Attorney General Eric Holder is appointing a special prosecutor to review CIA interrogations of terrorist suspects. However, the investigation shouldn't stop at the agency. No one should be above the law, especially top policymakers.
Investigating Bush administration policies and officials is bound to be controversial. President George W. Bush and his aides undoubtedly did what they thought was right. However, much of it was wrong. The Iraq war was foolish and unnecessary.
And there was no need to sacrifice the Constitution and civil liberties to protect the American people from terrorism. As Barack Obama observed in his inaugural address: "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals."
Those ideals require an impartial investigation of any Bush administration officials who may have violated the law.
At issue are not policy disagreements, no matter how great. Liberal democracy requires that political conflict remain bounded. Arrest and prison are appropriate only when those in authority break the basic rules of the game.
Already under investigation as possible obstruction of justice is the destruction of the CIA interrogation session tapes. To this Holder has added the torture of prisoners.
The arguments against torture are obvious. First, many, if not most, interrogators believe other techniques are more effective and doubt torture yields accurate information. FBI Director Robert Mueller said that he didn't "believe it to be the case" that any terrorist attacks had been thwarted by the Bush administration's use of torture.
Torture has stained America's reputation, undercutting Washington's moral claims and discouraging cooperation by allied governments. Perhaps most important, torture undermines what it is to be America. Argued Charles Fried of Harvard Law School, President Ronald Reagan's Solicitor General: "we cannot authorize indecency without jeopardizing our survival as a decent society."
The Bush administration claimed that it did not torture, but the evidence is otherwise. Retired Lt. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba and Reagan White House attorney Robert Turner both spoke of "war crimes." Susan Crawford, a retired (Republican) judge sent to Guantanamo Bay by the Defense Department, concluded that torture had occurred. As head of President Bush's Office of Legal Counsel Jack Goldsmith revoked two legal opinions which had authorized torture.
Policymakers bear the principal responsibility. The issue was debated at the upper reaches of the White House. The Senate Armed Services Committee concluded that "senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."
An investigation also is needed into Bush administration violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The administration made a number of extravagant claims to justify ignoring FISA. First, the president had quasi-monarchical powers, at least in war-time. Second, the Authorization for Use of Military Force repealed every law thought by the president to impede his war powers. Third, as military commander-in-chief the president has authority to ignore an express congressional enactment.
Being commander-in-chief naturally gives the president extensive discretion when it comes to operational issues. However, the Constitution tasks Congress to create the broad legal and administrative frameworks within which military and intelligence operations occur.
Indeed, the Constitution gives Congress almost all war powers other than operational command. The legislature raises the military, declares war, and is to "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations," "make rules concerning captures on land and water," "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces," and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers."
In the war-related surveillance area, constitutional authority appears to be concurrent. If Congress does not legislate, the president may act. However, if Congress chooses to require warrants before the executive is allowed to spy on Americans, the president has responsibility to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
If President Bush and those around him thought the Congressionally-prescribed procedures to be inadequate, they should have requested additional legal authority from Congress. The legislature consistently gave the president whatever he wanted when it came to fighting terrorism; even the Democratic Congress elected in 2006 acquiesced to administration pressure in amending FISA.
The Obama administration has been nervous about prosecuting Bush officials, lest it be accused of conducting a partisan witch hunt. But President Obama has a legal obligation to uphold the law, and that includes holding accountable government officials who broke the law.
At the very least executive law-breaking requires investigation. The people should know what was done in their name. Moreover, policies and procedures should be adopted to make it harder for future officials to follow suit. It is hard to develop safeguards that will work in the presence of a determined executive and pusillanimous legislature, but the effort must be made.
Finally, prosecution must be considered. If high government officials can violate the law simply by claiming to believe that their actions are legal, then the law is meaningless. The U.S. government has prosecuted foreign officials and soldiers for war crimes, including torture. It must hold its own citizens to the same standard. To survive a democratic republic requires public accountability.
In his opening address at Nuremberg Robert Jackson said that the law must "not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power." So, too, must it do so in America today.
So did John Wilkes Booth. So did Hermann Göring.
Ronald Reagan said, about a different bunch of criminals: ""The only morality they recognize is what will further their cause, meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat, in order to attain [their objectives]."
He was talking about the Kremlin, but sometimes if you go far enough to the right you come full circle and meet up with the far left.
If you haven't already, you'll learn to love the oppression of the state, as it is the only means possible to achieve your ends.
You can never overcome the basic metaphysical discord between socialism and objective reality.
That what we humans call "value" must be produced through the application of the time, effort and expertise of the individual.
And in an economic enviornment that does not recognize the ownership of a given value by the individual who's personal resources produced it, the disincentive to produce, coupled with incentive to consume, must inexorably lead to economic ruin.
Mere possession of wealth (say, in the form of the conveniently fluid abstraction we call "money") does not bestow the power to coerce.
Only to freely exchange value. In a free society, there is no opportunity to purchase the authority of government to impose favorable economic outcomes, as government is strictly barred from addressing matters of economics.
You may call yourself "libertarian" if you wish--- those of us who adhere consistently to the ideology have no copyright.
That certainly makes you no worse than say, drug war criminal Bob Barr masquerading as the so-called "Libertarian" party's presidedntial candidate.
Regards,
---The Bikemessenger
Instead we have Obama. He has indicated that as far as he's concerned some people are above the law. And he appointed Holder who apparently will accept the excuse "I was following orders" as an iron clad excuse for war crimes.
So instead of an investigation of the highest we'll have an Abu Ghraib style goat hunt for a few low level sacrifices.
This is a VERY sad day for America.
Thirty-five years ago, the process of high-level pardons in U.S. government started a steeper moral decline. In 1974, President Ford pardoned ex-President Nixon for his part in Watergate deceptions. Ford said he granted the pardon "for the good of the country." In 1980, President Reagan's staff broke the law in providing missiles to Iran for hostages. Those found guilty in the Iran-Contra scandal were pardoned by President Bush (Sr.) because he felt they'd suffered enough. Then the S&L scandal in the late 1980's, the Keating Five (including McCain and John Glenn who were let off with the finding that "they used bad judgment.") Then Bill Clinton was essentially let go regarding the Monica Lewinsky/Paula Jones episodes. Then Bush Jr. fabricating issues to start a war, letting Karl Rove off, etc. The higher level the perpetrator, the less likelihood of a penalty.
We can't continue this way in the U.S. Cynicism runs deep. Credibility in government is in short supply. Now we've further been thrashed with the bailouts--the extortions. And the next generation will ask, "How could you just gloss over all of this?"
this line enrages me. how many new crimes against humanity and democracy have to be revealed before we can drop the pretense that they anything even resembling the best interests of this country in mind.
they were interested in FOUR things:
power
re-election
corporate welfare
money
we the people were not even on the radar. lets start telling the truth please.
Jail the lot!
Just an aside to all you Libertarians: Was the eight years of the Bush regime really worth the tax cuts?
Please explain how we are responsible for the Bush regime.
The Republican obsession with tax cuts does nothing to advance libertarian ideals, which calls for less government on balance, in addition to strict limitations on what government may do and what matters it may address.
To us, tax cuts without concommitant spending cuts are pointlessly irresponsible.
In the recent past (lets go back go back to the Reagan regime) Republican tax cuts have been accompanied by greater acceleration of expansion in the scope and influence of government as compared to times of Democratic Party dominance.
Despite their fondness for limited government rhetoric, Republicans are actually much worse than the Dems from the libertarian perspective.
At least the Democrats are more disposed to the responsible approach of raising taxes to fund government expansion.
That's probably why they're not able to expand government quite as effectively as the Republicans.
The Republican's record speaks for itself; their actions are the opposite of their rhetoric.
For us, the difference between the Democrats and Republicans is the difference between relatively honest authoritarian statists and hypocritical liars.
---The Bikemessenger