Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Blog of Mass Destruction -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

Perception Of An Investigation

by The Reverend on August 25, 2009

in Barack Obama,Bush White House,executive powers,fearmongering,Iraq,rule of law,torture

As the Obama administration continues to do everything it can to cover-up for Bush/Cheney-era crimes against the American people, we now learn that Eric Holder, Obama's Attorney General, has appointed Republican, John Durham, as a "special prosecutor" to investigate "alleged detainee mistreatment"….

Holder has named longtime prosecutor John H. Durham, who has parachuted into crisis situations for both political parties over three decades, to open an early review of nearly a dozen cases of alleged detainee mistreatment at the hands of CIA interrogators and contractors.

Durham has already been "investigating" the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes…..

The tapes allegedly depicted brutal scenes of waterboarding involving high-value al-Qaeda suspects. That investigation is in its 19th month, though lawyers following the case have cast doubt on whether criminal charges will be filed.

The videotapes investigation, reluctantly begun under the Bush administration, is the key to understanding Holder's goals in appointing Durham to investigate detainee abuse. No indictment recommendations will ever be made in the already 19-month-old videotapes investigation, but that long investigation gives the perception that federal leaders are serious about the rule of law. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Consider

The White House reiterated in a statement that Obama doesn't believe in prosecuting CIA personnel who used "enhanced" techniques "in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance" that was provided by Bush administration officials.

All a thinking person has to ask themselves is this: Does the executive branch have the power, the legal right under the Constitution, to order actions to be carried out which specifically violate American law and international treaties and conventions? And does the executive branch have the legal right under the Constitution to order new laws to be written by obedient lawyers, ala John Yoo, the architect of the "legalization" of American propagated torture?

Bush and Cheney have already given their answers…..now "looking forward, not backward" Obama is giving his. Neither have anything to do with fidelity to law or the Constitution…..but both answers have to do with perception of fidelity to law and the Constitution. Because as Karl Rove and the Townhall Buster Uppers have already proven…..perception is all that matters.

Holder, (if you can even fathom this), isn't setting up an "investigation" to determine if people ordered the open violation of existing law or treaties. He's setting up an "investigation" to determine if people exceeded the "new laws" written by John Yoo and Jay Bybee.

It would be similar to only investigating whether a getaway man in a bank robbery had exceeded the orders he was given by the architect of the bank robbery.

But that's where we're at in America today. And so, just as with Abu Ghraib, perhaps a low level, no-name, CIA employee or private contractor will be reprimanded after John Durham concludes his report in 4 or 5 years….perhaps not.

All that really matters is that Obama, like Bush before him, creates a perception of taking egregious violations of law seriously. He really doesn't.

Others working for Obama don't take violations of the law seriously, either. Consider Obama's CIA chief, Leon Panetta…..

In a message to CIA employees, agency director Leon Panetta declined to enter the debate over whether waterboarding and other "enhanced" questioning techniques were legal or crossed the line into torture. But he vowed to defend employees who were acting under the legal guidance they were given at the time and noted that any review must consider the pressures that agency personnel were facing.

"This much is clear," Panetta said: "The CIA obtained intelligence from high-value detainees when inside information on al-Qaeda was in short supply."

Panetta's defense of CIA personnel used to be called the Nazi defense. But no more. Now the Nazi defense……we were only obeying orders, and hey, we were under a lot of pressure….is the American defense. It is the defense of the lawless.

The only thing in "short supply" from 2001 onward was loyalty to American law and the Constitution. Perception of terror, fearmongering, was all that mattered during Bush/Cheney….and they were successful in selling their lawless coup through that perception of terror.

Now, Obama is creating the perceptions. The perception of getting to the bottom of numerous Bush White House-ordered crimes by appointing an investigator who will start his investigation with the understanding that the Bush White House had the perfect right to order crimes to be committed.

  • Da King

    You aren't going to like any of my responses, but here's why I think Obama doesn't want to go after Bush:

    1. Obama is continuing the extraordinary rendition program of sending terrorist suspects to third countries. Obama has pledged to monitor these countries so they don't torture, but, c'mon, he can't really do that. Obama could be facing the torture question himself someday.

    2. Our interrogation methods worked, as the 2004 CIA IG report makes clear. Does Obama really want to go after Bush when Bush's methods saved an untold number of lives following 9/11 ? I don't think so. How will Obama make the claim that those lives should have been sacrificed so that three known murdering terrorist scumbags wouldn't undergo any discomfort ?

    3. It would be almost impossible to convict Bush of torture. Bush would say his lawyers told him what he was doing was legal. Bush's lawyers would say their reading of the law gave them reason to believe that waterboarding was legal. The CIA interrogators would say they were following the guidance they were given.

    4. If there was a trial, several Democrats in Congress would be brought in and asked why they didn't object to waterboarding when they were briefed on it. Those Congresspersons would be swept up in the net of alleged criminality. Obama doesn't want to do that to his own party.

  • The Reverend

    You're only entirely correct on number one.

    2-The report did not find specific instances of torture producing actonable intelligence. One can make the claim that they are responsible for the sun coming up regularly each day and point to it every morning to proof it……still doesn't make it so. The very purpose of torturing detainees, the reason other tyrannical governments did it,…..was to produce false confessions. On this, there is no argument.

    3-If what you are saying is true, then accountabiity no longer exists in the executive branch. If the executive orders underling lawyers to write up "new laws", laws that contradict existing laws, and the executive then acts upon these new laws……no one is ultimately responsible for any of it, no matter how many people are tortured and killed as a result. That's the very definition of totalitarianism.

    4-While it's possible that Obama wouldn't want other Democrats exposed in an investigation….liberals want them all exposed. That's the left's position, and it's a sound one. Here's where the left is different from the right. The left wants the objective truth, no matter who gets caught up in it. The right only wants investigations when Democrats are the targets.

  • larry d.

    Most Americans don't care that interrogators said mean things to some murderous, USA-hating terrorists and until that changes no one's going to do much except drag this tired old story out of the closet every time Obama's ineptness results in bad polling numbers.

  • The Reverend

    "…said mean things…? Did they say mean things to the ones they killed, ya' think? Because that would really be bad, if those CIA guys talked mean to the 100 dead bodies.

    Treasonous lawlessness is always boring to conservatives. What isn't boring is lying about oral sex.

  • frank

    Rev,
    The disappointment continues. What's missing in this discussion is the fact that the Constitution mandates that Holder and Obama enforce the law. They have no right to limit or prevent any investigation any more than Pelosi had the right to take impeachment "off the table". It is their obligation, under the law and their oaths of office.

    Mr. King,
    I can't believe that you really think that torture was applied to only three individuals, or that it worked. If so, why did the Bush administration supress this report, and why is a third of it redacted? Also, I see no indication that torture was used as a last resort. If a suspect who is tortured gives up information that he had or would have given up without torture, how can you say that torture worked?

    larry d.,
    Thank you so much for telling us what most Americans think. I know that facts sometimes get in the way when you compose your two sentence snarks, but can you tell me how you determined that those tortured in Iraq, and those turned in for bounty were all "murderous, USA hating terrorists"? If you were really paying attention, you might have noticed that Obama doesn't want a real investigation any more than Bush and Cheney.

  • Da King

    frank says, "I can't believe that you really think that torture was applied to only three individuals, or that it worked."

    It's not me saying it, frank. It's the CIA Inspector General's 2004 report that says three were waterboarded, and that the intelligence gained from the interrogation methods stopped a number of attacks, saving lives.

    All you have to do is read the report. It's right there in black and white. Or you can look on my blog. It's spelled out there too.

  • Da King

    frank asks, "If so, why did the Bush administration supress this report, and why is a third of it redacted?"

    You never heard of classified information ? Or do you think it would be alright to release all the names of our CIA operatives now, just the opposite of the liberal position on Valerie Plame ?

    And Cheney has been pushing for the release of this information ever since Obama released the DOJ memos.

  • Da King

    "2-The report did not find specific instances of torture producing actonable intelligence."

    This is just false, and requires no further comment. Read the report.

    "3-If the executive orders underling lawyers to write up "new laws", laws that contradict existing laws, and the executive then acts upon these new laws"

    If you have proof that Bush ordered the lawyers to write up new laws, you'd be right. Show me that proof.

    "4-While it's possible that Obama wouldn't want other Democrats exposed in an investigation….liberals want them all exposed."

    Some liberals want them all exposed, others don't (like Obama). But most Americans understand the entire context of the situation, and don't want to see our officials going to jail for trying to keep America safe after 9/11, except in the most severe instances (like the flashlight beating).

  • The Reverend

    Sad to see a once-respectable nation be turned into little more than a third world military dictatorship….but what's sadder, is reading hapless conservative justifications of the brutality, savagery and carnage conducted by that dictatorship. As if there is some plausible reason for torturing others.

    Sad.

    However, I'm not surprised by King's and larry's responses. King thinks the Bushies kept America safe by torturing, even though torture is carried out specifically to coerce false confessions……and larry only knows that Muslim detainees, guilty of anything or not, got what they had coming to them.

  • The Reverend

    "If you have proof that Bush ordered the lawyers to write up new laws, you'd be right."

    Dishonest….both you and Bush. Did the lawyers act on their own? Did someone instruct them to write up justifications for torture, and who would that someone have been? And why, knowing that torture only produces false confessions, would someone tell lawyers to write justifications for it? Lastly, even now, it's hard for me to comprehend how it is that you, King, still believe that Bush and Cheney's motives were pure. That's what I call serious partisanship.

  • The Reverend

    Oh, and on the "we were mean" to detainees quackery….this is what America did that is so funny..

    • Threats of execution, using semi-automatic handguns and power drills
    • Threats to kill detainee and his children
    • Threats to rape detainee's wife and children in front of him
    • Restricting the detainee's carotid artery
    • Hitting detainee with the butt end of a rifle
    • Blowing smoke in detainee's face for five minutes
    • Multiple instances of waterboarding detainees, of the type we prosecuted Japanese war criminals for using:
    • Hanging detainee by their arms until interrogators thought their shoulders might be dislocated
    • stepping on detainee's ankle shackles to cause severe bruising and pain
    • choking detainee until they pass out
    • dousing detainee with water on cold concrete floors in cold temperatures to induce hypothermia
    • killing detainees through torture techniques, whether accidental or not
    • putting detainee in a diaper for days at a time to live in their own filth

    Proud to be an American, by god.

  • Da King

    Rev says, "Dishonest….both you and Bush. Did the lawyers act on their own? Did someone instruct them to write up justifications for torture, and who would that someone have been?"

    This is why it's so difficult to communicate with you. I didn't even disagree with your point about this. I said you'd be right if Bush told the lawyers to write new laws. I just asked for some proof of that, and then you called me dishonest………….and didn't supply any proof. wtf.

    Instead of having an imaginary discussion with your version of Mr. Generic Republican, why don't you pay a little attention to the actual words I'm writing ?

  • Da King

    Rev says, " King thinks the Bushies kept America safe by torturing"

    You are suffering from the same disease as frank, so I'll give you the same response.

    It isn't ME saying the interrogation methods worked. It's the CIA IG report that says it. Y'all can remain in denial if you wish, but stop pretending like I'm making this up. I'm not.

  • The Reverend

    What frank and I are saying is that the report does not say that. What it does not say is that torture led directly to actionable intelligence….it simply does not say that. Yet you say it does and insist on believing something that doesn't exist. No evidence that it kept anyone safe and illegal to boot.

    And the evidence of the orders from Bush/Cheney to construct illegal legal memoes, as you know, is classified. That information will NEVER come out.

  • frank

    Mr. King,
    I understand the redacted part, what I don't understand is why Cheney was unable to have this report released during the last 4+ years. You have to admit, the Bush administration wasn't exactly shy about touting their "successes" in the waronterra. What makes you think that I want CIA agents outed? The only ones who deserve to be outed are the architects and enablers of this policy which has brought our country shame.

  • Da King

    Is Rev right, frank ? Do you think the CIA IG report DOESN'T say that the terrorist interrogations stopped terrorist attacks ?

    Because it says precisely that they did stop terrorist attacks. I think Rev is suffering from hysterical blindness or something.

  • Da King

    "what I don't understand is why Cheney was unable to have this report released during the last 4+ years"

    The CIA isn't in the habit of releasing classified info. I don't think we want to get into that habit.

    Cheney didn't want either the CIA IG report or the DOJ memos released, until Obama released the DOJ memos. Then, it was only fair to release the rest detailing the effectiveness of the interrogations (though heavily redacted). Obama didn't want to release the CIA IG report either. He only wanted to release the part that made Bush look bad. The ACLU, through the courts, forced Obama's hand.

  • larry d.

    Thanks for the comment, frank. Your conclusion however is pretty much in line with what I wrote. It must be tough keeping up to speed on that old 1979 Commodore.

    Where do you buy replacement tapes?

  • The Reverend

    This is nonsense. You point to one specific paragraph that says it was the torture that produced the information. Then we'll continue.

  • frank

    larry d.,
    I got this great deal from the CIA. Seems they erased a few a couple years back.

  • The Reverend

    Good return, frank.

  • Da King

    It's posted on my blog, Rev. All you have to do is read it. The interrogation methods worked, stopped terrorist plots, and saved lives. That includes waterboarding. It specifically stated that KSM became cooperative and gave out accurate information leading to other terrorists AFTER the waterboarding. Diito for Zubaydah. I don't understand your denial. I guess you've been denying it so long that you're just afraid to admit you were wrong.

  • frank

    Mr. King,
    John Helgerson, the Inspector General who commissioned the report, said that it did not permit "definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of particular interrogation methods".

  • Da King

    frank,
    All you have to do is read the report. It's clear.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).