It's a puzzlement . . .
Today's post attempts to assess the level of President Obama's apparent commitment
to transparency, accountability for Bush administration officials who
may have committed crimes, and adhering to the rule of law. At this
point the real truth is still puzzling. Many of us agree that Salon's Glenn Greenwald is absolutely the best on the subject. And today (2/22/09) he does not disappoint with this searing essay, "Binyam Mohamed, war crimes investigations, and American exceptionalism." To quote:
It cannot be emphasized enough that those who are arguing against criminal investigations for Bush officials are -- whether consciously or implicitly -- arguing that the U.S., alone in the world, is exempt from the laws and principles which we've been advocating and imposing on other countries for decades. There is simply no way to argue that our leaders should be immunized from criminal investigations for torture and other war crimes without believing that (a) the U.S. is and should be immune from the principles we've long demanded other nations obey and (b) we are free to ignore our treaty obligations any time it suits us.
Open to examination -- ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative journalism organization also has an excellent overview of these issues: "Obama Pauses on Changes to Terror Policies," by Christopher Weaver, 2/18/09, and an earlier article on the missing memos on 2/12/09. Still open are policies like extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention, state secrets, CIA interrogation techniques, secret legal memos. The article concludes,
With some human rights advocates charging that Obama is risking a "Bush redux," current administration officials emphasized to the Times that the policies are still under review and that dramatic changes need to be balanced with national security interests.
"The president is very sympathetic to those who want to find out what happened," Gregory Craig, the top White House lawyer told the Times, referring to a court case the former administration buried. "But he is also mindful as president of the United States not to do anything that would undermine or weaken the institution of the presidency."
Torture memos and legal ethics -- Mcjoan at Daily Kos describes the potential disclosure and sanction process as "Inching toward the truth," with the potential of big trouble for former lawyers in the Bush administration. The matter of the Office of Public Responsibility report is now under review by Attorney General Eric Holder. And the Senate Judiciary Committee is primed to investigate, and a lot of infromation is emerging already. A Michael Isikoff story in Newsweek is cited.
Karl Rove's testimony -- House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich) has subpoenaed Rove to appear for a Feb. 23 deposition on the politicization of the Bush Justice Department, according to CQ Politics (2/13/09). Politico reports that a federal appeals court has yet to agree to give the president until March 4 to decide whether to fight a judge's ruling that Bush could not use executive privilege to shield his aids from testifying before Congress. Negotiations continue.
Breaking from secrecy -- Reuters explores how far the new administration has been willing to go in ongoing civil liberties cases related to torture and rendition. The ACLU "sees troubling signs in the Obama administration," The Center for Constitutional Rights, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Steven Aftergood's "FAS Project on American Secrecy worry that "it has not been a clean break" with Bush practices. The new administration has often concurred with Bush moves in a number of court cases regarding "state secrets." People interviewed were still hopeful that this would not be a permanent trend.
"Intelligence policy: A New Perspective or Familiar Approach?" is the (2/16/09) Congressional Quarterly Politics headline. The new administration has twice invoked the state secrets privilege, talked about rendition of detainees, favored retroactive immunity for telecomunication companies who illegally spied on Americans, use of contractors to do intelligence, and holding terror suspects without trial. Spokespersons quoted in the piece emphasized that it is still very early in the administration to see how issues will finally be settled. Much is under review. And Legislators are already introducing bills that could force the Executive to follow certain practices. Senator Russ Feingold, for example, has introduced "The OLC Reporting Act," which would require the Attorney General to report to Congress when the Department of Justice issues a legal opinion that the executive branch is not bound by a statute.
CIA Oversight -- Jeff Stein, who writes Spy Talk at Congressional Quarterly, features the story of a "former CIA officer who describes retribution for whistle blowing."
CIA censors, the Publication Review Board, are looking at Greenstein's
forthcoming book with an arbitrary and heavy hand. To quote:
Ilana Sara Greenstein, a highly praised CIA operations officer for six years until quitting in disgust in 2008, says she was punished for complaining about gross mismanagement in the agency's Baghdad station, which CIA censors are still trying to suppress.
. . . she grew increasingly disenchanted with the spy agency, first during training, then a stint at headquarters, and then in Baghdad, where she alleges that discipline was lax, alcoholism common, debauchery rampant, and successful operations rare. . . Greenstein believes CIA censors singled her out for harsh treatment because "Iraq is the country in which the CIA has most glaringly failed."
. . .Greenstein, who also has a law degree from the University of Virginia, argues that authority for appointing the head of the PRB be taken away from the CIA and given to the President. One reason is that the targets of criticism themselves get to censor books and articles about them.
