Ambinder on Holder
There’s enough new reporting in this Ambinder piece (commenting on this Klaidman piece covered in this post) that it merits its own post.
First, there’s this description of the division of labor among Obama’s top lawyers.
When Obama asked Holder, a longtime friend, to become attorney general, Holder extracted a promise — perhaps extracted is too tough of a term because Obama readily agreed — that the White House would not interfere with the Department’s decisions about whether to launch investigations, according to two people with knowledge of the encounter. When it comes to setting and refining judicial policy, the White House counsel’s office plays the lead role. But Holder and his deputies get to decide whom to prosecute.
Now, I’m suspicious of Holder, but loathe all I know of Greg Craig, so this sparked my concern. I’m really curious, you lawyer types … Is it normal for the White House Counsel to "set and refine judicial policy"? Has Holder really become nothing but a glorified mega-prosecutor? (I can understand why he extracted this policy, having seconded Janet Reno, but still.)
And then there’s this loaded passage.
On the one hand, it is tough to see a prosecutor being given a mandate to determine whether former Vice President Dick Cheney ordered CIA officials to not brief Congress on a highly sensitive, classified intelligence collection program given the very real chance that the national security damage resulting from the disclosure of information about the program might be significant.
Nonetheless, it’s doubtful that Holder would lean into a decision in such a public way unless he was ready to consider an option that may well have significant ramifications for the country and lay a strong precedent for future administrations.
Since the beginning of his presidential transition, Obama has been counseled by his attorneys that any such investigation is likely to be incomplete, resulting in people being charged with sins they participated it but did not originate. Even senior Justice Department officials admit that the possibility of an elected White House decision-maker like the Vice President being charged with a crime is remote. Obama would rather not see middle managers prosecuted for decisions, or crimes, of elected officials or senior political appointees. And he is very concerned with precedent. But this will not be his decision to make.
I’m not entirely sure what that middle paragraph means. But I’m curious by the third and the first.
Everyone–everyone–seems to know that Cheney’s the lawbreaker-in-chief here. He was, clearly, in the CIA Leak case (though insiders like Ambinder poo-pooed it as one big political tussle). If that’s the case, can we start having that conversation and–for chrissakes–release the evidence that makes that clear, like Cheney’s Fitzgerald interview?
The man’s a thug. The man remains a threat to our way of government. At some point, we need to agree that that is more important than Rahm’s political hand-wringing.
Was Rahm somehow involved with Cheney’s activities, even peripherally, before the last election?
Cheney is the very embodiment of thuggery.
Why in the Hell is Cheney or any of the other decision makers off limits just because they are in the WH? WH officials have been prosecuted before. What does Cheney have on every body to make them all so gun shy?
I don’t know that he’s off limits.
But I do suspect that Libby’s not the only one who will reasonably happily spend the rest of their life as a felon to protect him. And given the significant lack of paperwork showing Cheney’s role in the early days of this shit, may mean he’s untouchable.
All they really need is someone to testify. Once one member of the conspiracy does the math and realizes they are facing the needle or dying behind bars – he’s toast.
What does Cheney have on every body to make them all so gun shy?
The same thing, I suspect, that Hoover had, but a lot more of it, gathered not just by gumshoes and mail intercepts, but text msgs, emails, every kind of phone call, websites visited, etc.
It goes against everything we know about human nature to believe that the kinds of power the NSA has hasn’t been abused, and in degree roughly proportionate to the amount of power they have.
Marcy has it right. Cheney is a thug, but he is also an inheritor of earlier incarnations of powerful men (they are almost always men, still) who wield power with cocksure abandon (under which hides always — and again, this is human, too — fear, tremendous fear).
What does Cheney have on everybody?
Not just the content he’s been able to gather through domestic surveillance.
He’s got a death squad if Sy Hersh is right about the “executive assassination ring,” one which likely still operates under order of left-behinds.
There’s a reason Comey and Goldsmith were afraid for themselves during the Ashcroft hospital intervention, after all.
that assassination squad has already been used…small fish but regarding the core issue; election corruption…
Well, that certainly reinforces the bit about the state secrets claim on the Jeppesen case before Holder was sworn in. Greg Craig is clearly a scumbucket. Why are those closest to Obama (Craig, Emmanuel) such jerks? Why didn’t he surround himself with smart, reasonable people? Smart, reasonable people can still be firm and assertive when necessary…
Because Obama wanted to be surrounded by people of the same political motivation as he has in key positions. Mission accomplished Rahm and Craig. (Again, beware of people with two first names).
There is no reason they cannot charge Cheney with something likely to stick if they want to. The will to do so is the only limitation.
Evidence would also be required. (Not trying to be a snark, but given his penchant for shredding, you really need someone to testify against him from his inner circle). Just because it happened doesn’t mean the Cheney did it.
Shorter Ambinder: ’since Liz Cheney isn’t at my keyboard today, let me do my utmost to channel her…’
Oh, my gawd. These people have wayyyyyy too much time to stand around wringing their hands and moaning about ‘perhaps’ and ‘might’. If you know someone willing to pay me to write about how I’m just scared some criminal is going to screw up an investigation and intimidate a prosecutor, please send ‘em my way.
But it continues…
Sorry to be so snotty, but Ambinder is too clever by half.
Did he swing by the Scooter Libby School of Narcissistic, Self-Delusional Worryworts for editing assistance?
For Christ’s sake.
There are US military forces walking up hills, having their asses shot at, to say nothing of an entire nation of people who’s pensions have been fleeced and Ambinder thinks we’re such a bunch of damn weenies and idiots that we can’t figure out whether a prosecutor or a president has any (pardon me) ‘cajones’?
This would be laughable if it weren’t such serious business.
Basically, it looks like Ambinder is totally cowed by the meme that these Very Important People are Too Fookin’ Important To Be Held Accountable.
Dear Ambinder: Go to your nearest emergency room or police headquarters or jail. You’ll see real people, doing real work, that requires judgment, stamina, guts, and integrity. Do you think they stand around all night wringing their hands while some druggie is beating on a woman? Get a flipping clue, you weenie.
Jeez…
ROTL, you’re on a tear! Keep it up!
Very tolerant of you.
But just this week, I learned that the cherry crop in my state is literally being dumped because at least one orchardist has to pay people 20 cents/lb to pick them, and can only sell them for 3 cents/lb. The distribution network (packing houses, etc) can’t handle the bumper crop, so orchardists are literally dumping good cherries to rot b/c they can’t get them processed fast enough.
So those are the people who help feed this nation, and who also happen to pay the taxes for people at DoJ.
Does Mark Ambinder or any of his cool Beltway pals have a fookin’ clue that the people across the nation who pay for their drinks are looking at tanking portfolios (if they have them), and pension funds that have taken serious hits?
I’m guessing that Ambinder’s probably a very nice person, who went right from high school to college, never put on a backpack to go scout around a place where he didn’t understand a single word of anything, and has very high test scores and too damn little life experience.
Has he started a business?
Run a farm?
Run a division?
Managed a project?
Had to sell services or goods?
I’m guessing that he did well in school, keep going to school, and has never in his life volunteered at a food bank, a health clinic, a mental health center, or a childcare center.
Which probably makes him a lot like Scooter Libby.
These Beltway nabobs are almost certainly very nice people, but give me Nicholas Kristoff any day of any year! At least Kristoff’s not a weenie, and personally, I think that he’s seen enough of the larger world that it’s no surprise to me whatsoever that it was Kristoff who first quoted Joe Wilson’s concerns.
In some respects, this mess is a bit of a death-match between the 1980s style military-industrial complex, and the people like Kristoff who can see that ‘hard power’ is not the future. When it was, Cheney’s ass was covered and he could compromise and blackmail all that he wanted.
Sorry, but this crybaby worrying out of Ambinder says more about how limited life in DC is, and how narrow the vision is, than it says about whether Cheney should be investigated.
Inside the Beltway Conventional Wisdom = Cheney’s too powerful and has too much smut on too many.
Pardon me, but that is sooooooooooo 1990s.
Jesus, Mary and Joesph!
Give me a Kilcullen or a Dennis Blair or a James Jones and ask THEM if we’re really any safer letting AQ use ‘torture’ as their propaganda tool.
dotsright @24, your point is valid if the SEC and Treasury remain thrall to Wall Street and insider trading and secrecy. If you built a more transparent system for economic transactions (think eBay), and public information, the threats that you point to would diminish.
Okay, before my ass gets chewed for ranting, I’m off for a walk.
But the juvenile, weenie attitude of Ambinder totally sticks in my craw. Maybe a few months helping with persimmon plantings in Afghanistan would wake that poor boy up a bit.
And after he does that, he can give some Washington State cherry orchardists a hand…
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr………!!
Your comments remind me of the Cigna exec that was interviewed by Bill Moyers on last night’s show. He had a nice job with nice people selling nice health insurance, and it all seemed reasonable until one day he had his Road to Damascus experience in his home state when he saw what kind of “health care” some of his neighbors were getting.
Perhaps its time for our own “Let 100 Flowers bloom” campaign where all Washington bureaucrats and lobbyists are required to go into the countryside and work at a real job for a year.
Bob in HI
This is bothersome of course, but I’m curious as to just what lies behind such an analysis.
Is it because these “senior Justice Department officials” believe “Omerta” was the “do or die” watchword at the highest levels of the Bush/Cheney Administration?
Do they believe that folks like David Addington and Timothy Flanigan will do as Scooter Libby did and fall on their own swords before implicating Bush and Cheney in their crimes?
And why do these “senior Justice Department officials” believe they can’t corner and squeeze sufficient “little fish” like John Bellinger and Bradford Berenson to “climb the ladder” in prosecuting Bush and Cheney.
I take as a given that most “senior Justice Department officials” would be hesitant in taking on the “big fish”. That’s just normal human psychology.
But the work of Patrick Fitzgerald surely gives lie to that mindset. There are indeed legal eagle folks who don’t flinch in the face of heavy artillery.
I believe that. You’re right to think that Berenson would be a good witness. But I think the bulk of what he’s got has made it into Barton Gellman’s articles and books.
I do believe Cheney would have firewalled himself. Again.
Ok, Carrie Johnson of the WaPo is now also on hunt:
Probe of Alleged Torture Weighed
And yes, the coincidink is because the WaPo owns Newsweek.
I think I saw someone attribute this to Iski, too–which I suspect is the reverse. Klaidman does the work of three?
From page 2:
Durham OUGHT to be.
He’s gotten it this far. And Fitz is not an option, IMO. He’s got friends (named Comey and Kelley) who were at key torture meetings, at least (cue Mary to tell how much more the former was at). He has prosecuted smoeoen–Salah–who claimed he had been tortured. And he is tied into almost every legitimate terrorism prosecution in this country.
We need a prosecutor who is read in, but who will do a good job. If Durham has gotten as far as I think he has, I suspect he may be the guy.
