Why David Broder Is Wrong

In today's Washington Post, David Broder argues that the Attorney General should not have authorized special US Attorney John Durham to investigate the Bush interrogation program. While Mr. Broder apparently believes that public officials should generally be held to account for violations of law or breaches of the public trust, in this case he thinks the cost would be too great.

Mr. Broder argues that the Attorney General should have weighed the various political and practical consequences of an investigation against the abstract principle of accountability and decided to stand down. I reject this idea completely.

I understand the Washington habit of reducing all difficult questions to political calculations -- I am a politician myself, after all. But the decision whether to investigate possible crimes connected to our interrogation programs is simply not a political one.

Our nation is obligated by treaty to investigate credible allegations of torture and similar breaches of law. The materials available to the Attorney General manifestly state such credible allegations of such violations -- he really had no choice to go forward, unless we were to breach our legal commitments. Does Mr. Broder have so little respect for the rule of law that he cannot simply commend the strength and dignity of a public servant like Mr. Holder carrying out an unpleasant duty?

Beyond that basic point, Mr. Broder's column remains deeply flawed. As I read the piece, there are two asserted reasons we should shirk our duty to investigate. First, investigations will harm CIA morale, and second, if trials ensue, a "major, bitter partisan battle" would erupt and "the cost to the country would simply be too great."

On the issue of CIA morale, even the limited public record makes clear that, within the CIA itself, there were individuals who resisted the interrogation program or particular applications of it. So it is simply not fair to ascribe a single view to the vast CIA community that serves our nation so bravely.

Furthermore, if it is correct that CIA morale will be harmed by investigations, we must ask why that is so. In my view, the most likely source of morale problems is the rumored scope of the investigation. The record makes plain that this program was concocted, approved, and directed from the highest levels of our government. If reports that only frontline officers will be investigated are true, I can understand why agency personnel would feel hung out to dry.

Artificially limiting the investigation to interrogators working in extremely difficult circumstances while immunizing the officials who directed and approved these acts could quite reasonably be viewed as unfair and unjust. (I note that such a limitation has been suggested in press reports but never confirmed by the Justice Department, and I urge the Attorney General to simply let the prosecution team investigate the matter and follow the facts where they lead.)

Mr. Broder seems to agree when he argues that "if accountability is the standard, then it should apply to the policymakers and not just to the underlings." Yet, he rejects the logical implications of his point, asking "do we want to see Cheney, who backed these actions and still does, standing in the dock?"

Without knowing all the facts, that question is impossible to answer. But for Mr. Broder the idea seems to be unthinkable. Why does he believe that? Is it not a basic principle of this country that no person is above the law? I do not know if Mr. Cheney broke the law, but I do know that, in my America, the law applies to him as it does to everyone else.

Remarkably, Mr. Broder reports with pride that he called for Bill Clinton to resign after lies to his cabinet and the country about the Lewinsky affair. But where was his call for George Bush to resign after telling the country "We do not torture"? I have a difficult time understanding why Bill Clinton's misdeeds were more worthy of accountability than those of Mr. Cheney or Mr. Bush.

Mr. Broder's second point is that torture trials would cause a partisan maelstrom and impede our ability to meet the challenges of the day. I do not dispute that the right would treat such trials as partisan, political fodder best used to paint Democrats as weak on national security (indeed, this is why I have proposed an independent bipartisan commission to investigate these matters).

But in a world where "conservatives" argue that the President's speech to schoolchildren amounts to brainwashing and that government reimbursement for voluntary end-of-life consultations are "death panels," I question whether it is realistically possible to avoid such partisan conflagrations regardless of the steps we take. It is not as if the right was working shoulder to shoulder with the Administration or Democrats in Congress on the great policy issues confronting us before Attorney General Holder announced the expanded Durham probe.

Finally, there is another, far more insidious aspect to Mr. Broder's argument on this point. David Broder is a moderate, non-partisan journalist of enormous reach and authority in this country. As such, he has a very prominent voice in whether any prosecutions are seen as partisan.