Official accountability -- More impatient types have called for Attorney General Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to look into wrong-doing. Others favor a nonpartisan commission. To quote from (2/18/09) Spy Talk,
a group of prominent American law enforcement, military, diplomatic, judicial and religious figures is urging President Obamato study the detention, treatment and transfer of terrorist suspects.
. . . The statement's signers include former FBI director Judge William Sessions, retired Army Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib affair, and Thomas Pickering, the career senior diplomat and former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
Other signers included Juan E. Méndez, President of the International Center for Transitional Justice and Rev. John H. Thomas, General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ. In addition, 18 leading human rights organizations endorsed the statement.
Assessing the level of President Obama's commitment is very difficult. We are on thin ice when it comes to being able to ascertain another's motivations. It will be much easier to discover what is really going on as new policies are revealed. And it is my sincere belief that the greatest thing we can do as activists to to hold the Obama administration to high standards when it comes to transparency, accountability for Bush administration officials who may have committed crimes, and adhering to the rule of law. We can do no less. And we will actually be helping in the long run.
See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.
(Cross-posted at South by Southwest)
My "creativity and dreaming" post today is at Making Good Mondays.
Technorati tags: news news and politics obama administration national intelligence national security department of justice
Once again, carol, an excellent piece of work. I am running short on time here, but felt compelled to respond to the overall tenor of your nicely documented and organized essay.
Regarding the Weaver article in ProPublica, I am left astounded at the way in which assuming the Office of the President seems to inherently warp the officeholder's sense of propriety on these "security" issues. I understand the keenly felt responsibility to protect this nation's security, but I wonder at the lack of consideration for the cost/benefit analysis of methods employed.
Frankly, these last eight years, I have sensed the greatest threat to my security as originating in our own White House (and a duplicitous Congress) rather than from some cave in Afghanistan/Pakistan. In fact, if you look at the diminished state of our Constitution; our abrogation of treaties; and even the collapse of our economy; I believe a good argument could be made that bin Laden has pretty much won the war on terror that he launched on 9/11.
Seriously, how much more could we have offered to Al Qaeda in capitulation than to set aside our principles, our Liberty, and our Constitution for the purpose of supposedly "protecting" ourselves from any further terrorist attacks. I think if you really look at the matter from this perspective, you begin to see the Orwellian "Patriot Act" to truly be the most cowardly initial response we could have offered to bin Laden's assault. And we have done little more since the passage of that despicable piece of legislation than compound the error, not unlike children huddling beneath the covers out of fear of the troll beneath our bed.
There is so much more here you have offered as jumping off points to reflect upon, but I must get busy and will therefore stop here. But I wish to reinforce your "call to action" to hold Obama's "feet to the fire":
We simply cannot allow Obama to take the "easy road" of erecting every roadblock possible against future terrorist attacks at the cost of sacrificing the Republic in the process. Instead, we must insist that we forever hold ourselves to the highest standards possible, and show by example that the fundamental principles of a democracy that protect Freedom and Liberty are absolutely non-negotiable in any circumstance.
February 22, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I co-sign every word!
And I urge you, Carol, to please keep following this!
February 22, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, TheraP. Your support makes it easier to delve into this dark side of politics.
February 22, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
As TS Eliot said:
Keep digging! Bravo!
February 22, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know it sounds dumb, but until you said this:
I never understood what might have been behind President Obama's various questionable stances. It makes perfect sense.Thanks for your, as always, thoughtful comments.
February 22, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carol, there may be a desire to protect the US, but this statement from top White House counsel Gregory Craig scares me more:
February 22, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good catch, seashell... and you are quite right in pointing out this paragraph. That statement caught my attention as well. Like, what? Obama will next erect a shrine to Cheney on the White House lawn as a tribute for all the hard work that asshat did in "strengthening" the Presidency?
Methinks THIS Administration better soon understand they were elected - in large part - precisely to take back the Presidency from its dictatorial state to a place where it's far more transparent and responsive to the citizens.
February 22, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, SJ, I think the two problems are integrated in that the former administration based protections of the Republic on the so-called unitary powers of the Presidency. As you said, the threat doesn't come from the caves of Afghanistan or Pakistan, but from the erosion of Constitutionally shared powers given wholesale, and in secret, to the White House.
February 22, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
seashell, great point. When counsels see their jobs as protecting their president's power, there is always the possibility that the effort will go overboard, to say the least. Any president. Thanks.
February 23, 2009 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
See CarolG--THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!!
Yes. And start out with Greenwald, once a voice crying out in the wilderness.
Treaties are entered into by the President of the United States WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE. Then THEY BECOME LAW. THE LAW OF THE LAND.
Whether a memo issues by a lesser mind like Gonzo or a genius like Yoo, when the 'little supreme court' of the OLC says:
Oh some of those Geneva Accords, some of the references are now passe. We have entered a NEW AGE or some such.
What in the hell is that. I remember hearing this on Cable News years ago, and I swear I dropped my coffee on the rug. If I had been on line I would have ranted for days. Because I had just found a book called Justice at Nuremberg (Not Judgement at Nuremberg at the time. I am reading about Justice Jackson and Senator Dodd's dad. I am reading about the US, the USSR, the English and the French trying to demonstrate that there is some justice in the world. Knowing that they are not going to hang millions of Germans. But that somebody has to take the fall BASED UPON EVIDENCE.
Were those hearings perfect? Of course not. Jesus Christ Almighty, even today the issue is whether Hitler or Stalin was the worst person in the world.
I think that is why I am drawn to a Truth Commission.
Do you know what happened? I do not.
Are some OLC memos going to reach the light of day?
I do not know.
But we are at a point where the rats are beginning to bite each other.
Just take the expression:
INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES or
ENHANCED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES
I like the Daily KOs--TORTURE
And the issue concerning Rove's testimony. Good stuff about Grandma Pelosi. She is screaming about this. You are not going to be able to shit on the Congress of the United States of America--not in so many words. hahahahaha Much harsher and better statements from the Speaker than Reid.
The President is taking certain positions. Feeling out the atmosphere out there--so to speak.
Which way is the wind blowing.
But the Speaker of the House has the reputation of the most important legislative body in the world; in mind.
And we are still talking about and concerned about the three branches of government. Are we under a de facto dictatorship?
Well these issues do not evaporate. If they had put Mother Theresa in charge of the OLC. The balance of powers among our three branches of government are at issue.
Secrecy. This is not an issue of: should there be secrecy in government.
Of course there should be. There has to be.
What are the perimeters? Can we really have a presidency that decides what is proper material to disseminate to the public. We knew for 8 years that the secrets that helped w and dicky c, were somehow disseminated. And we know that those facts that made them look like the lying cheating bastards they truly are, could and would not be disseminated for reasons of NATIONAL SECURITY.
Carol, this is great. Your format is perfecto.
My God, you got Sleepin jumpin all over this. TheraP will be here. We will have Q over here.
Good, good good.
February 22, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
We come back to the "character" of our leaders. Ultimately that's all we're left with. Since the system does not seem to police itself.
Here was my stab at ethical decision-making with regard to politicians. Now dated. But putting here for the record:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/10/failure-to-draw-boundaries-why.php
Especially this:
February 22, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I composed my comment below, you posted yours. I have come to look forward to reading your opinions and I lways hope that they are not too far from my own since you have such a clear, organized, and intelligent voice.
Maybe you will addrress the following. If we were to initiate a truth commission it would be possible to set up parameters and an overall strategy. We could attempt set controlled burns rather than light the forest afire trying to burn out a few, or many, weeds.
Invetigations intended to lead to prosecutions would have no "best" place to start and no raesonable place to stop. We could start in the higher ranks, like with Rumsfeldt and his cronies, and move up, or down, or in all directions. They could, and if carried to the logical extremes that a dogmatic adherence to "justice" calls for, become chaotic.
February 22, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lulu, another great metaphor. This investigation as I call for it, is along the lines you have expressed. Its not even 'the basis' for prosecution.
How was the balance of power between the three branches usurped by the executive branch?
Has too much power been given to the OLC in order to make it a mini supreme court of the land?
What exactly was the relationship between the vp's office, w's office, the AG's office, the Penatagon?
If we find out what really happened in ten or twenty basic categories; what can be done in the future to prevent abuse of power by the executive branch?
Personally? Oh personally I want the big guys in prison for what I think they did and not some corporal at Gitmo or Abu Dabi sp.
But that is not my interest in a true investigation.
I do not wish to burn down the forest.
Again, you demonstrate a facility for expressing yourself. I really like TPM.
Oh and yes the proper term is parameters.
February 22, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to see the big guys publicly flogged and then tied to a lamp post outside of a morgue in Bhagdad, but then I'm feeling kind of generous in my old age.
February 22, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahahahahaha
February 22, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your young age must have been X rated! :-)
February 22, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
DD, I am glad you are as unable to be calm and detached about all this, because I cannot either.
