to prevent all blame being dumped, yet again, on the CIA in order to protect those who GAVE the orders. That DOES NOT mean there wouldn't also be reckoning for CIA personnel who followed the illegal orders.
April 22, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're ranting, again.
April 22, 2009 4:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is NOT "obstructing justice" because he is not in the position of a prosecutor who is refusing to prosecute, or of withholding evidence, etc.
Nor is he in charge of the DOJ -- which is to be INDEPENDENT of the president, and of political considerations.
He's in a difficult position: one one hand, he has to be careful not to incur the wrath of law-illiterates such as yourself, and other haters. On the other, he must remain above the fray, even as to being a shaper of the political climate.
Prosecution -- his opinion notwithstanding -- is up to the DOJ, and Congress.
April 22, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I see happening is the administration is allowing these memos and other evidence to trickle out, which is building the momentum for prosecution. Justice will be served but Obama wants to keep his hands clean so he can't be accused of politicizing the investigation. Nobody can blame him if the investigation drags on for months and years.
He's trying to have his cake and eat it too. It's smart politics but I don't like the way he's playing.
April 22, 2009 4:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
all decent people want these criminals persued.
but i for one take into account all the pressures that Obama is under regarding this issue.
i have no problem giving him the time to sort them out and do the right thing.
reserving the right to be critical if he doesnt.
and that seems fair.
April 21, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've long thought that one of the most insidious effects of all those "Law and Order" clones, and all the other cop process shows on TV, is to gradually brainwash us all into thinking like cops and prosecutors.
I've got nothing against cops and prosecutors as a whole, but their job is to figure out who they think did the crime and arrest them, and then punish them. It's dangerous in a way, in that it conditions the public to favor those two points of view.
When I see calls for blood here (even if I tend to sympathize with the sentiment at times), I get uneasy, and think that maybe all those cop shows have had an effect after all.
This probably won't be all that popular 'round these parts, but the presumption of innocence -- even for those we hate the most -- is a basic protection of all of our rights.
I don't have a problem with launching investigations of the lawyers behind the torture memos, of members of congress who may have improperly used their position to protect lawbreakers, or members of the Bush administration who tickled the levers of power in corrupt ways.
But, I am also leery of the atmosphere of a witch hunt, of a frenzied political spectacle, which is what this is in danger of degenerating into.
I liked what Obama said was a bottom line for him today, which is that any investigation has to be bi-partisan. By implication, we should all hope that Justice is blind, and that the investigation is dispassionate as possible.
Let the politicians and pundits work themselves into a lather. But wasn't the big problem with the Gonzales DOJ that it was made too political?
April 21, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, we're talking about alleged war crimes. President Obama should pursue this further even if neither political party supports it. High-ranking democrats and republicans have reason not to want this pursued. That should not stop the President.
This is not political; this is not frenzied; this is not a witch hunt. The International Committee of the Red Cross, and a judge on one of the Military Commissions at Guantanamo have made credible charges that we have tortured people.
President Obama is a good person, and I believe could be a great president. But if he squashes any investigation and/or prosecution, he is in effect covering up war crimes, and implicating you and me as well. Nothing could be more serious -- in fact, that would clearly be an impeachable offense.
April 21, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't the president's decision. So stop bashing Obama for not deciding to prosecute: the president is not in the position of prosecutor. That is the DOJ's -- and Congress' -- role.
April 22, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bi-partisan? Please. A prosecution of torture ordered by a President is a prosecution of a "High Crime". It is a completely political act, and so politics, partisan as it is, is the only context in which it takes place.
If you treat this issue as a simple legal issue, to be resolved in a bipartisan manner then you go after the followers of illegal orders (CIA agents) and the drafters of illegal laws (Bybee, Yoo, etc.)
But it is self evidently not a legal issue because the orders came from the top - it is a HIGH CRIME - and the only court to resolve high crimes is the Congress, and of course Pelosi took that off the table on many levels, including surely regarding the torture issue about which she and all Congressional leadership were briefed.
So now Yoo, Bybee et al should be made scapegoats for the Democratic and Republican party Congressional cabal that authorized and permitted the torture? That can't be right!
Obama has inherited a deeply corrupted BIPARTISAN political establishment, that itself would be on trial if these issues are treated as the High Crimes that they are.
When he says he wants a bipartisan response he means he is promising not to upset any of the torture approving and authorizing Republicans and Democrats in Congress. You should be disgusted by that approach and by the Congress critters he is protecting.
One thing for sure, Obama has given his word not to go after the soldiers at the CIA, and Congress won't go after itself and didn't go after Bush and Cheney. That leaves the middle managers, Yoo, Bybee and friends. To watch them go down while their superiors and foot soldiers walk would give me little satisfaction.
April 21, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
My hope is that the OPR report, once released, will be so devastating, as Sen. Whitehouse says, that there will then be a steady drum beat by the American people that cannot be denied. The steady drip-drip-drip of information that is now starting to come out should shock the conscience fo this nation and make it imperative that the DOJ either begin formal investigations of the lawyer who wrote the "torture memos". Then it will buiild up to investigating the "principals" in the Bush administration who wanted the memos written in the first place...let it all see the light of day. Then let the prosecutions begin, from the lowest to the highest members of the former administration who were involved with this moral travesty.
April 21, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That report will likely set forth a descent into hell. Much is to come. We have a long way to go. It's not going to be pretty. But we must tread the path wherever it leads.
April 21, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, TheraP...I think the descent into hell started years ago.
We need to regain our bearings before ascending out of hell. This is Step 1.
April 21, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The world will declare a holiday and celebrate into the night the day they see GWBush handcuffed and hauled off to jail over this.
April 21, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I admire Sheldon Whitehouse so much. Check out his remarks at the Senate Judiciary meeting on Dawn Johnson. You can tell how disgusted he is that the once noble OLC, the dept that once was held as the pinnacle of justice and scholarship, has been denigrated to a partisan ideological entity, rotten to the core.
He is appalled how deep the rot is.
April 21, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It will be bad, exceedingly bad…worse even than Caligula but they have to have the whole terrible truth about just how bad it can be before they come to their senses. Let all of the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out."
i Claudius, Robert Graves
April 21, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the "Senate Intelligence Committee reports are as "devastating" as usual, those responsible for the torture have nothing to worry about.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
April 21, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word of the Day:
"DEVASTATING"
April 21, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a thought here, but remember the big hullaballoo that certain GOP Senators made of the concern that Holder would not be his own man and not stand up to Obama?
Would that now not be excellent cover for Obama to officially take a position against prosecution but then have Holder "stand up to him" and demand prosecution. Is it possible that this was the plan all along? Good cop, bad cop?
April 21, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the plan is to have Holder "stand up to him"...I think the plan is the have "The Facts" "stand up to him.
Holder will be relegated to the role of merely escorting "The Facts" into the public.
April 21, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree. Obama is letting the public concensus build, and letting it build based on facts, not on any hyperbole the White House could come up with. Then he & the AG will be simply bowing to the will of the people.
April 21, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. And befoer people get too ahead of themselves, remember how little time the Obama Admin has been in office and this stuff is still being declassified and becoming known. Not just to the public, but to the Obama Admin as well.
So really, people should settle down a little and wait for the facts to become known.
It's not as though prosecuting the Bushies would be easy anyway. So let's not blow it before it's even begun.
April 22, 2009 4:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
For some people, settling down is the Connotation for complacency.
For a politician it’s called Double speak, not wanting to alienate the Republicans, hopefully convincing the angry mob, to settle down or turn away from this dispute, buying time in order to hide or destroy incriminating evidence.
Prior Administrations have used delay tactics, in hopes that the disgruntled will eventually settle down, and move along.
"Nothing to see here", and "how long must we keep talking about this subject" is their reply, all in an attempt to discredit the critics.
Never having to be held to an accounting, because the problem has settled down.
April 22, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good cop, bad cop. That was my thought but you put it into the right words.
April 21, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter Sheldon:
"Batten down the hatches - there's a huge shitstorm a-comin'."
April 21, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
http://www.dlc.fi/~frog/wavs/bite.wav
April 21, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps this is common knowledge, perhaps even reported here but it was news for me to hear DiFi on MSNBC just now disclose that the CIA actually didn't torture
They subcontracted it out!
Free enterprise!
April 21, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's like hiring a hitman to kill them... Murder just the same.
April 23, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no statute of limitations on war crimes. German war criminals, for example, have been convicted decades after their crimes.
I suspect we'll see plenty of action after the 2010 elections when Democrats ought to have a little more control, especially of the Senate. Right now, were we having our Nurembergs, not a single Republican would join the 59 Democrats -- and nothing would get done. The economy, health care are NOW. There is no torture NOW. Past torture and domestic spying aren't going anywhere.
Congressional investigations, released memos, and personal testimonies are serving to prepare the American public to digest our criminal past. Until an overwhelming majority of people are convinced that Jack Bauer is not a patriot, that 9/11 did not excuse any behavior, then going after the Bushies will prove as feckless as Clinton's impeachment.
A 9/11's worth of people die every two months because they are uninsured or underinsured. That problem is far more pressing today than potential abuses eight years hence. We will have time.
April 21, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Geneva Convention, to which the USA is a signatory, requires that those responsible for illegal torture be investigated and prosecuted. If this country doesn't do what the Convention requires, the Spanish judge will do it for us. Better that we take care of our own mess ourselves and stay on the right side of international law.
April 21, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing this could do, which Republicans would cheer, is remove us from the UN or cripple it's influence. If we abide by UN rules and international law the previous administration would be in a lot of trouble to say the least.
It'd be a tough sell to our citizens to put a US president or vice president on trial in an international court even if they deserve it. I don't see any chance of anything like that happening myself.
Republicans sure have screwed us royally. Their party and it's existence is now tied to the torture issue. They will fight to the death for the right to torture because to do otherwise would be to admit to war crimes and commit political suicide. So now they must all support brutal alternative interrogations no matter what they said about it in the past. John McCain being the best example.
They have to lie to survive. It's going to get very ugly.
By the way, when I see Rockefeller in interviews talking about anything related to torture is that fear in his eyes? I'm thinking some Democrats had to help to some degree and they aren't exactly proud of it. I'm afraid they will fight to keep any investigations from going forward and use other excuses to justify their position.
April 21, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holder will be for Obama as Gonzalez was to Bush.
Ask Jesselyn Radack.
If you don't know who Jesselyn Radack is, rest assured that Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, De Pue, Cherthoff and other high ranking officials do. Jesselyn Radack was the ethics advisor at the Department of Justice in 2001 at the onset of America's emerging torture policies. She was also one of the first to witness how far this administration would go to destroy evidence of their torture and to attack anyone who revealed them to the public.
http://www.democracycellproject.com/dcpopen/archives/2007/12/torture_destruction_of_evidenc.html
Torture, Destruction of Evidence, Obstruction of Justice--Just a Typical Day in the Bush Administration
April 21, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
After listening to Sheldon Whitehouse explain all this, it occurred to me... Rhode Island, and America, is remarkably well represented by him.
Especially when he said nothing Obama has said about "moving forward" could be interpreted to mean interfering with justice.
This idea that Obama wanted to let the authors of torture off the hook was, (as most of us always knew) a manufactured controversy, designed by the (failing) news business to sell papers, and otherwise scare and/or entertain the children.
It has also occurred to me... Rachel Maddow has risen to the very top of broadcast journalism. (in spite of her compulsion to snark and ho-key graphics)
How appropriate.
April 21, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you so much for pointing that out. Please continue as often as as you can/choose!
Yes, without "news" who will pay for a paper full of adds?
Not to drag this out but have to anyway: no nevermind. If they get this it's way good enough.
April 22, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today, Rachel has on Phillip Zelikow (legal advisor to Condi Rice) who wrote the 2005 memo saying the torture was wrong, and was told to destory it!
April 21, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
As well they should. We have to separate the sadistic Bush lackeys from the longtime career interrogators. I go into a hypothetical reason in this thread here if you are interested.
Where were you? (Sheldon's Lament)
April 21, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone think the well-trained former ag bailed now? As in give me some time to get out of the light?
And maybe his lack of employment is not ......
Well you take it from there.
Just thinking too many people had to throw curveballs at the same time into the same zone and then say they didn't "moisten" the ball.
Could be in the hundreds.
And don't forget the umpires who were "watching".
When everyone has the same disease.........
April 22, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
My era was Watergate. The highest level criminal never got prosecuted, and that's a moral shame. But the facts came out and the American people were repulsed and convinced (most of them) that we must never let such a thing happen again. "It isn't the crime, it's the cover-up" became part of our lexicon, but remember that we learned about the "crimes" themselves -- political crimes as well as actual lawbreaking.
My point is this: What's most important is that all of the facts come out. Prosecutions are (perhaps) one way of achieving that. But, arguably, prosecutions can even get in the way of learning the full truth.
So, let's see what truths come out, and not worry so much (yet) about whether certain perpetrators pay for their crimes.
April 22, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last night on Rachael Maddow it was discussed that a Special Prosecutor and the investigation would silence all discussion from the principals in the investigation as well as the administration and legislative players. It could be years of silence until we MIGHT get some convictions if any. Perhaps, it was suggested, it is better to let the evidence trickle out, build into a firestorm of public outrage, then begin prosecutions of some kind. I wouldn't be suprized if that's the way "cool" Obama is playing it, staying unmoved by the clamour for a trial until the court of public opinion has damned these monsters first. But I am unimpressed with "moving forward" meme, too.
April 23, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is this nonsense about amnesty for the actual torturers (contract employees who took advantage of a money-making opportunity like the good little entrepreneurs they undoubtedly are), but leaving open the possibility of prosecuting higher-ups who gave them legal cover. Who thinks that's a good deal?
What clearly happened is that once legal cover was in place, the torturers couldn't restrain themselves. They after all were in it for the money, and it's not impossible they were paid by the piece (just imagine the perversity of it all), or by the results.
Anyway, apart from the philosophical issues regarding culpability, what about the practical issue of using possible indictments to turn underlings against their superiors? Isn't that how it's done? By agreeing in advance that the actual hands-on people won't be prosecuted, what's their incentive to give up the boss? And who gave Obama the perogative to make that call in the first place.
If you limited yourself to reading Obama's words in the last few days on this issue, you would swear they were spoken by Bush. I would have liked to be a fly on the wall for the exchange between Holder and Obama on this whole matter. Can you imagine a resignation by the AG in the first 100 days? Now that would have been exciting.
April 23, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink