Obama to decide today on torture memos

[Kuya]

edit: double post

[Kuya]

There's a poll on WSJ today indicating that 75% people voted would prefer the obama administration not to go any further regarding the prosecution of former bush officials. Personally, i am baffled as to what legal prosecution will accomplish when we are in the amidst of economic woes.

Wrong:

Oxdown Gazette � Huge Majority Favors Investigation of Bush Policies and Actions; Gallup Spins Poll Headline

A huge majority of Americans favors investigation of Bush administration misdeeds. However, in releasing the results of the poll, Gallup chooses to spin their headline. First, here are the findings: [click to enlarge]

On the three questions, investigating politicization of the Justice Department, warrantless wiretapping and torture, 71%, 63% and 62%, respectively, favor investigation of one sort or another.
So how did Gallup spin the result? Their headline is "No Mandate for Criminal Probes of Bush Administration". That's pretty bad spin, especially since, for all three questions, a huge majority favor investigations, and among those favoring investigations, more favor criminal probes than a "truth commission", or "independent panel" as they termed it.

I find these results fascinating. The drumbeat from the Obama Administration, the M$M and now even Senator Pat Leahy, is to "look forward" and, as Cass Sunstein would have us say, not "criminalize policy differences" while we settle for a Truth Commission over criminal investigations. Given that environment, it is astounding that on the issue of torture, fully 20% of Republicans, 39% of Independents and 51% of Democrats want criminal investigations. Can you imagine what those numbers would be if, instead of Kit Bond warning of "political firestorms" in response to criminal probes, we had daily reports on CNN and even Fox News of Binyam Mohamed having his genitals sliced with a scalpel?

American can be tough on crime, tough on drugs, tough on terror, but it can't be tough on lying, corrupt, criminal politicians? Give me a break, they're not kings or gods, they should feel the full weight of the law.

[0ni0n]

Wrong:
Oxdown Gazette � Huge Majority Favors Investigation of Bush Policies and Actions; Gallup Spins Poll Headline
American can be tough on crime, tough on drugs, tough on terror, but it can't be tough on lying, corrupt, criminal politicians? Give me a break, they're not kings or gods, they should feel the full weight of the law.

Try to read my post again, i am quoting the poll on WallStreetJournal, Business News & Financial News - The Wall Street Journal - WSJ.com, actually 85% people voted against further prosecution. How representative is the WSJ poll? I don't know.

You're being quixotic. If you think this will bring Bush and Co. to face the music, you are either uninformed of how American politic works or awfully naive. Corruption is eternal in American politics.

[Kuya]

Try to read my post again, i am quoting the poll on WallStreetJournal, Business News & Financial News - The Wall Street Journal - WSJ.com, actually 85% people voted against further prosecution. How representative is the WSJ poll? I don't know.

You're being quixotic. If you think this will bring Bush and Co. to face the music, you are either uninformed of how American politic works or awfully naive. Corruption is eternal in American politics.

What do you mean by Bush and Co? Do you have any idea how many people broke the law, and how many laws they broke? You're not being pragmatic, you're pardoning torture.

edit: by the way, the information i posted was to refute your statement that most Americans did not want investigations or prosecutions, don't be coy.

[Kuya]

Let me reiterate this:

They tortured people, they tortured innocent people, made up fake justifications for torture and lied about torturing. All of this illegal, all of it. It's not just Bush and Cheney, there's a whole bunch of people that need to be judged even if we can't get those two. Do not allow yourselves to condone torturing innocent people, don't buy into this looking forward shit, because you damn well know that if it were you they would have had your ass in jail already.

[0ni0n]

Let me reiterate this:

They tortured people, they tortured innocent people, made up fake justifications for torture and lied about torturing. All of this illegal, all of it. It's not just Bush and Cheney, there's a whole bunch of people that need to be judged even if we can't get those two. Do not allow yourselves to condone torturing innocent people, don't buy into this looking forward shit, because you damn well know that if it were you they would have had your ass in jail already.

And?

In no way am i condoning torture, but the prosecution and incarceration of Bush and Cheney is an unrealistic expectation. Some low level officials may be subpoenaed as scapegoats, that's about all you can hope for. The obama administration just doesn't have the political will to surmount the hindrance. Even if it does it won't think it's worthwhile because it will need all the support in the senate to pass his bills on healthcare, energy, education, and education reform. The continuation on this matter will only make enemies and erect opposition against obama's agenda later on.

[Kuya]

1: Bush and Cheney aren't the only ones, stop making them your bread and butter. There is Rumsfeld, Bybee, and Gonzalez, amongst others. Even if that's all we can get, then so be it. It doesn't matter if Obama makes torture illegal, a future administration can just easily make all those orders irrelevent, and they don't even need to reveal that they did. The only deterrent is investigation and prosecution.

2: Obama doesn't have to do anything, Holder is the one who can handle the investigation, and even if he can't, an independent investigation can be set up by other parties if you're so concerned over Obama's political capital. An investigation (hopefully an independent one) MUST be made, even if Bush isn't prosecuted in the end.

edit: i don't care about Obama's agenda, or the Democrats, i want the rule of law to be upheld and torturers to be punished.

[0ni0n]

An unavailing investigation is all there is if holder feels enough pressure from the populist sentiment. Rumsfeld, Bybee, and Gonzalez are out of the question. Will anyone be held accountable? I won't hold my breath.

[Demosthenes11]

1: Bush and Cheney aren't the only ones, stop making them your bread and butter. There is Rumsfeld, Bybee, and Gonzalez, amongst others. Even if that's all we can get, then so be it. It doesn't matter if Obama makes torture illegal, a future administration can just easily make all those orders irrelevent, and they don't even need to reveal that they did. The only deterrent is investigation and prosecution.

2: Obama doesn't have to do anything, Holder is the one who can handle the investigation, and even if he can't, an independent investigation can be set up by other parties if you're so concerned over Obama's political capital. An investigation (hopefully an independent one) MUST be made, even if Bush isn't prosecuted in the end.

edit: i don't care about Obama's agenda, or the Democrats, i want the rule of law to be upheld and torturers to be punished.

your hopes are WAY too high. It would be nice if politics were flowery and just, but it's not. A few people VERY low on the political totem pole might go to jail for a few months or some shit but that is really it. It's not that people don't want it or they don't deserve it, that's just how it is.

I really don't know why you are surprised

[Kuya]

Why are you talking about hopes? What hopes? Furthermore who said i am surprised? The point of the investigation is to find out what we can get.

Though looking at what's on the media, the responses are not surprising.

Karl Rove on torture prosecutions:
It is now clear that the Obama White House didn't think before it tried to appease the hard left of the Democratic Party.

Gloria Borger on Karl Rove:
When Rove speaks, the political class pays attention -- usually with good reason.
Chuck Todd on Obama's concession that the DOJ decides whether to prosecute:
There does seem to be a little bit of a reaction to how this was received on the left. . . frankly this feels like a political food fight now. . .. The hard left, the hard right, fighting over this in the blogosphere.

Chris Matthews on the same topic:
This whole torture debate is likely to tell us a lot about the kind of president Barack Obama intends to be. Will he buckle to the left, the netroots, and pursue an investigation into torture having said he didn't want to? Or will he go post-partisan and leave the past to the historians?

David Gregory on what he calls (with scare quotes) "the politics of the 'torture' debate":
What [Obama officials] got on their hands is a highly politicized and very partisan issue about the treatment of 9/11 prisoners. . . . At a time when the administration and the President will already be under scrutiny for being tough enough, is this a fight they really want to have? I would also point you to, if you haven't see this already, the Wall St. Journal Editorial Page today, which I think raises some really tough points about not only what signal you're sending to the rest of the world, but also to potential Terrorists out there, about just what it is that U.S. interrogators would do and not do, but also the point that's raised there is: did the Bush administration go out of its way to make sure they were adhering to the law and not crossing over that bridge when it came to getting into torture?

The answers are perplexing though. "We can't investigate because nothing will happen". Gee whiz, it looks like i'm talking to either, psychics or law experts.

The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates posts video of the Peggy Noonan comments and writes:
The job of journalists is to challenge the government and to challenge their readers and viewers. What sort of journalist tells his readers that some things must be mysterious? What sort of writer tells her readers, and viewers, essentially, to not ask too many questions? We have a fine era, when otherwise respected, intelligent, and well-read people step on a national stage and endorse national ignorance.

[Rhinox]

Onion. The WSJ is a pretty big Right-wing paper. It's what the NYT is to the left so I would take that poll with a grain of salt.

[Suburbanelite]

This topic is making my head explode. My lesser brain can't comprehend how the media can be so subjective and pessimistic.

[archibaldcrane]

Well if opinions can be prosecuted let's prosecute Nancy Pelosi for her concern/opinion that "they weren't doing enough". Surely people in the CIA acted upon that when they heard that.

Your failure to distinguish between the legal opinions administered by lawyers and the opinion of a layperson or even an elected official is exceptionally dense partisan hackery, even for you Swampy.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I fail to see the difference. Some lawyers gave their opinion and people acted on it. Nancy Pelosi gave her opinion and you can bet someone acted on it. What's the difference? Seems like the consistent think to do to me.

[archibaldcrane]

What was Nancy Pelosi's quote? Also, sauce. Also, your argument is fail, I just want to walk you down the road.

I believe it was something along the lines of "they aren't doing enough, they should do more". Right? Before I speculate further, give the quote and sauce it.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Basically that's what it was.

[0ni0n]

Onion. The WSJ is a pretty big Right-wing paper. It's what the NYT is to the left so I would take that poll with a grain of salt.

I realize, but if we think about it, the chance of some heavy weight political figures incarcerated over this is abysmal at best.

[archibaldcrane]

Basically that's what it was.

Awesome.

Let's break it down.

"They (who?) should do more (of what?) They (who?) aren't doing enough (of what?)."

Kiro's links point to significant successes of the FBI interrogators using rapport-building in order to get viable info that bore out successfully. Is that what "they" should have done "more of?"

Her quote is so incredibly vague, directed to noone specific, and doesn't specifically advocate violations of the law. How can you compare it to legal opinions relied directly upon by policy-makers who state that illegal things are legal, that specific people should use specific illegal torture methods on specific subjects?

They are just not comparable, and you know it. It's not "just an opinion" - it's the root upon which new secret illegal policy was based.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Just because policy was based on it doesn't suddenly mean it's not an opinion. I guess the supreme court has never had an opinion then?

And I'm sure she didn't just say that in the middle of congress one day.

[archibaldcrane]

Just because policy was based on it doesn't suddenly mean it's not an opinion.

Goddamnit. I'm not saying it's not an opinion.

What I'm saying is it's a lie.

Bush's henchmen basically said to their lawyers "we want to start torturing dudes, what can we get away with -without doing something so bad that people start getting prosecuted when found out-." The lawyers said "well, we can probably do this, and this, and some of this, and maybe 186 of these and get off scot free." Henchmen said "sweet, let's go."

The lawyers, and the henchmen, knew it was illegal. They knew they weren't properly interpreting the laws on the books. And they also knew they would get away with it.

And they were right.

This is not now, nor ever was about the law. It's about what they could get away with. They were attempting to justify the ends (possible actionable intelligence) with the means (illegal torture techniques). They calculated very nicely, and they will get away with it.

That is what this is.