If I had not had a good nodding acquaintance with George Orwell, I could not have kept my sanity for these last two presidential terms. Thanks for your kind words.
February 22, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carol Gee, thanks for this. I will be going to the links you provide and maybe they will answer some of my questions. My questions stem from my fear of how this may all play out.
I must think in metaphor because that seems to be the only way I can express myself. So:
Most of the crimes we are interested in addressing revolve around our current wars. When the first indictment is handed down we can consider that as the first shot fired in another war, a civil war within the United States of America. A war between Americans who come down on different sides of an issue. A very important issue. An issue which could do much to determine the nature and future of our country. We are experiencing another buildup to a war which could have profound effects. .
As in the great Civil War, many who fight will not do it for well thought out reasons, they will just stay with the side they are on and fight. Sometimes it will pit family against family. Some will fight viciously. Some others who would cowardly send anyone else to a real shooting war they started or wanted but would never consider entering themselves, will continue to fight with words [and sometimes the pen {tube}is more powerful than the sword.] because they see that they have started a war which could actually have tangible adverse effects on them if it were to go bad or even be lost. They will literally fight for their lives. They have already proven to my satisfaction that they are willing to gamble the whole country for a bunch of bad and/or insufficient reasons. They could face jail, so they will fight with lies, intimidation, fear mongering, legalities, propaganda, delay tactics, jingoism, appeals to nationalism, appeals to [misplaced] honor, appeals to stupidity, ..............They have a huge voice and have other screamers on their side who can say ANYTHING they want, or anything they feel the need to say. Those voices have a huge following. Think of the usual suspects, Rush, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Beck, ...........
At this time the arguments for and against that civil war, are being laid out. I am convinced that we have truth on our side but lies and misinformation are being fed to the soldiers and potential soldiers of the other side to encourage them to enlist and fight hard. Many, many will. As in all wars, some on the other side are good people who are just on the wrong side.
I cannot argue against the many good reasons there are to convict the criminals of the last eight years, or ten, or fifty, but I am still of the mind that avoiding war might be the best, though certainly not the perfect, way to go. A negotiated piece with clear admissions of wrongdoing and culpability by the side that committed the crimes that threaten to start a civil war, and which would not bring about as much of the destruction and suffering of all-out war, might be a better path to try to follow. That path is strewn with obstacles and danger too, but it might be the better one, maybe only the most pragmatic one, to pursue, even if we cannot know with any certainty where it will lead.
Maybe I am just being cowardly, I am trying to answer that question honestly for myself, I am trying not to be dogmatic. One of the factors in my equation is that I feel that now is a very bad time, even worse than usual, for our country to begin a civil war.
February 22, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good take Lulu. Everything you bring up is a pressing issue.
Right now anyway, the conclusion is less important than the discussion. Maybe I am a coward.
Another side of me is in the Bugliosi camp. To think of w sipping on martini's and living the life of a millionaire and never answering for his actions.
I will say this twenty times over the next couple of weeks, but
I DO WISH TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.
February 22, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lulu, your cautious approach makes sense for several reasons: the last 8 years has been overly polarized politically. A "civil war" that puts the torch to the cities of the other side would not be useful. Though my primitive part would like to see the malefactors do the perp walk and spend jail time, other measures could also set the country right.
And it sounds like that is the consensus here, the country needs something to set it right, something restorative, even if it is mostly ceremonial. And as many have lamented, what actually happened? We must find out that at least. I don't think we'll really move forward unless repairative measures are taken.
Lulu, it is not cowardly to aspire to do the least harm, in my opinion. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
February 22, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lulu, is this what you are talking about:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/eades/2009/02/glenn-beck-spreads-fear-with-t.php
February 22, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like a restrained warm up. When they get going I expect frothy mouths and pounding on the desk while making pleas to God almighty, his own self.
February 22, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why am I an impatient type for calling for an independent prosecutor?
I view that process as very long term. And I see no reason why an independent prosecutor cannot be, yes, impartial. With regard to the law.
February 22, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I missed your point TheraP.
An independent prosecutor, is not anathema to me. Others back your idea because they are worried about Statutes of Limitations at work here.
S/Ls are an attorney's dream. Many of them do not even begin to 'toll' after discovery of the 'crime'.
I think a truth commission, and an independent prosecutor are not conflicting ideas or actions.
My point here is that many favor immediate action because of issue surround statutes of limitations.
And those 'many' would and do support your position and would argue that you are not impatient at all.
February 22, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Carol's post, she referred to those who want an independent prosecutor as "impatient." Look above near the end.
