Questions for the Attorney General

Attorney General Eric Holder, you've made quite a splash this week with the news that you're "leaning" toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate brutal interrogations that took place during the Bush administration. But this disclosure has raised as many questions as it answers. Here are a few I would suggest you address in the next few weeks when, we are told, you are expected to make your announcement.

1. You have told one associate that some of what you read in internal government reports about interrogation abuses "turned my stomach." What was it you've read that caused such a reaction? And why have Justice Department lawyers recently filed motions (on behalf of the CIA) declining to release, or delaying the release, of these same reports? Doesn't the public deserve to know the full story about such abuses sooner rather than later?

2. You reportedly spent two days late last month closely studying one of those documents -- the CIA inspector-general report completed in May 2004 -- and its findings "shocked and saddened" you. But this report has been in the possession of the Justice Department for more than five years. Why do you think your predecessors didn't have the same reaction to that report as you did? And given the fact that you were sworn in Feb. 3, and your obvious interest in this subject, why did it take you four and a half months to read the report?

3. Your aides have said this is only about investigating operatives and contractors who went beyond the "four corners" of Justice Department legal memos on interrogations. In addition, they have told us your planned probe will not investigate senior Bush administration officials -- at the Justice Department, the CIA, and the White House -- who gave the green light to the "enhanced" interrogation techniques that were authorized in the memos. If that is the case, don't you risk a repeat of Abu Ghraib, in which only low-level soldiers were court-martialed and their superiors walked free, with no penalties at all?

Continue reading at Newsweek.com

Comments

[TJCole]

No Michael; it's simple the Constitution is and has been in abeyance since sometime after September 11th...200­1...

We are at best a quasi Constitutional nation and the rule of law and or 14th Amendment as well as the 4th Amendment and the 8th Amendment no longer apply universall­y...!

Simple as that...

[robert234]

Definition of American Justice: IT "DEPENDS." It works: Charles Manson, Jeffery Dhamer, Ted Bundy. It doesn't work: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld. Muderers Scoreboard: Millions to one. Free Market murder VS. Government murder----And the winner is?

[mcartri]

Reservations for Native Americans, Nuremberg Trials for Nazis and plush retirements for Bush/Cheney: Welcome to corporate owned America.

[Jannsmoor]

Karl Rove told us we would be like a third world military dictatorship if we prosecuted the Bush-Cheney bunch for war crimes.
Actually, he got it exactly 180 degrees backward.
Third world military dictatorships commit war crimes with impunity and are rarely held accountable. It is not through prosecution that we become third world like, it is by failing to prosecute we become third world like.
That is because we have always professed ourselves to be a nation of laws, not men. When we thumb our noses at the laws to benefit the powerful few, we turn our back on all our country used to stand for. I believe our founding fathers are turning in their graves to see what we're becoming.
Of course, perhaps the worst part of all this is that we have now set a precedent to allow our leaders to commit war crimes. What exactly will stop future administrations from doing as they please?
The answer is nothing but their personal moral standards, something which Republicans have shown themselves devoid of. Don't forget, in a Republican utopia, if a judge feels any empathy whatsoever for some poor 11 year old rape victim, they need to resign from the bench. And if you have no empathy, that means you have no conscience. And if you have no conscience, you have no moral standards.

[lgillooly]

over the last 4 days we listened and watched Senators question a Judge about the rule of law. The whole thing is a joke if these same Senators refuse to investigate the laws broken under the Bush administration.
I expected this hypocrisy from the Republicans,but not from Obama/Holder. I realize the massive problems left by Bush have to be dealt with, but we should not give his administration a free pass to break serious, consequential laws. Not only can the American people handle an investigation, we demand it.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant unless we don't mind the infection spreading and making us even more sick.

[WellTickleMeWillie]

America - a country of selective justice. A nation of laws that apply to some of us but not to all of us. Lady Justice has ungone eye surgey and is only partially blind and so her scales are slightly skewed to one side - the magnet It tills toward is power and money.

America, it's not your father's country anymore.

[James Croteau]

Maybe if Holder appears on one of the Sunday shows, someone will have the gum9tion to ask these questions. Some other questions would be on the so called fair trials going on at GETMO.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8153842.stm

“The US military lawyer representing Mr Binalshibh said he suffered from a deluzional dizorder. When the lawyer went into detail about how he had been deprived of sleep, her microphone was cu* o**”.

Sounds like a fair hearing to me, Not.
See nothing in HuffPost on this.

Guess the editor’s @ HuffPost see something wrong with this post. So misspelled words might get pass. Or they just don’t like the subject or don’t like the BBC? Or after 5 hours its still the one pending.

[Bobolini]

By not prosecuting any and all who violated serious laws just because "it will appear to be witch hunt" is as wrong as not prosecuting because you are sympathetic.

