Dodd Ridicules "Genius" in the White House

Maybe he's just trying to save his seat, but in an interview with several bloggers, Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) said what I think many of us have wondered.

"I don't know who the genius was in the room that night when they were discussing this," the Connecticut Democrat said of the four torture documents declassified by the Obama White House. "But if you are going to make the decision to release the documents, I presume every one of us here would the have a follow up question, which is: Well, what are you going to do about it? And if the answer is nothing, we are just going to release the documents.... Some of us in the room would say, 'Well wait a minute, you have a problem. If you are going to release them then you are going to have to answer the next question, what are you going to do with them?'"

It isn't enough just to release the information. Yes, we must have full disclosure. We must know what was done in our names, what is the full truth of what happened. But we are not asking for retribution. We are asking for justice. If no one is above the law, if we are truly a nation of law, then we must follow the law wherever it leads us. President Obama has done much to repair our image in the world. The respect that President Bush squandered is slowly being redeemed. But if the crimes of the past administration are allowed to go unanswered, then we are bound to repeat them.

The whole point of Nuremburg was to ensure that what happened in Germany under the Nazis never occurs again anywhere in the world. Permitting torture for expediency's sake begins the slippery slope and we become no better than those we fight.

You can read Sam Stein's piece in the Huffington Post here

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

We don't want retribution. We want justice.

How long does this conversation go on? And at what point do the talking heads and Republicans finally catch sight of the mirror and see how foolish they really are?

Ex-vice president Cheney has stated that yes, we waterboarded. The recently released OLC memos listed 10 different procedures that certainly meet the definition of torture according to those who read them. The FBI Director was so certain that the activities described in those memos was torture that he refused to allow any employee of the FBI to participate. The recently released Senate Report states that torture occured. More documents state that two detainees were waterboarded over 200 times in a period of 1 month.

It's pretty clear that torture occured.

Eric Holder, during his confirmation hearings in February 2009 stated unequivocally that, "yes, waterboarding is torture."

Thus, I am stunned to hear Mr. Holder, the Democratic leadership, and President Obama dancing around the issue, continuing to use the phrase "enhanced interogation" and talking about the need for a thorough review, proper analysis, and complete understanding of everything that occurred before any decisions about prosecutions are made. President Obama states that pursuing this is retribution. What? Criminal prosecution is retribution? This, from a constitutional lawyer?

We do not want retribution. We want justice. We are not too busy. Congress had the time to impeach President Clinton. They had the time to investigate everything that the Clintons ever did including anyone who ever associated with them (and I would add, found no wrongdoing, ever - oh excuse me. President Clinton lied under oath about having sex). I think we can take the time to investigate the Bush administrations commission of war crimes.

This issue will not go away. We will not be quiet. As Americans, torture was done in our name and as such, we have the right to hold those responsible accountable.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

David Broder - Stop Scapegoating?

Today, David Broder wrote an editorial in the Washington Post Stop Scapegoating:Obama Should Stand Against Prosecutions

Like many (most?) these days, Mr. Broder has forgotten the part in the Constitution that explains the three branches to our government—the legislative, the judicial, and the administrative, and why. He has also forgotten that in addition to having three branches, the importance of maintaining a wall between the judicial and administrative branches. He states,

One administration later, a different group of individuals occupying the same offices has -- thankfully -- made the opposite decision. Do they now go back and investigate or indict their predecessors?

That way, inevitably, lies endless political warfare. It would set the precedent for turning all future policy disagreements into political or criminal vendettas. That way lies untold bitterness -- and injustice.

Suppose that Obama backs down and Holder or someone else starts hauling Bush administration lawyers and operatives into hearings and courtrooms.

It’s been so long since we’ve had that wall, that President Obama’s involvement in the discussion of investigation and prosecution of torture has seemed reasonable and normal, and most people continue to claim that the Bush Administration’s use of torture was a reasonable response to 9/11 and a policy decision. Thus, any response by the Obama Administration—including from the Dept. of Justice—is a policy difference: a political decision based on differences in policy.

Suppose the investigators decide that the country does not want to see the former president and vice president in the dock. Then underlings pay the price while big shots go free. But at some point, if he is at all a man of honor, George W. Bush would feel bound to say: That was my policy. I was the president. If you want to indict anyone for it, indict me. [emphasis added]

In all the discussion amongst all the Washington pundit class, this is probably the most amusing statement I have heard recently. Of course, Mr. Broder, the Dean of the Pundits, the coolest, calmest, most reasoned head of the punditry, is the wise man on the mountain who is looked to to provide the voice of reason when all about him have been reduced to a chattering class.

Tell me Mr. Broder. When has Mr. Bush ever been bound to say, that was my policy, I was the president? When has Mr. Bush ever said, I was wrong, I accept responsibility? When asked if he regretted that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Mr. Bush replied that he regretted that they hadn’t been found. When asked if he regretted the delay in responding to Hurricane Katrina, he stated that they saved 30,000 people off the roofs of houses. He refused to explain why early warnings were ignored, why response was late, and limited. And why, years later, the majority of the funds appropriated for Katrina relief were still not spent? He has, to this day, not ever, not once, said, “I’m wrong, I made a mistake, I’m sorry.” About anything. Ever.

And you expect him to be a man of honor? To think of those who served under him? Take off your blinders Mr. Broder. His actions speak quite loud enough, thank you very much.

Secretly, right before the inauguration, he gave secret memos to Harriet Miers and Karl Rove (and who knows how others) forcing them to claim executive privilege should they be called to testify before Congress. A privilege, by the way, that Harriet Miers at least, knew wouldn’t stand up to legal scrutiny. And more telling, prior to leaving office, he refused to give Presidential immunity to anyone for committing or authorizing acts of torture. He could have, and could have very easily. Why didn’t he. Oh yeah. If he did, then he would have had to admit “we do not commit torture” was a lie. He told a lot of lies, but that was one of the few where he looked right into the camera and very firmly, clearly, and loudly, stated a declarative sentence that could in no way be spun or later massaged into meaning something else.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k