If Mr. Broder stood up for the principle that no person is above the law and acknowledged that our laws obligate investigation of torture, the right's effort to make this issue seem purely political would be less likely to take hold of the national conversation.

On the other hand, when he argues that the decision to investigate is essentially political and presses the Attorney General to reconsider because the costs might be "too great," he validates the partisan voices that would breach our legal duties and sacrifice our national honor because they see torture as little more than a useful wedge issue.

As the acknowledged "dean" of the Washington Press corps, David Broder is no mere observer of these events. He is an actor in the national debate, whose pronouncements help define what views are considered "reasonable." If he believes, as he claims, that accountability "should apply to the policymakers and not just to the underlings," he should reject those who would turn a fundamental issue of law into a "major, bitter partisan battle," not validate them as a fixed and appropriate part of the political landscape.

Comments

[Trubulmaker]

God bless you, Congressman Conyers. You are exactly right.

As for the question "do we want to see Cheney, who backed these actions and still does, standing in the dock?" , the answer is YES, we do. And beside him should be the whole crowd of conspirators, including especially the likes of Addington and Yoo...and Mr Bush himself.

WE should be prosecuting these people, ourselves. Its a pity that some Spanish prosecutor has to step in and offer to do the job for us, because our government doesn't have the brass to do what is right, and enforce our own laws.

[Choicelady]

It's now time to get the ducks in a row. Many groups have been focused on the White House with calls for commissions and panels that have no subpoena power. That has been a huge diversion since - remember the Constitution - the White House does NOT prosecute. Let's unleashe Rep. Conyers and a House Select Committee. Let's urge Rep. Jerold Nadler to move on his proposed change to the National Secrets Act so that these people who broke the law cannot automatically hide behind "national security" ./ It is my understanding that Speaker Pelosi and Conyers and several others are ready, but it now requires us to focus - the House needs to act. The Senate does not look willing, save for the amazing Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) so let's begin where we can and do so NOW.

[offred]

"On the issue of CIA morale, even the limited public record makes clear that, within the CIA itself, there were individuals who resisted the interrogation program or particular applications of it."

As most of us middle- to lower-income earners know, to keep your job, you do the best you can. If certain CIA people are too lily-livered to do the right thing (that is, do their jobs ethically AND effectively), they should stop collecting paychecks. There are equally qualified people who could quickly come up to speed and accept the jobs and the cushy government benefits.

Can't stand the heat? Get out of the kitchen.

[Rfried]

Why is it that, time and time again, Congressman Conyers has the courage to speak out on the tough issues. Who was chasing Karl Rove? Where is the rest of congress hiding? It is easy to see him as extremist, but the fact is the congress has the role of policing the administra­tion--this one AND the previous one. I'd love to see how the House would function with Conyers as Speaker. Dick Cheney would be on the first plane to Switzerland.

[FunkyP]

Yes Rep. Conyers. Investigations should be done. People must be held accountable for breaking the law or their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That is why you, as head of the Judiciary Committee, were so adamant about holding Rove, Gonzales, Miers accountable and compelling them to testify...wait; that did not happen, did it?
Impeachment, for the illegal war, and the torture and detentions which were ordered by the former President? Did I miss those hearings?
That's where John Conyers went wrong.
Write another strongly worded letter. Yes, Bill Clinton must pay for lying to his cabinet and getting a little. But Mr. Bush, don't worry about those detained, tortured and dead from your decisions. We forgive you.

[jorogo]

What Mr. Broder does not understand is that weighing the various political and practical consequences of an investigation against the abstract principle of accountability is one method of, to put it bluntly, "fixing" an investigation.

Unfortunately, it seems this has already been done by limiting the investigation in it's scope. Broder is asking that a fixed method be added to this fixed scope, to insure that in addition to going nowhere, it finds nothing.

On second thought, maybe he does understand.

[Balzac]

Eric Holder is a guy whose moustache means business.

It's not exactly a Wyatt Earp handle-bar moustache, but it's no less serious.

Eric Holder is going to smush Bush.

[timbonotes]

don't set your hopes too high although we can always wish

[Eclectic Radical]

This is a well written and well-reasoned piece. It's hard to argue with the basic fact that someone needs to be held accountable for the crimes committed under the Bush administration and that simply holding the functionaries who personally committed them as solely accountable is wrong.

The problem is that this is a political issue whether Mr. Conyers thinks it is or not. The nature of the crimes committed means that various political figures are committed to defending the suspected criminals because of their own complicity with the larger dishonesty and corruption of the administration. Those investigating the crimes happen to be the political opponents of the suspected criminals. It is to their advantage to prosecute. This makes the question of the administration's guilt or innocence a partisan matter, to be decided in partisan fashion, with the facts thrown aside.

There may be important non-political issues at stake (which there are), but it is nearly impossible to divide them from the political issues because of the manner in which our government functions. To believe this is not a partisan issue and that it can be entirely separated from the partisan, political issues it will pick up as it rolls downhill, is a naive belief that a man in Mr. Conyers' position can't afford.

[timbonotes]

who are you? David Broder II?

[Eclectic Radical]

Well, Broder believes (or the appearance of believing) that this is just politics as usual. That the Bush Administration fudged a little here and there and Democrats want to bust them for fudging because they're Republicans. He does not appear to think the fudging itself was terribly important and I think he believes (on some level) that Democrats want to go after Bush as some sort of 'revenge' for the way Republicans went after President Clinton.

I think some of them probably do, but I don't think that's the point. There was a thick strain of corporate favoritism, corruption, and cronyism running through nearly every major decision the Bush Administration made. The whole point of Bush's presidential tenure appeared to be to cut taxes for the rich while allowing corporations to get rich off the government. When one adds the suppression of civil liberties and the violation of international treaty into the mix, one can make a strong argument that Bush and Cheney should be imprisoned for life.

The problem is that such an argument can't be removed from the note of political opposition that advances said argument. It becomes a purely partisan issue, because of the large investment the Republican Party made in said administration. Do I want to see justice done? Yes. I simply do not think democratic politics allow justice to be done in a situation like this.

No one more important than Ollie North did any time for Iran-Contra, remember.

[ChelseaC]

Rep. Conyers--I'm with you!

[JoeCoffee]

Yes! The logic of this piece, unlike Mr. Broder's, is impeccable. Broder's logic isn't really much different from the that of Hate Radio, just more politely worded. Are the rabid "shouters" and Obama-haters having undue influence on our timid mainstream media? One ponders....

[cycle3man]

Hey Connors,,,,, BULL !!!! when
the law is broken investigations follows.
Kinda' like day follows night.

If politicans are not held responsile for their
actions, braking the law will never end.

These REPUGS say the law wasn't broken,
so don't go there. Well, if the law wasn't
broken what are these
REPUGS afraid of??

Mr Conyers: What say you?

[shades3]

Indeed and thank you, Mr. Conyers.

[aboveparr]

Excellent post. The best way to hang a person is upon their own logic.

[Intelligentia]

The United States has a obligation to investigate, punish and repair does who were damaged by the torture. Mr. Broder has his own agenda: Protecting White men who have broken the law! The thoughtof a Black President and a Black Attorney General bringing criminal White men to justice isunthinkable for people like Mr. Broder! Suddenly, accountability is no longer important. Desegregation and ending Jim Crow laws were also supposed to have brought this country to an end, so argued some so-called journalists and politicians. America is still here after desegregation and the end of Jim Crow laws. Who is Mr. Broder afraid of being exposed?

[MacPherson]

Bush, Cheney, and the rest of that crowd should be tried before the same judge that sentenced a lowly SPC to 10 years in prison for Abu Ghraib------But rank has its privileges, and getting away with high crimes and misdemeanors is often one of them.