If Attorney General Eric Holder creates a special prosecutor for torture but forbids him or her to prosecute the lawyers who facilitated torture or the top officials who ordered it, proposing to go after only torturers who exceeded the limitations outlined in the lawyers' memos, what are the risks?

The risks for Holder could, for all we know, include being fired immediately, being asked to "resign" in three-and-a-half years, not being appointed to the Supreme Court, being called names by TV loudmouths, and not being invited to dinner parties. But these risks would be much greater if Holder obeyed the law and authorized a complete prosecution of all crimes. President Obama has publicly forbidden Holder from fully enforcing the law, but said that partially doing so is a decision for the attorney general. And failure to act carries its own risks, of embarrassing prosecutions by foreign and international courts, and of a shameful legacy and bitter and regret-filled retirement.

The risks to the rest of us are far more serious. If Holder does nothing, then almost everyone involved could walk away unpenalized, thus encouraging the continued use of torture. But if Holder creates a partial prosecution based on the idea that crazy insane OLC memos are law, the outcome could be better or worse.

           Read more... 

State Department Deputy Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs 2002-2003

Elizabeth Cheney

Who better to remain loyal to Dick Cheney as he committed war crimes. Guilty of complicity, Liz Cheney is a war criminal.

Titled the “Evolution of Presidential War Powers,” Cheney’s thesis, according to writer Zac Frank, argued that “constitutionally and historically, presidents have virtually unchecked powers in war.”

rightweb.irc

Dick’s daughter Liz might be interested in running for office. “It's something I very well may do,” says Liz “Mini Me” Cheney.

nypress.com

Contact AG Eric Holder and The White House to demand a Special Prosecutor to Investigate all aspects of the Bush/Cheney Administration today.

           Read more... 

When government officials agree to torture prisoners, issue sham legal opinions to “authorize” the torture contrary to law and then enact laws designed to prevent prosecution, the law calls that conspiracy. Evidence that started as a sporadic trickle and is now flowing steadily indicates that former administration officials, including President Bush and Vice President Cheney, conspired to commit torture.

Rep. John Olver (D-MA) has recognized the possibility that our ”President, Vice President and other top officials conspired to create a policy” to sanction torture.

A 2008 executive summary of a Senate Armed Services Committee inquiry determined that senior officials sanctioned torture by “redefin[ing] the law to create the appearance” that Bush’s torture program was legal.

The engine of that conspiracy is the War Council of lawyers for Bush and Cheney.

           Read more... 

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega has recently made news urging that we don't rush into appointing a special prosecutor to investigate crimes of torture during George W. Bush's presidency. In a provocative April 20th post entitled "Of Black Holes and Radio Silence," Ms. de la Vega wrote:

"There is no doubt that sometime in 2002 - if not before - Bush administration officials and their lawyers began orchestrating a torture campaign, which they calculatedly attempted to justify through specious legal memos. They continued to abuse prisoners, and to conceal that mistreatment from Congress and the public, through at least 2008. In all of this conduct, they have committed grave crimes for which they must be held accountable. I believe this to be a national imperative of the highest order."

However, she also argues that,

           Read more... 

"My ship Liberty sailed away on a bloody red horizon
The groundskeeper opened the gates and let the wild dogs run."
- Bruce Springsteen, "Livin' in the Future"

When the highest officials of our nation flung open the gates of law and morality and let the wild dogs of torture run, they set in motion a constellation of potentially-indictable federal crimes. While I do not think a grand jury investigation into those violations should be publicly initiated right now, (for strategic reasons discussed here), I do agree entirely with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse that the Attorney General must not rule out prosecutions for these violations. In the May 4, 2009, National Law Journal, the Democrat from Rhode Island writes: "The factual record ... has not been fully developed and reviewed - and no good prosecutor would make a final determination until all the facts are in." As usual, the former US Attorney has it exactly right. No responsible prosecutor would do that and, indeed, as long as the record is unfolding, the Attorney General wouldn't be able to render any meaningful final "verdict" of no prosecution even if he wanted to. (And, certainly, no potential defendant could hold him to it.) So - regardless of what the prognosis for prosecution appears to be on any given day - it is critical to keep those revelations coming, as well as to support proposals for a non-partisan commission that will publicly air all the facts, and, most important, not give up on eventual indictments.

So Many Crimes, but How Much Time?

           Read more... 

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama liked to say that one voice can change a room, and if one voice can change a room, it can change a city, and if it can change a city, it can change a state, and if it can change a state, it can change a nation, and if it can change a nation, it can change the world.

Progressive bloggers already knew that. We spoke out against the criminal administration of Bush and Cheney when no one else would, because we’ve known all along how important one voice can be. That’s why we started blogging. We knew an entire nation had lost its way, we knew the corporate media was a wasteland of lies, but we knew one voice can make a difference, we knew that the voice of justice must be heard, so we became the voice of justice. We would not be silent while a war was unleashed for oil and profit, while war crimes were committed and elections were stolen and justice was crucified on a cross of gold.

           Read more... 

from Chisun Lee, ProPublica
April 21, 2009 2:21 pm EDT (view source)

Last week, we noted that while the administration promised not to prosecute CIA interrogators who acted within the legal limits laid out by the now-released "torture memos," it made no such promise for the Justice Department lawyers behind the memos. In remarks to reporters today, President Barack Obama reiterated his promise and more clearly suggested that the lawyers who signed off could face legal consequences.

When the memos were released last week, the administration was silent about consequences for the Office of Legal Counsel officials who gave authoritative advice to counterterrorism agencies in those years. Much of that advice was repudiated, in waning months, by the Bush Office of Legal Counsel itself as "not sustainable," "doubtful," "not supported by convincing reasoning," "highly questionable," "not satisfactory," "unpersuasive" and/or simply "incorrect."

Today, the president reiterated that prosecution "would not be appropriate" for interrogators "who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House," according to the Washington Post.

           Read more... 

A former prosecutor examines the special prosecutor debate.

There is no doubt that sometime in 2002 - if not before - Bush administration officials and their lawyers began orchestrating a torture campaign, which they calculatedly attempted to justify through specious legal memos. They continued to abuse prisoners, and to conceal that mistreatment from Congress and the public, through at least 2008. In all of this conduct, they have committed grave crimes for which they must be held accountable. I believe this to be a national imperative of the highest order. I have pored over every available book and report about torture, disturbing as they are, and I have read the lurid facts and twisted legal reasoning laid out in the Office of Legal Counsel torture memos just released by the White House. I am increasingly outraged by the day, disgusted by years of inaction, and impatient for results. Consequently, I would like nothing more than to join with so many friends and associates whom I respect in calling for immediate appointment of a special prosecutor.

Unfortunately, however, I can't do it. Not yet. We must have a prosecution eventually, but we are not legally required to publicly initiate it now and we should not, as justifiable as it is. I'm not concerned about political fallout. What's good or bad for either party has no legitimate place in this calculus. My sole consideration is litigation strategy: I want us to succeed. And our best hope of doing that is to unflinchingly assess - just as any lawyer would do when contemplating choices of action in a case - what we would have tomorrow if we got what we think we want today. We should obviously think twice about pursuing an intermediate goal, however satisfying it may appear, if it would be counterproductive in the long term. There are times when it's smarter to wait before taking a prosecutive step and this is one of them.

I know that what I have to say may not be popular, but the stakes here are too high to ignore "bad facts" - i.e., those that might run counter to our position or the course we've decided to take. So, it's better, I think, for me to tell you what I know to be true about grand jury investigations and the requisites of preparing a criminal case for indictment and trial - even though you might not like to hear it. Then you can make this assessment yourselves.

           Read more... 

It should be no surprise to any even minimally politically aware citizen that if you have the audacity to aspire to, let alone, eventually accept the job as president of the United States, antagonists will come at you from all sides, taking shots at your ability, integrity, and performance. It is a part of the rights and privleges we have living in a society that is protected by our Constitution. Unlike life in a totalitarian regime, the act of challenging the leadership becomes a frequent and unremarkably normal part of a robust, free democracy. Criticism, given freely and openly, whether in an honest constructive manner or even with some other agenda never hurts an honest person operating with honorable intentions. Strong criticism today may or may not affect the future actions of an honorable person, may cause an honorable person to firm his or her resolve, or may result in that honorable person reconsidering past decisions and factoring those experiences when formulating new decisions.

           Read more... 

From Bob Fertik at Democrats. com, March 9, 2009:

Martin Garbus, one of the best trial lawyers in the U.S., makes a powerful case for criminal prosecution over a "Truth Commission." First he rebuts the stupid arguments against prosecution:

The argument is made that criminal prosecutions area too difficult, too lengthy, too expensive, too political and will keep the country divided. But there have always been political expensive and difficult trials. We have had long, expensive, political trials for John Dean during Watergate, Eliot Abrams during Iran-Contra, Scooter Libby today and even Aaron Burr nearly two hundred years ago.

Leahy argues against criminal prosecutions because "a failed attempt to prosecute for this conduct might be the worst result of all if it is seen as justifying dishonest actions." But that's true for every criminal prosecution - should murderers, John Ehrlichmann, Scooter Libby or Enron officials not be prosecuted because the possibility of an acquittal justifies their actions? If so, junk the criminal system.

We can't leave it to politicians. Many Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are alleged to have known about the torture and surveillance programs and either approved or said nothing. Pelosi (who, interestingly, has called for criminal prosecutions) has consistently equivocated on what she knew and when she knew it. It's unlikely Democrats on commissions, let alone Republicans, are going to pursue the inquiry to its final end. They will undermine Congressional Commissions, and blue ribbon Commissions, but they cannot so easily undermine criminal prosecutions.

So which crimes should be prosecuted? Wiretaps and torture.

           Read more...