Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Any hope one might have had after seeing the Newsweek article saying that Eric Holder was leaning toward appointing a special prosecutor to investigate war crimes and torture by the Bush administration lasted only a couple days. The Washington Post punctures that hope with more leaks -- almost certainly deliberate -- about the nature of such an investigation even if the AG does order it.
But the sources said an inquiry would apply only to activities by interrogators, working in bad faith, that fell outside the "four corners" of the legal memos. Some incidents that might go beyond interrogation techniques that were permitted involve detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are described in the secret 2004 CIA inspector general report, set for release Aug. 31.
So instead of going after those who ordered illegal torture, they only want to investigate those who didn't color within the lines of the Bush administration's already illegal and outrageous torture memos. This is Abu Ghraib all over again, put the low level troops and agents in prison and let those who pulled their strings go scot free. And they use that same twisted logic that prevents any real investigations or prosecutions:
CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said the Justice Department has long known the details of the agency's past interrogation practices. Previous referrals to the Justice Department from the CIA's former inspector general did not result in criminal charges."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," he said.
So no one who followed those legal directives can be held accountable. But they also don't want to hold those who gave the orders and provided the false and convoluted legal justifications for those orders accountable. Voila - no one can possibly be held accountable. You've entered the perfect catch 22.
Greenwald calls this argument "the principal instrument of executive lawlessness -- the Beltway orthodoxy that any time a President can find a low-level DOJ functionary to authorize what he wants to do, then it is, by definition, "legal" and he's immune from prosecution when he does it, no matter how blatantly criminal it is."
Politics
Comments
Can I get some of that? If I hire a lawyer to draft a memo saying that what my company does (or is about to do, or has already done) is legal, do we get to do anything that the memo describes?
Sweeeeeet!
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 14, 2009 10:48 AM
Get you mum to write you a note and the law can go fuck itself.
Posted by: tincture | July 14, 2009 11:21 AM
I have the sinking feeling that what the new administration has learned since taking office is so awful that they don't think the rest of the country can handle it.
In which case they may as well drag it out into the sunlight because it won't stay secret forever.
Posted by: Shay | July 14, 2009 11:41 AM
They were talking about this on Charlie Rose the other night. They were saying that the low-level people involved will be fully prepared to defend themselves with all the documentation that shows the full chain of command that gave them the authorization to do what they did.
The implication was that if they pursue this line of investigation, they're very quickly going to have to run up the chain of command or do nothing at all.
Posted by: tacitus | July 14, 2009 12:13 PM
Shay, I think you're right. Either once Obama got into office power corrupted him and everyone in his administration at record speed, or, they discovered evidence of events that are so bad, they're afraid to release it. I honestly hope it's the latter. While I didn't have the glassy eyed hope of Obama being anything but a moderate, I did see him significantly better that Bush or anything else the Republicans were offering. If it is the former, that goes right out the window, if it is the latter, they wont be able to keep it secret forever, they're better off releasing the information and investigating it under their terms rather than having to deal with leaks, etc.
The other thing that could be part of this is that they are concerned about this becoming a political war. The Republicans have already been trying desperately to spread the blame, to justify their actions, etc., one has to wonder what would/will happen if the information released gets worse? Could it be enough to destroy the Republican party completely? Could it be enough to shatter the faith left in our government? Could it be enough to discredit our country in the eyes of the world?*
--------------
*obviously in those last two, the phrase "more than has already been done" should be attached...
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 14, 2009 1:08 PM
That, or they were corrupt to begin with. I don't get why the possibility is assumed impossible off the bat. I'm not sold with any explanations so far, but no point holding onto starry-eyed idealism.
Posted by: Paul | July 14, 2009 1:17 PM
I don't see corruption. I see the lack of a backbone to stand up to forces in the military and the agencies who are advising him that changing courses would be bad for him politically and bad for the country.
Presidents are political animals. Sadly Obama is falling into the same mold as the rest of them.
Posted by: tacitus | July 14, 2009 4:13 PM
I don't think the Obama admin's actions have anythign to do with finding out anything so horrendous they think the citizenry can't handle it; after all, investigations and leaks have already exposed everything from rapes to murders that went on under the torture regime. To my mind its much simpler; they think they need the CIA and are afraid that prosecutions will alienate it, and they don't want to punish members of the political class, because the only punishments open for the behavior of people like Cheney and Rice is life in prison or execution.
Considering a political culture that can scarcely bring itself to send fall guys like Libby to country-club prisons for actions that amount to treason, do you really think this admin would be willing to pursue life sentences for something as minor as willfully illegal advice and unconstitutional directives that killed foreigners?
Posted by: Julian | July 14, 2009 5:25 PM
It's so disheartening that no one with authority is willing to do the right thing and tell the truth to the country. I'm disgusted that Charles Graner still sits in a prison cell while the Bush administration enjoys their freedom. It is time for some accountabilty.
Posted by: free graner | July 14, 2009 5:35 PM
Apparently, all it takes is a letter from Epstein's mother.
Posted by: chris | July 14, 2009 11:30 PM