And it may be a simple fact that Durham himself has been one of the “tipping points” for Holder.
I can’t believe that Durham hasn’t kept Holder apprised of his work on the destroyed CIA torture videotapes, and I’d bet a small sum that Durham has found more and more of prosecutorial interest in his CIA torture cesspool swimming.
What the hell is this?:
I’m hoping it’s just “smoke”. See my follow-on comment at 38.
The NYTimes article almost calls it torture:
dday on the Newsweek article–worth reading.
As always – thanks for the link. One thought came to mind when I was reading it – the statement that Holder took two days to read the report and may have been moved by it.
When the torture memos came out, I didn’t expect to see much in them that I hadn’t already read from other sources. However, I must say that reading the official government document in government legalize/bureaucratize really did have an impact on me. To read these horrible things in official government documents made me madder and madder and more shameful of our government.
Maybe Holder really was impacted by what he read – we can only hope it is enought for him to take action.
Having already set the precedent with the prosecution of Spiro Agnew (a sitting V.P.) Cheney’s immunity so far appears more than simple custom. Like FF at 3#, I think that Cheney may have used some of his Domestic Surveillance Services to get the goods on those now in power. Ala AIPAC. They have a special place in hell reserved for him and Addington.
OT–Holy crap! h/t to a tweet from Barry Eisler, check out Dahlia Lithwick on Frank Ricci. Turns out he’s a serial plantiff:
About the loaded passage.
Para 1 is sort of strange. Klaidman discussed special prosecutor for torture crimes, which are many and well-documented. But the new Cheney-run special access program was apparently not related to torture, and was probably Sy Hersh’s death squads. But holder is not floating a prosecutor for that crime.
Para 2 is a warning that torture prosecutions are coming, or that Holder is an idiot who is playing loosey goosey with threats and not thinking about the ramifications of prosecuting executive decisions.
Para 3 is describing what has happened with every torture inquiry thus far. The machine is set up to go after the little people who were following orders. And Obama does not want to do this again. He does not want more Lynddie Englands, nor does he want really want to get Cheney, or Hayden, or Tenet or Goss; because of the “precedent”, and maybe also the fact that some of the bad decisions and criminal complicity was shared by the Dem legislators he needs for healthcare and another stimulus package. Who would want to jeopardize the legacy of their longtime friend just to prove that they really are their own man?
Very good points. But Lynndie England and the others at Abu Ghraib were part and parcel of the torture conspiracy. Bush, Cheney, Abu, Bybee, etc. set it in motion, but only the small fish were prosecuted, even though Granier said he was just following orders, government lied and said no one gave them any such orders. We know now thanks to sworn testimony before Senate Armed Services that this is a lie. We know from released memos this is a lie. Rumsfeld signed off on it and implemented it. We are a country of war criminals until and unless we prosecute them as we are required to under international and US law (see supremacy clause).
And who knows, maybe even bmaz will come around and cheer on Eric Holder too. *vbg*
As someone who has been involved in Washington politics for some time, I don’t think it is accurate to say that, in general, the White House counsel sets judicial policy for an administration. The Attorney General and the Justice Departemet are simply too important, powerful and institutionally endowed to cede power to a White House bureaucrat. The counsel provides legal guidance to WH staff on mundane matter such as compliance to ethical and other standards, asserts the legal interests of the Presidency and plays a major role in judicial appointments. Frequently, the counsel is a person who also provides sage political advice (think Ted Sorenson, Lloyd Culter, Harry McPherson and – my favorite – Abner Mikva). On occasion, the job of the counsel is to keep the President out of legal peril – a job that the Attorney General is ill equipped to perform. I cannot think of a single instance in which the role of White House counsel has been to “set and refine judicial policy”. At best, the role of WHC has been to coordinate and manage administration policy on legal matters. If Gerg Craig is indeed “setting and refining” judicial policy, this is a major change in power relationships that the Congress should not let go unchallenged.
Thank you–that was my impression, and you’ve been around DC long enough to notice these things.
I would politely differ here. I think the White House Counsels of yore, all the way back to Nixon, were indeed “Masters of the Universe” in regard to DOJ policies.
It may have not been as visible as it was with Alberto Gonzales or Fred Fielding, but their thumbs rested heavily on the DOJ scale.
Just MHO and YMMV. *g*
Your mention of the “wise old men” reminds me of a time when I was a witness before Lloyd Cutler on an International Chamber of Commerce case. We both had prostate problems and frequently met at the urinal. What a gentleman he was and such a wise man – although I must admit I made him dose off during one of my presentations.
He has since then passed and I don’t know if we have any of his ilk still alive. Too bad – Obama could use that kind of sage counsel.
Wasn’t Craig supposed to be the designated front man and focal point for selection of judicial nominees? I am pretty sure I recall that being the case. I would take the “judicial policy” bit to be that. Because they sure as hell have no business in any other aspect of judicial policy.
That thought crossed my mind, too. It would be a much more reassuring interpretation…
“On occasion, the job of the counsel is to keep the President out of legal peril – a job that the Attorney General is ill equipped to perform.”
On March 10, 2004, the counsel may have gotten the President into legal peril when the Attorney General was ill.
Around the 9th circle, I think, the one with all the ice. Preferably under Benedict Arnold, who was merely a traitor.
That middle paragraph. Is this the one?
“Nonetheless, it’s doubtful that Holder would lean into a decision in such a public way unless he was ready to consider an option that may well have significant ramifications for the country and lay a strong precedent for future administrations.”
A little obscure but is he saying, at least so far as the precedents, that we’d be in for another round of tit for tat investigations by Republican led administrations or Congresses the way we had tit for tat impeachments? That’s what I thought when I first read it but it has numerous interpretations.
Oh, that makes some sense–thanks.
Good point.
The piece seems to me to be motivated by someone who either wants to wave Holder off an investigation or warn him that if he pursues high-level elected and appointed officials in the White House of OVP, that he be able to stick the prosecution well so there is no room for doubt that opens up a tit for tat political game.
Not impeaching Nixon and a number of his underlings and trying them led us to this sorry point. It opened the way to the tit-for-tat impeachment of Clinton.
If impeachment is to mean anything for the future, at some point the impeachment of a president or vice-president must be for real issues of malfeasance. So far the ones impeached have not. And the ones who should have been impeached have escaped accountability.
And here is Carrie Johnson:
Isn’t his ambitious legislative agenda spawning partisan debates? Is she just saying that the GOP will continue to try to hobble Pelosi because the (lying) CIA says she was briefed?
A really good political wind-sniffer, unlike those wannabes Rahm and Craig (I’m definitely smarter than Rahm or Craig *g*), would make the political case that the Repugs are never going to support Obama regardless of what he says or does, so if you can bury the Repugs upto their necks in self-inflicted criminal quicksand, go for it!
Hey Rahm and Craig, you’re in the fookin’ Big Leagues now! Saying you don’t wanna play in the Super Bowl is silly.
I didn’t find this in Carrie Johnson’s piece particularly hopeful:
Well, they won’t start out to be.
An investigation would immediately focus on Mitchell (for exceeding guidelines and torturing before legal okay), and people like Yoo, Rizzo, and Bybee (for lying or accepting known lies as the basis for these opinions). The key, IMO, is to get someone like Bybee faced with a choice that his entire career depends on flippng–and I do think Bybee’s up for it. Have no idea about Mitchell.
The larger point being that there are people who would make good witnesses against Cheney and Addington–but those people are probably of the same faith as Scooter Libby.
I do not buy that. I think Gonzo, maybe Card, McClellen (to the extent he knows), and several others could be rolled. I also think there is an outside chance on Rumsfeld. Don’t know why I say that, just a hunch. There are undoubtedly several other key players that might could be had if you worked them into a corner properly. But as I was saying earlier in this thread, time is a wasting on the root charges against these kind of people. You simply cannot fuck all this stuff off until it is convenient to go at it; you have to work it methodically and every day that passes without starting undercuts that.
I agree that most of those people could be rolled. Gonzo and McClellan, yes, Card, probably. Rummy, more doubtful.
But they don’t add anything. So whom of the following could you roll–bc they’re more valuable to a real prosecution, in diminishing order:
Hadley
The email destroyer
Hannah
Jenny Mayfield
Condi
Tenet (I think he did fess up)
(I think Addington mostly fessed up)
Agree Rummy doubtful; but he is an odd duck and not happy. I also think he misses being the center of attention and would like a forum to point a whole bunch of crap away from himself. Just a wild assed theory, probably not worth much, but it is worth a try at least.
As to the others, I thought hard about putting Rice in there. Gotta find email destroyer before he/she can be in play. Hannah and Mayfield are very interesting thoughts. Tenet maybe. Addington may not say anymore; but then, again, he is an odd duck too – you never know.
But on Plame (and presumably other issues) there’s the whole problem of evidence. I know Cheney outed Plame. But I can’t make that case w/o Libby testifying trutfully and Novak testifying less than untruthfully.
Whole lot of other criminal activity to plow though. And a couple of those rollers might free up Plame too. Well, if you can get by the statute problems that is.
I agree with Hadley being at the top of your list.
He never seemed to be the “do or die” type to me. There ain’t no “S” on his cape.
And given that he’s up to his proverbial neck in all of these crimes with probably zillions of emails and memos that are squirreled away, and he couldn’t destroy, eminently squeezable!
Another name to throw in the witness ring might be that of Philip Zelikow.
I wonder if his recent public pronouncements were a subtle smoke signal to the prosecutorial powers-that-be in the new Obama Administration’s DOJ that Zelikow can be had for pittance.
Zelikow is a possibility, although he may not be quite as tied in as a lot of the ones we were mentioning. No reason not to get what you can from everybody you can though.
I admit to having to look up a couple of the names you posted (Mayfield and Hannah). They’d be interesting if this were a reopening of the Plame investigation, but I don’t really see what Mayfield in particular could add to a torture investigation.
Give me some clues?
The idea is to get into OVP, because that’s the black box that–as it stands–we’d need to get Yoo to flip to get to (and I don’t think Yoo will flip). I raise Mayfield because in the Libby stuff she did stuff that was demonstrably obstructive, but she was also privy to everything he was privy to.
Jenny Mayfield was Scooter’s personal assistant and was likely to know just where all the bodies were/are buried.
Love that description “The E-mail destroyer”
Could be a character in your next bookie…
For that matter, why couldn’t Yoo be taught to flip? God knows he’s demonstrated he’s a good doggie.
I do remain hopeful that regardless of “intentions”, following the bread crumbs can only lead to the real perps, Bush and Cheney.
And I’d guess that the “no intention to investigate higher-ups” can also be read as prosecutorial “smoke” to be blown up the butts of those very higher-ups.
Who knows, maybe Cheney will inhale. I know Junya would. LOL!
I’m pretty sure skooter was going to flip pronto without gaurantee from cheney, this is one of the reasons cheney went so balistic bush didn’t pardon irving
the lack of irving pardon is also the reason I think there’s a chance bush didn’t know cheney exposed a covert operative
If Cheney is not prosecuted it will denigrate any standards of professionalism with regard to legal counsel in the Executive Branch moving forward. If Executive Branch lawyers are not held to a reasonable standard of practice, the politics of “anything goes” will remain alive and well and the law making functions of Congress vis a vis the Executive will be defeated. The very nature of law will be then in essence redefined in the de facto oligarchy that will remain in the guise of administrative regulation designed to serve a corporate constituency at the expense of the people ad nauseum.
The Harvard Law Review is already publishing articles advancing notions of super-legislation surpassing the mechanism of constitutional amendment. Its a slippery slope to ignore the integrity of the human body in any context. And once the notion of protecting basic human dignity is compromised as a foundational and fundamental principle, where does it end? So Obama need not prosecute because he would rather not. Where is duty?
And here is the final para from the AP:
It seems all the trad med is salivating at the possibility of “partisan bickering”. To them this is not about accountability, it is about Obama going back on his word and Holder being a partisan (again)?
Why is it that Republicans thrive on partisan bickering, but Democrats are deathly afraid of even the mention of partisan bickering? Its like they’re afraid of their shadow. And just how many Republican votes has Obama gotten on his most important legislation, anyway?
It is time for the Democrats to fire it up. Harry Reid has been like a quarterback with “happy feet” (translation: he can’t get set up to throw a decent pass.) What the Democrats need is a smash-mouth fullback and a game plan to suit.
Bob in HI
Actually, in David Vitter’s case, they appear to be afraid of a guy who hires hookers while he wears diapers.
In Ensign’s case, they’re afraid of a guy who asks Mommy & Daddy to pay his ex-employee/lover nearly $100,000 to be quiet and stay out of the public eye.
In Coburn’s case, they’re afraid of a guy who claims that because he’s a deacon, he doesn’t have to tell them a thing about C Street.
And of course, there’s the fearsome K-k-k-karl Rove, Ralphie Reed, and Jack Abramoff types.
Back from walk.
Still cheesed over the weeniness of Dems and Ambinder.
Argh.
Fixed it for you. (Although why he thinks that being an ob-gyn should protect him from anything when he’s talking religion to a fellow male congresscritter is beyond my understanding.)
Sheesh. I’ve been laboring in EPU land on the last thread, and we’re already 40 comments into a new one!
Now to catch up on the comments!
Bob in HI
You know some folks have kicked up some sand in the umpires eyes on this count too, speaking of working up the chain.
I was referring to the torture tapes. Whether the full story on their destruction has been resolved has gotten away from me.
OT – bmaz, here is a Dave Neiwert story on Arpaio supporters at C&L’s: ‘Kill any man, woman or child who comes across the border illegally’
And more on that canceled CIA program from the WaPo:
And I find this “bit” curious:
It would seem to me that if one was running an “off the books” assassination program and that once the pieces were put in place, one might say in a Cheney-ish fashion: “We never talked, and I don’t know you, right?”
Powell, Mueller and Clarke have lots to contribute. Especially Mueller. The mechanism for doing so–beyond answering an invitation to assist–I wouldn’t know about.
……………………….
Is this a dumb idea? Yes indeed–if Holder has already debriefed them.
A little bird told me that Obama is considering some kind of prosecution, mainly of those somewhat lower down, e.g., Mitchell and Jessen. This would be red meat to satisfy the crowd, and a kind of limited hangout. (I don’t believe for a second that Holder would prosecute without a go-ahead from Obama. I think to believe otherwise is naivete.)
I call it the Oliver North option (an earlier generation — mine — could call it the Liddy option). Mitchell is tailor-made to play the North/Liddy role. Falling on his sword for country, a “patriot” hero to the right-wingers.
I know some at Mitchell’s old stomping grounds who already see this coming, and they hate the idea that Mitchell and Jessen will take the fall. (They don’t necessarily see that Mitchell and Jessen deserve their portion of the blame.) I’ve tried to point the way myself to the generals who countenanced M&J, drew them out even. And then, of course, there’s Bush, Cheney, Tenet, Rice, Addington, Yoo, etc. And out of this all, the CIA stays untouched. They stopped the EIT, right? They closed the black site prisons, right? They only waterboarded three (or four) “terrorists”, right? They do things that have to be secret, right? (Maybe Durham will disagree… Durham… remember him?)
I’m only talking about the torture here, not the unknown secret program, assassination squads, or whatever. Look back at same and how it played out in the 1970s. Why should it be different this time? They have an MO, and they don’t see the need to change it. M&J were created, I 90% believe, so there would be deniability, a “private” enterprise to provide distance from the Company. But they had to assemble it all so quickly, the fingerprints got left everywhere. That and the greed, which made them even more sloppy. But they’ve got away with it so far, save for Marcy and a handful of other bloggers and journalists.
Still, they can’t sleep well at night, and they made a lot of internal enemies. They fear them more than you or me. A lot of bitter men and women who didn’t get to cash in, who were jealous, who saw their friends get hurt or blamed, and even some who felt the ideals they believed in get rolled through the muck. There may even be those who fear jail (or at least high attorney bills).
This makes a huge amount of sense to me.
And FWIW, they’re probably much smarter to be afraid of people with grudges; it’s my fervent hope that it’s those people who will ‘out’ them in the end.
But the other thing, although it’s just a gut hunch, is my sense that in the 1980s, the public took North for the fall guy and tut-tutted about it and then mostly didn’t pay attention. The economy was great, home ownership was on the rise (even when GHWB lost in 1992, the economy was better than some of the indicators are today).
But is the public, with prices climbing, no accountability for TARP money, two wars, home foreclosures, and a still lagging economy going to figure that Mitchell and Jessen explain the magnitude of torture, two wars gone badly, hundreds of billions of dollars vaporized to Goldman Sachs and AIG, and gas prices climbing?
I think whoever set this up made assumptions based on US culture in the 1980s and 1990s; but the underlying economics of today are more sinister.
All we need to hear is more about AIG and tax havens, and at that point the public won’t settle for Mitchell and Jessen; they’ll want Cheney’s ass on a platter.
I could be wrong, but I think too many people lost too much to settle for lower-level people at this point.
Remember that Ollie North was in a period when we had nothing like the photos of Abu Gharib. We’re in uncharted territory, IMVHO.
Dang, I hope you’re right.
I’m with Loo Hoo @65. Your point about the differences between now and then argue strongly for a different outcome. But the fightback from those in power could be different, too. An “iron law” of history, of sorts, of the type that people used to refer to, is that no real change happens without struggle. This country hasn’t seen real social struggle on a large scale since the 60s-70s, about two generations ago. I think people are afraid of it. No one wants to open Pandora’s Box, because when you do, your ability to control events gets very shaky.
Their ability to control events gets very shaky, too. And they will be vicious, as they always have been. Whether their viciousness will be multiplied many times over (as in “Final Solution”) is a major question.
I think a difference here is in a point you make- that there was sufficient rush and half-ass CYA documentation to leave fingerprints to make a liddy or north solution insufficient. There are the reports of calls back to the WHO for approvals beyond what was pre-ordained in the OLC memos, plus Tenets own centralization of approval in January 2003 for EITs that will require Gonzales and Tenet and maybe other bigger heads to share blame. I think this may be a hard bluff with a pair of mormons. I hope.
Little birds have been chirping in accord to the New York Times.
ot
“It is bad news that President Hamid Karzai has brought the old Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostam back into government, especially since he was implicated in a massacre of Taliban prisoners of war in 2001. Note that Karzai is bringing back another warlord with a lot of blood on his hands, Muhammad Fahim, as his vice president. Karzai, in fact, appears to want to turn his government into warlord central. What does that say about Karzai?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07…..38;emc=rss
Maybe like J Edgar Hoover having goods on Nixon to bring him down, Cheney has enough in his back pocket to bring down the current government. Why have all that intel if you’re not going to use it…
At the very least, the President should stop Cheney’s national security briefings. Utterly.
What? Explicky.
From the NYTimes article:
DOJ Spokesperson: “It would be unfair to prosecute any official who acted in good faith based on legal guidance from the Justice Department.”
CIA Spokesperson: “What the president, the attorney general and [CIA] Director [Leon] Panetta have said consistently is that no one who followed Department of Justice guidance should be punished.”
No personal responsibility, no need to have one’s own sense of moral or legal judgment, just follow orders and you’re fine.
Why anyone would allow the DOJ, Cheney, Addington and Yoo be their moral anchors, I don’t know…
What has been amply demonstrated here at the Wheel House is that there are quite a few people who are not covered by that umbrella– e.g.,
* people who tortured before the legal justification for torture was issued;
* people who did not adhere to the DOJ guidance
* many of the people involved were not “officials,” but contractors
I’m probably forgetting a few more asterisks, but the proffered fig leaf, while it seems like ample cover, actually does not cover many of the people involved. There also seem to be quite a few “officials” who did not follow the DOJ guidance. So I think there are quite a few people who are talking to lawyers about what they did.
Bob in HI
Bob, there is the additional asterisk that there are no legal excuses for torture at all, it says so right in the law. Nothing in the law about what is “unfair” to agents who follow DOJ guidance. Nothing at all. I’m sure every CIA officer has as part of their training something about the Nuremberg Trials.
I’m trying to make the point that all this moaning and whining about DOJ guidelines and unfairness is totally irrelevant.
Two more categories that aren’t protected by “following” DOJ guidelines:
* The lawyers who certified the program as legal and did so in bad faith.
* The policy makers who ordered up torture and bogus legal opinions to CYA.
Sara, I miss you! Everything okay?
I think everyone may be jumping the gun on the nature of the program, even though we have a mention of assassination by some unnamed CIA official. There are lots of other things this could be.
Somehow the program is active but not active, from Sept 2001 to now.
It’s something we’ve not heard of (officially).
Makes many Congresspeople angry but not all of them.
Not interrogation. Not torture. But domestic.
Important enough that it was kept from everyone, even CIA director of the new administration. Hmmmm….
What if it was a plan to arrest and hold large numbers of Arab-American citizens, as in WW2 and Japanese-American citizens? I wonder if the empty facilities are built and stand somewhere?
Nope, the various news articles on it did say it wasn’t domestic, and that it was directed at a foreign country.
In Obama’s farewell speech to Ghana, he said a number of interesting things. In his prepared text, he wrote,
But Obama departed from his published text, and apparently revised it. The video of his speech differs about 5 minutes into the 8 minute speech when he started talking about our “Shared ideals”. For the next minute, he said that democracy is not just a gift from one generation to another, but a responsibility for each generation to pass on. He said that no one is above the law [except, apparently, Bush and Cheney], and that we are all equal [but some are apparently more equal than others.] And he also said that we are entitled to basic human rights [except, apparently, if the President thinks you’re a terrorist.] And he closed this section on ideals by saying that it is up to each of us [except, maybe, the President] to uphold these ideals.
A minute later, he told the Ghanaians, “You have the power to hold your leaders accountable.” I guess what he meant by that is that if they run for re-election again, you can vote against them. How do we hold Bush and Cheney accountable?
We need to hold him to his own rhetoric.
Bob in HI
Transparency: uh, TARP? The rhetorical disconnects are increasingly unbridgeable.
my Momma splained to me how the world wasn’t supposed to FAIR
I was about six
what is the NY Times’ excuse ???
has Obama apologized to george and dick yet, for prosecuting them and all ???
it’s all an act folks, to disarm the charges of politicizing torture
Obama is gonna apologize for this
and I don’t care
so long as george and dick end up in a cell, I don’t care what Obama says about the need to prosecute them
it’s called “Politics”
and Obama plays better than anybody I’ve ever seen
This all seems like a diversionary tactic. The AG “might do this” leaked to three big media outlets on one day indicates a coordinated action. The public is not thinking about torture, the public wants the hide (literally) of Wall St and all who enabled them. It is better to make the Cheneyites sweat a little rather than WS. The administration cannot even consider going after the big frauds so they are going to talk about the torturers a little and end up doing nothing. Pursuing these types of conspiracies is difficult and takes an enormous amount of work and will. I think this administration will avoid both like the plague until it is politically imperative which may be sooner than they can imagine.
couple of things;
I am not willing to give bush a pass, not even a semi pass, we know as a fact bush knew we were torturing prisoners, we also know as a fact he covered up that fact, we also know as a fact he enlisted fake legal documents that he hoped would excuse his crime
the criminal here is bush, cheney was the instigator to the crime and committed it, bush is more guilty then cheney
I am however willing to give bush an escape, if he wants to throw cheney under the bus then I am more then willing to give bush that pass
this is a tough one for us to actually decide, we also know bush said “get that information out” and then left it to cheney
do we give bush a pass on this?
it really did seem he was surprised cheney exposed a covert op, I’m not sure he was or not but we do know bush protected cheney, that was bush’s opertunity to reclaim some kind of integrity, that was the time to dump cheney and finally do something for this country
bush refused and wound up making believe he gave cheney the authority to declassify “on the fly”
no such ability exists except with the executive, he can’t transfer presidential authority without approval from congress, this seems clear to me even though nal
He was, clearly, in the CIA Leak case
misprint from me, that last “he was clearly in the cia leak case” was inadvertant at the end of my post, please to ignore, if a mod fixes for me then please to delete this post as well
thanx
You and I may have an understanding that certain Presidential duties cannot be delegated but if the application of law to the scope of the myriad violations of the law of war and torture and the law of the 4th Amendment is discretionary that there is a law matters very little.
Let it come down! Unleash the well shorn hoard of the unrulable government contractors upon the American people: Team B, the telecoms, M&J, the money lenders, etc. And Obama can have his fine Ghana rhetoric.
Here’s the formula for the executive counter revolution used in banking insurance, the conduct of wars, prisons and education: contract away the exposure and then turn a blind prosecutorial eye to the illegality.
Any chance that Scooter “the Pooter” Libby knew what was going on?
If Holder does decide to get a special prosecutor, that prosecutor would need a secret service squad the size of Obama’s.
O/T (as in “Old Topic”), more on The Family/Fellowship/C Street and, particularly, YWAM. The first is a been there/done that account and the second contains interesting update.
The Covert Kingdom Thy Will be Done, on Earth as it is in Texas
by Joe Bageant
www.dissidentvoice.org May 18, 2004
“>Link.
‘C Street’ group tied to Ensign is linked to yet another secretive group
BY MURIEL KANE
Link.
(Things have been moving very rapidly here–I think she posted at least a dozen new articles yesterday!–that I can barely keep up. If either of the two links above is a duplicate, I apologize.)
More fleshing things out from Glenn Greenwald and Scott Horton at
Harper’sThe Daily Beast.From Horton:
Well I would be shocked if Holder didn’t put blinders and restrictions in scope on any prosecutor, and I think Obama will tell the subservient Holder to do just that. Listen not to what they have said and say, but see what they actually do. The history of that comparison to date has been woefully bleak. History usually repeats itself.
Is this what you mean?
“Hard to believe as it may seem, Holder’s probe will take John Yoo’s work, the famous memos that would make your ass dumber if you wiped with them, and treat them as the settled law of the time.”
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=23949
Heh heh, pretty darn close.
Here here! Let the damning facts of history be shown. Acts matter more than words. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The road to the White House is paved with broken promises.
US AG oath of office
Supremacy Clause
The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I require the ratifying parties to repress grave breaches of the conventions, which are classified as war crimes under statutes of the International Criminal Court and the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996. States parties—that is, the ratifying parties—are required to search for persons who have allegedly committed or ordered the commission of grave breaches of the conventions and bring those persons before their own courts, or hand them over to another state party for trial.
So is Holder a perjurer or a coward?
The rub is that so many of these turds that loom large for prosecution are also blackmailing those considering such action. The finances that run the pentagon bribe the rest of the folks in the government as well. Our DOJ has been a joke for a long time.
Do the AG and president want this to end?
Bmaz @ 32- The special prosecutor will be Durham -and all the wrong doers will be held to account .And the first major figure that will be turned is former OSD- Rummy will be made to turn on his other co conspirators -or he will be sent overseas to Spain or the Hague and tried there. And before you dismiss Durham as the special prosecutor who would do this please refer back to ew @ 22….
And bmaz _I am not at all worried about the statute of limitations running out on these ‘Darkside dead enders ” cimes . Its my belief in the fullness of time we will find out that a whole bunch was going on to get Holder to the point were he is now -that is fixing to but in place the best special prosecutor availible John Durham – Its entirely probably that even as Dawn Johnson’s confirmation has been held up -that Ms Johnson nonetheless has been helping quietly behind the scenes to get this special prosecution effort fully launched .
And ROTLs @ 39 – what you said – there is way too much pent up frustration out here in the hinterlands to let the usual suspects in the Beltway bury this story … This is about protecting our country – al Qaida does use Gitmo as a recuiting tool. Our biggest national security asset is our good name -and we will restore our international reputation when all the dust does settle from this ..
I have full faith and confidence in Team Obama – in taking on and prosecuting all of these dead enders .
Listen, again, I hope you are right. But nothing to date would support the extremely rosy view you hold. In fact, everything to date would run directly contra. Secondly, as to the statute of limitations, as i explained on the previous thread, only a fool would fail to be concerned by the expiration of such limitations periods. Anybody who has practiced substantially in the criminal justice system would never make such a comment. Lastly, what Mary pointed out @ 109 is more than true. The conflicts posed are staggering. And John Durham has some serious issues in this regard, at least for the wide ranging investigation you suggest being in the offing, because of his professional and personal friendship with Kevin O’Connor. Based on what I have seen so far, i would not find Durham acceptable at all.
It’s getting interesting and I wish I could hang around and catchup/spec. I had an unfavorable horse and fence intersection last night (unfavorable, but not horrible), so I’m going to be spending most of my day getting vet supplies, hosing hot legs, etc. but I’ hope to catch up late tonight.
Whether or not a prosecutor is appointed is almost an unimportant question, though, without the issue of mandates and the regs under which they would operate being addressed. I truly think that obstruction, vis a vis Congressional investigations or ordinary oversight and obstruction vis a vis some of the many, pending cases where informatino exclusively under control of the Exec was misused, destroyed, etc. and where direct misrepresentations were made are the best ways to go about getting somewhere on all of this and a mandate is going to have to be really well thought through to cover the right kinds of bases and some of those are not as obvious as whether or not crimes were committed in drafting legal opinions or in putting together institutionalized
tortureinterrogation programs – but while less obvious, they may be much easier to get convictions on and to force the truth out.And btw, those “sr” DOJ officials who are so reluctant to say that they think sr Exec officials from an administration should be pursued – umm, anyone want to ante up for whether some of those officials would have some “embarassing” (or worse) roles in misleading Congress and the Courts that might come out if things were really walked back to Cheney and Bush? Just how many Exec Branch/DOJ “doors” did the WH diagram show as being open? How many cases and DOJ “officials” might be or have been at issue if you start going through the instances of obstruction, from lies in the Moussaoui and Padilla cases in their ealiest stages on down the line to Bagram victim suits and Jeppesen suits and surveillance suits and …
I’m guessing if I were a sr official at DOJ, I wouldn’t be real thrilled that I might be in the path of someone going after the guy who was pulling my strings the last 8 years and I might want to be pretty dismissive too.
Is the horse ok? Hope so.
Feinstein: CIA program was ‘outside the law’
BY DAVID EDWARDS Published: July 12, 2009 Updated 1 hour ago
“U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), during an interview with Fox News host Chris Wallace, expressed her displeasure with the prior administration for reportedly hiding one of its counter-terror programs “outside the law” and away from congressional oversight.”
[more, and video]
BREAKING – Senior DOJ Reporter: Obama NOT To Pursue Indefinite Detentions
by ShadowSD
Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 10:52:21 AM PDT
“Big news on The Chris Matthews show today from NBC Justice correspondent Pete Williams:”
[But is it true?]
“>Link.
Aw, that is not what Williams said, and I watched the show yesterday. Even the Dkos quote proves it is not what he said. The key is they have not “yet” made such a determination and Williams did not even come close to addressing the situation of them putting a detainee on trial in the US and he gets acquitted, or future cases that come up, which are the two situations the policy was likely really designed to address. Williams is a dope here and the DKos guy is biting off on it.
Oh, shoot. Thanks for correcting this. (Got no tee vee, so did not see.) I would ask it be deleted, but probably ok to leave it up as folks will see your comment that it was wrong (and not get up any hopes, as did I). Sigh.
Naw, it wasn’t that wrong, I just think the DKos guy inferred (and not necessarily intentionally at all) more than was there.
I’m not surprised. My unreliable source (who doesn’t read here) was chortling this morning about how we can now nail Darth. That continued even after I pointed out that we’d have to get someone to flip first.
I’ve long thought that Cheney will have to be removed from the field of play before any real accountabilty can be pursued against the previous gang of goons that ran amuck in the White House.
He’s simply too powerful and well connected to play soft-ball with, his organization will chew up and spit out any bottom up approach to righting the ship.
I equate taking Cheney off the board to removing an opponents queen in chess. Some might think of it as cutting the head of a snake, but there is no question that removing Cheney from the board first is the first and only move that can reasonably be expected to yield results.
Going back to your chess analogy, we need a good “pin” or “fork”, that puts both Queen Cheney and the other piece in jeopardy. Possible pieces include:
Any ideas about the softest target?