Obama needs to stop playing politics with issues that are not discretionary by law. If a VP orders a crime to be committed he does not deserve any more or less protection under the law than any other alleged criminal.

Political convenience is not part of the formula. Break a law - Stand trial - Go to jail if found guilty.

If Obama and Holder continue to have a flabby approach to these issues the problems will mount as more and more messy, ugly crimes float to the surface.

[django707]

Only the victors get to conduct war crimes.

If the Taliban or Iraq had defeated us, then we would have seen Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, made to answer for their crimes at their own Nuremberg trials.

That's the way the game is rigged.

[bccmeteorites]

What do you mean, "If the Taliban or Iraq had defeated us, then we would have seen......­."

The instant we resorted to human and civil rights violations, and any Judge worth an ounce of salt will tell you, that was the instant we lost the war. No doubt about it. The Pentagon spent countless millions in resources to continue to prop up a fake military incursion with "democratic underpinnings". Spreading the propaganda that we are god loving , kind, compassionate, Christians did not work this time around. The AG is having one hell of a time piecing together a tattered and torn DoJ left in the wake of being dismantled by the previous administration, as an extension of FBI and CIA operatives who's goal was to press on agenda-driven though human and civil rights abuses.

Whether you-they like it or not. When Bush administration officials were told to ignore subpoenas, it sent the signal to the public, you can do the same, because we crippled the DoJ and dismantled the Civil Rights Division, because all must be equal under the law.

[drdubski]

He needs to prosecute these people to show the International Community that we will NOT tolerate torture! If Holder doesn't prosecute we are no better than any other country that commits torture.

[learneddemocrat]

I guess I don't understand why we have to "show" the International Community. They don't care about America, unless they need money from us. Why the great concern about them?

[ColoradoCool]

I've had an awful thought in the last couple of days that I, at first, didn't want to think about because it is so counter to everything I want to believe. I'm just going to put it out there and see what anyone else thinks.

The thought I've had is that maybe, because Barack and Eric Holder are black they can't see themselves holding accountable some members of the entrenched white power establishment in Washington. Do the white guys just feel too "big" to tackle? Is that possible?

I understand that Barack feels he can't let himself be distracted from the tremendous mess left him by the Bush/Cheney criminals and incompetents but does race actually enter into his refusal to, essentially, confront a bunch of white guys with their criminal doings?

I see Barack as a brilliant, even tempered, principled, humorous, inspiring guy who is exceptionally gifted across a wide spectrum of characteristics. I don't understand his stand on refusing to support investigations and prosecutions for war crimes. Laws have been broken and the world looks down on us as being hypocrites.

I'd welcome any sincere feedback on this question. Please, forgo the snarky attacks. I'd like a discussion.

[gvnn688]

I do not think either men are afraid to hold anyone accountable but maybe concern about what the disclosures will do to the country at a time with so much already going on. Things appear to be unraveling on their own anyway. I believe they will deal with these issues. After-all they took oaths to protect and defend the Constitution.

[Annoula]

Certainly an interesting point of view. And definitely worth considering. Maybe there's something in their "collective unconcious" that makes them feel uneasy about going after the "masters of the plantation".
Regarding your paragraph:
"I don't understand his stand on refusing to support investigations and prosecutions for war crimes. Laws have been broken and the world looks down on us as being hypocrites­."
I agree 100%.
Pretty amazing, considering Obama is a former professor of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!!

[bccmeteorites]

The President and the AG know prosecution is an overwhelming task and if an independent law firm were to be hired for this would result in a money making scam for the law firm over several years and nobody going to prison for criminal wrongdoing. Many in Congress are complicit in these crimes because they and their selectively handpicked constituents benefited from military excursions overseas. If true prosecutions were to take place, massive special prisons would have to be built because of the sheer numbers of people involved. We're talking about untold numbers in Congress, military defense contractors, lobbyists, marketing firms, even law firms. It is way too big an undertaking.

Of course they could be bold do the right thing, and just go for the people at the top like they should, and the bottom (foundation) will crumble as a result.

[Emerald1943]

I have only one question for AG Holder....

why is there one set of the laws for the powerful..­..and another set for the rest of us?

What a disappointment! I am hoping he comes to his senses! We cannot reclaim our national soul unless our laws are upheld.

Attorney General Holder, do your duty!

[pterack5]

like a lot of people we really went to bat for our prez, the DOJ's inability to act on behalf of gov siegelman just about sums it all up, we are so in trouble. . .

[bccmeteorites]

I was very disappointed in Siegelman for not filing a Federal Civil RICO lawsuit for conspiracy against the Prosecutors and Karl Rove.

[terramartom]

Bring Bush and Cheney to justice for their crimes!

[goldmanemma]

"They say it isn't black or white; conveniently their grays obscure the wrong done from the right."
I love quoting my own lyrics.

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

"What someone should ask both the President and his AG is why the hell the Justice Dept. is still being run by Bush appointees?