February 22, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh CarolG, I just hit your Mondays. The first picture, 1826.
I get so excited to see a planet in another solar system.
But I get just as excited looking at this. And it is almost like an impressionist's take. Manet, Monet.
I know this is off subject here, but I do talk about photos. hahahahahaha
How delightful.
EVERYBODY HIT CAROLG's MONDAYS!!!!!
February 22, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw shucks, DD. Glad you liked the pic. There is such a haunting quality about it, as if it is inhabited by ghosts.
I'm going to do one soon on the cave paintings in France, as a result of a friend's comment.
Thanks for the free advertising. :-)
February 22, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have many problems with the articles published at ProPublica. ProPublica's contributors far too often seem to not actually be reporting news, but instead attempt to prove initial premises with a less than complete investigation. It is common to find deceptive hyperlinking in these articles. The article you linked to is not an exception.
The article says appointees (plural), yet links to a NY Times article about Panetta only, and is a far cry from "open doors to President Bush’s policies". What Panetta said is that it is possible that exceptions requiring immediacy could arise in which he'd lobby for presidential approval of interrogation techniques that went beyond what the official policy allows. Torture used in interrogations was the official policy of The Bush Administration, whereas Panetta was stating he could conceive of improbable instances requiring an exception to the official interrogation policy of no torture. From The NY Times article:
What's so Bush-like about this? The Charlie Savage article is troubling, but is still not the evidence many believe it to be. The fact that Savage was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in the past has little bearing upon the veracity of this article, and the hyperlink to his award announcement was a deceptive attempt to provide the ProPublica article's assertions more credibility.
"Renditions", and "Extraordinary Renditions" are two different procedures, and this need be better understood. There is nothing inherently unlawful or immoral about renditions. If the US military were to capture an individual in Afghanistan who was indicted on terrorism charges in Germany, then transparently rendered the person to the German authorities, this would be proper. Renditions are both immoral and unlawful, when the country persons are rendered to are known violators of human rights, or is done secretly in an effort to detain them, away from public scrutiny. International Human Rights Activist attorney, and Harpers Magazine contributor, Scott Horton, has recently noted the differences. One - Two
The ProPublica article also stated:
A really artful-dodging of Kagen's actual testimony given during the Senate Judiciary Committee's nomination hearing on February 10, 2009. In his questions directed to Kagen, Sen. Lindsey Graham asked her if she was in agreement with Holder's assessment of a right to hold suspected al Qaida financiers as enemy combatants indefinitely without trial. Graham had also qualified the question by stating the enemy combatant determinations adhered to Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to POWs, and stated his belief that this necessary step, which according to the Convention is made in a legitimate tribunal process, should be both completely public and afford the individuals due process. Kagen simply answered in the affirmative. ProPublica greatly stretched the truth about this. I didn't locate an online transcript for the hearing in a quick search, but just got done ripping the segment from CSPAN and uploading it to YouTube:
http:⁄⁄www.youtube.com⁄watch?v=rTISfa7Wybc
February 23, 2009 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pseudo, another fine little bit of research. I did not even know you could 'rip' something from CSPAN and then put it on Utube.
“We can protect this country, we can get the information we need, we can provide for the security of the American people and we can abide by the law,” Mr. Panetta said. “I’m absolutely convinced that we can do that.”
You also allay some of my worst fears. Well done.
February 23, 2009 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's seems to be a problem with YouTube today though. My account shows the video has been uploaded, but many hours later is still being processed by them. I can link to almost the same video segment directly at CSPAN though, but you must have pop-ups enabled for CSPAN for the link to work.
Try this
February 23, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
PCA, A great contribution. Thanks for your very well-done research.
You remind me, necessarily, to be skeptical and check out things. I had a similar problem with Politico. The have a slightly rightward tilt I didn't discover for a while.
I like the premise of ProPublica very much. But anyone can get caught up in the "Investigative Journalism" mission, which is perhaps the case here.
TPM Muckraker lost their Paul Kiel to ProPublica, BTW, as you probably remember.
February 23, 2009 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
No accountability = unlimited power.
Where government creates, through whatever method or circumstance, a condition that unmistakably harms the nation then citizens must be assured that there will be a way to redress that harm.
We know the political calculus prevents this.
This means it has come to the point where we must change our system of governance.
And there can be no excusing major fuckups. Our government has exceedingly vast resources that in no way imposes any limits upon the ability to execute.
Success has to be a required imperative and where there is failure, there must be accountability.
February 23, 2009 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have reminded us of the absolute central point about which we are upset -- accountability. Thanks.
February 23, 2009 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink