OPR Report: Most media got story wrong! (Update III)
*Absence of Evidence is not evidence of absence*
Here's what the NY Times has to say about the OPR Report:
Interrogation Memos: Inquiry Suggests No Charges
A draft of a Justice Department report found serious errors of judgment in secret memos authorizing brutal interrogations, but opposed prosecuting the authors.
An internal Justice Department inquiry has concluded that Bush administration lawyers committed serious lapses of judgment in writing secret memorandums authorizing brutal interrogations but that they should not be prosecuted, according to government officials briefed on its findings.
The report by the Office of Professional Responsibility, an internal ethics unit within the Justice Department, is also likely to ask state bar associations to consider possible disciplinary action, which could include reprimands or even disbarment, for some of the lawyers involved in writing the legal opinions, the officials said.
But here's what I found by poking around on my own, making use of information available via DoJ's own departments, including its own policies and procedures:
Based on my reading (IANAL) of the Policies and Procedures of the Office of Professional Responsibility, OPR does not investigate crimes but instead investigates ONLY the:
professional ethics, competence or integrity of a Department attorney
If OPR does find "professional misconduct, it appears to have ONLY three options available as "penalties":
- Section 10. Formal Disciplinary Action (within DoJ itself)
- Section 11. Referral of Findings of Professional Misconduct to Bar Disciplinary Authorities
- Section 12. Public Disclosure of OPR Findings
The option of referral for prosecution does not appear to be available under OPR Policies and Procedures.
The DoJ office which does criminal investigations within the Dept of Justice appears to be the Office of the Inspector General. Based upon this office's press releases, they appear to do lots of in-house investigations and prosecutions.
Thus, it would appear to me that media coverage of this issue has
been misleading to an extreme. For I find no evidence that OPR itself
can refer for prosecution.
Seems to me this leaves the door still open for referral of this matter to the Office of the Inspector General. The Investigations Division of OIG has this duty:
[It] investigates alleged violations of fraud, abuse and integrity laws that govern DOJ employees, operations, grantees and contractors. Investigations Division Special Agents develop cases for criminal prosecution and civil or administrative action.
__________________________________
Update I:
The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility was originally created as the watchdog in charge of investigating DOJ misconduct because of the criminal role the Justice Department played in Watergate. But over the years they have become less of a watchdog and more and more of a tool for politically motivated Attorney Generals to use in order to downplay misconduct at the Justice Dept. If you really want to get to the bottom of DOJ misconduct you assign the investigation to the DOJ's Inspector General, but if you want to give the illusion of an investigation you give it to the OPR.
Update II:
According to Jason Leopold (Comment # 98 here):
Bush officials were calling reporters yesterday to say "did you hear the report doesn't recommend prosecution or criminal charges." The leaks about the report came from ex-Bush officials and they deliberately spun it to change the debate to say "no crimes were committed." If you look at Jarret's letter from last year to Whitehouse and Durbin, he makes it clear what the scope of his investigation had been all along:"[We are] examining whether the legal advice contained in those memoranda was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys."
And on top of that, the report doesn't even say "we don't recommend you pursue criminal charges/investigation/prosecution.
Update III:
It is distressing to report that due to the actions of one Senator, last April, the ability of the DoJ Inspector General, to investigate crimes related to what OLC attorneys did, was eviscerated from legislation "designed to boost the independence of the inspectors general of various federal agencies."
The Justice Department's OIG must now refer allegations against department officials to the department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which is not statutorily independent and reports directly to the attorney general and deputy attorney general.
The whole sorry tale can be read in timeline sequence here. And the offending Senator was Jon Kyle (R-AZ).
[This update via Mary at emptywheel, Comment # 109. Well worth the read for her useful analysis. Also see Mary's Comment # 125 for legal avenues to follow.]
Mary suggests a Special Prosecutor is now the option of choice.
















See Comment # 83 (by Mary) on this emptywheel thread, which confirms my own reading of OPR's responsibilities and limits:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/06/the-opr-report-why-no-sanctions-for-bradbury/#Respond
For example:
May 6, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your keyboard to God's ear, TP.
May 6, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. What is up with the media? Why aren't they shouting 'conflict of interest' in any case when the Bush DOJ investigates the Bush DOJ. I did not understand the scope of the OPR investigation and now it even seems more ridiculous that the media is giving so much power and authority to the report.
My understanding is that this report was already watered down before Bush left office. Not sure why they would need to water it down more.
Bottom line... there must be accountability and we must demand it no matter what a Bush DOJ OPR investigating itself does or does not say.
May 6, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just updated this and the update (and link) should answer that question somewhat. But yes, this is terribly worrisome, when we can't trust the press or the networks to do their homework!
I so agree that we must demand accountability. And we must get out in front of this before it's all been "defined" away - as if that report could stop We the People from insisting on The Rule of Law.
May 6, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, NPR got it right last night: I heard Ari Shapiro clarify the point about investigating ethical behavior and not criminal behavior on ATC.
May 6, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that, Schmedley. Very hopeful sign! Actually, I think I heard that report too. But I was upset that the Times and the WaPo and so many others have given this a false twist.
May 6, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've updated the title to take that into account! (only fair to give credit when due)
Perhaps we should count who else gives the correct info on this story!
May 6, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bring on the Inspector General!
May 6, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That needs to be the rallying cry, Gregor!
May 6, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
See update III above - for an amendment. Not sure what we'll amend. But it looks like a Special Prosecutor is the only way to go now!
May 6, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey TheraP,
I see that NPR got it right but I think it's a good idea if we write to some people and try to get someone in the MSM to write and expose on the reality of the OPR and its report before it gets released. I wrote to Josh, scoop@huffpost, and the rachel maddow show about this and posted a link to your blog in my email. I am going to try some bigger more mainstream names... If we get one talking about it, another will, and it will water down the power being assigned to this report that may be 'watered down' on arrival anyway.
May 6, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for you! I know you're a person who likes to do concrete things to get the word out. And it's just a matter of moving the story up.
May 6, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I can do is state that I am agreement with you and your commenters.
It is just that if you acted in a criminal matter you are in violation of the Rules of Professional
Responsibility, automatically.
But their standards of investigation do not include proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
May 6, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That makes total sense. Illegal = unethical as well.
So, then the question is what specifics are in the report? And what else might be there that would give leads a prosecutor could follow? Because the whole "investigation" may have been circumscribed due to the nature of the investigating office.
I bet there are a lot of loose strings that could yet be pulled here. Indeed, the scope of what really happened seems to get wider by the day, including people who died under torture or people who were outright murdered.
I'll look for the links on that, because I read some stuff just today.
In other words, these OLC lawyers may have laid the ground work for murder by defining torture as akin to organ failure. Isn't organ failure the purpose of murder anyway? So, then, what would be the reason to have a work like torture, if all it really meant was murder? And they opened the door to so much bad stuff, that it just got worse and worse.
Today, I read that at Guantanamo, a detainee was viewed wrapped in an Israeli flag - that in connection with the possibility that Israel was also providing pointers for how to humiliate these people:
http://www.humanrightsblog.org/archives/003250.html
Above link via Comment # 29 from an emptywheel post on Feith's connection with torture (as part of his intel "duties"):
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/05/dougie-feiths-little-shop-of-tortures/
It's Off Topic in terms of the DoJ lawyers, but it's part and parcel of what they authorized, but as a psychiatrist testified about his experience at Guantanamo (see emptywheel link above):
May 6, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hold on now! If Lindy Englund (sp?) had disobeyed a direct order (illegal behavior) and not abused detainees (ethical) would that disprove the theory that illegal = unethical?
red-herrings-r-us ;-)
May 6, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I accept your rebuttal! I am very appreciative for that. You are absolutely correct. If a law is unjust, if an order is contrary to law - or one's conscience - then the ethical thing is do the illegal or ostensibly illegal thing.
Thank you, ClosetLuddite, for the reminder!
It's so easy to err. And thank god for helpful TPM folk, who catch us and set us straight!
Kudos, my friend! I salute you! And your Closet!
May 6, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Dick, but the point of the post still stands: that the OPR does not prosecute or recommend criminal prosecution and is politicized anyway. IOW, the OPR may find actions unethical because they're criminal, but they're not dealing with them as criminal matters. This was left out of media reports misleading readers into thinking the lawyers were exonerated and that the DoJ is saying no further investigations into illegality are warranted.
TheraP, you're so polite, cool-headed and evenhanded in your writings, but sometimes you are a pit bull (relentless and lethal). Meant as a compliment, of ocurse. Thanks, great catch again.
May 6, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've pegged me well. ;)
May 6, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or perhaps a bloodhound. The skull is high and prominent, the eyes set deeply in their sockets. The hair is soft on the skull and ears, the coat easy to care for. The Bloodhound is a kind, patient, noble, mild-mannered and lovable dog. Affectionate and excellent with children, this is truly a good-natured companion but do not expect too much by way of obedience from this gentle dog. Tends to lose shoes, but let her catch a whiff of something foul and she is on the trail - not for the kill but for the hunt! Not her fault if someone is embarrassed to have her explore the source of the stench. Howwwl! Howwwl!
May 9, 2009 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to add something to the quagmire. Look, if it is found that there is reasonable cause to believe that an attorney has violated the Professional Rules of Conduct, then a referral is made, a recommendation is made, to go forward with a hearing.
A state board might act. These attorneys have licenses in several states most of the time.
But for the purpose of these HEARINGS, THE CHARGES DO NOT HAVE TO BE PROVEN BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT.
Does that make sense?
The Inspector General can carry on an investigation and issue criminal charges against an individual attorney.
But it takes a jury to convict and the standard is reasonable doubt.
May 6, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
DD I just don't understand how any branch of the government can be responsible for investigating itself and I also don't understand what we do in a situation where members of every branch of government have been implicated in potential crimes? I don't understand what is an appropriate course of action with such a serious matter as this?
May 6, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well my understanding was that the GAO was supposed to be 'independent'. Bush actually had some problems with them.
The Inspector General is supposed to be 'independent'
You know like in the cop shows where there is always a separate department to watch the cops.
The Board of Professional Responsibility is supposed to be independent on the Fed level and the state levels. And their only jurisdiction surrounds the licensing of attorneys. Nothing else.
But there is always a problems with quid pro quos between government agencies and individuals within those agencies.
But why did Clinton get a nazi like Ken Starr and an 'INDEPENDENT COUNSEL'.
Hell, hire Bugliosi as independent counsel. HA
NOW THAT WOULD BE FUN.
May 7, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I got it the first time. According to their guidelines, OPR can do the following if they have determined professional misconduct:
May 6, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Versus if it's criminal, there's a higher standard of proof and stiffer penalties of course.
May 6, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The quote above is from the Report of the Armed Services Committee, the one that's nearly 400 pages long and investigated abuses at military facilities.
May 6, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It always bthers me when litigation is avoided by the suggestion one would lose. Can't win if you don't play. Go fight that battle. It needs fighting. At the end of the day, OJ got off but the world knows OJ killed his ex-wife and her friend. Fine, our courts are so judicious as to refrain from sending a man to jail because he might be innocnet, or maybe his rights were violated. Good for us! But the trial was a necessary performance and while justice may not have been served, the truth was outed. That is not a complete defeat.
May 7, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP I admire your perseverance on this torture issue.
I tend to have one powerful reflexive feeling about the U.S. government lately--it is grossly corrupt to the core. Corporate interests rein supreme. The media is corporate sponsored, and with the selling of the war, we were a free country under the influence of state-sponsored media.
I will take Obama's leadership over Republican leadership any day. But I can't tolerate the concept of selective justice. We either have an unwavering rule of law to which everyone, regardless of position or circumstance, is held to account, or we
don't.
Shouldn't the judicial branch be the most powerful branch of government in the land?
Maybe it should be separate from government altogether. After all, congress and the pentagon are essentially corporate-owned enterprises.
Reports will continue to be watered down, they will continue to get exposure, continue to be distorted by media of course, but I feel these reports and talk of truth commissions and such are simply meant to stave off the appetite of an angry public--not to make things right.
I am not proud of either party right now. Ask yourself this--aside from Obama, do you think Democrats could stand on their own? Do you see a bevy of powerful objective reasonable progressive leaders that could take the ball and run with it if they had to?
May 6, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
tpmgary, that is such an accurate picture of what we're seeing. And I often wonder whether our Republic will survive, whether it is already mortally wounded, whether the Constitution is fatally flawed - or the electorate fatally ignorant. Nevertheless, I am an optimist at heart and I will doggedly pursue this as long as I have breath, in hopes of leaving our nation better than it is at the moment. There is enough shame to go around in govt, that's for sure. At the same time, we have faithful public servants, both elected and appointed. And I also have my hope in enlightened citizens and bloggers.
Thanks for the reality check.
I'll close with the words of WilliamOckham over at emptywheel today:
May 6, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
WO, quoted above, referenced this article of Scott Horton's:
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/05/hbc-90004897
Essential Reading! And not long. Please take a look.
I quote from the end of it:
May 6, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for the link, and the infectious optimism. A little tangent here, but something to ponder. I think a politician's durability right now, whether newly elected or serving concurrent terms, is not as sure a thing as it used to be. More people are tuned in, more people are acutely aware of positions some take during an election on certain issues and their actions once they get into office.
If Obama and the Democrats cave on issues, or can't at least stand up for the rule of law, or won't allow single payer healthcare advocates to even make their case in hearings, for example, I'm not the only one who is more than ready to cast a vote for someone who will.
May 6, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rule of Law is #1. Without that, our govt is a joke! Obama upsets me when he wants us to put things behind us. I'm hoping and praying, first for Holder. And failing that, for international pressure. I don't think the Europeans will put this behind them. The Spanish are going forward, unless we give powerful assurances that we're ready to get the job done and obey our obligation to investigate and prosecute war crimes.
You're a good moral voice here, Gary. And I'm proud to stand by your side.
May 6, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
howdy TheraP !
just found your link to this post over at Empty's place.
we are tracking one another - as I spent time reading the same OPR material yesterday.
as the news broke, my head was about to explode like everyone else's and then I saw this comment - http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/05/more-on-the-field-trip-to-gitmo/#comment-154388
who else but the treasure that is Mary.
it put everything, including the media's bs in to perspective for me. I see from this morning's thread she fleshed it out even more.
I also concur with William Ockham, this is one step closer and it keeps the story out there.
now to read your post!
May 6, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to you, I finally figured out how to link with comments there. Doh...
I doubt you learned much from what I've written. Most of it was taken from that comment I did over there this morning. Adding the Times quotes and the updates. But thanks for reading....
May 6, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
More on this here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/pressure-increases-on-tor_n_197764.html
Forgive me, I'm too tired to do another update right now. (Maybe later...)
Excellent article. Lots on how Yoo has tried to protect himself from prosecution.
May 6, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
p.s. TheraP, I am cbl over at EW's place
May 6, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! Eversomuch. Solidarity in the struggle!
May 6, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lookee here! Salt Lake City Tribune thinks Bybee should retire. Big news as Bybee is a Mormon! Could be they have determined he's not a good example of a Mormon:
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12301236
May 6, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Their conclusion does not pull punches:
May 6, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post and important!
Isikoff was on Rachel Maddow last night and pointed out this very distiniction between OPR and the criminal division which is important.
Remember, the entire Bush tyranny ran on and was sustained by the proposition that if you win the PR war, you win. Perception is reality. Their purpose in working the media early on the report is to try and stampede Holder and Obama into simply doing nothing in response to this report other than perhaps refer the matter to state bar associations and then wash their hands of it, at least insofar as the torture memos are concerned.
Once again, the party of criminality and immorality are being more deft, more nimble, and more skilled in attempting to frame the issue here than the Democrats. This is true in part because of the lack of clarity on the part of Democrats on the whole torture issue whether legal, moral or political. The lack of direction and moral ambiguity of the administration necessarily cedes a large part of the field to the torturers.
Prof. Turely pointed out on Olbermann last night how specious is the entire "investigation" into this matter thus far and it really is. He pointed out that it outrageous that it has taken 5 years to produce this report and that the very idea that the DOJ can properly and appropriately and ethically investigate itself, let alone it's own ethics office (which is what OLC is) is utterly absurd. I must say I agree.
This entire thing is being deliberately mishandled and muddled by Washington. Thus far, most everything set in motion has been a Bush production. Very soon we will find out if the portion of this melodrama that is to be directed under Obama's watch will be done in a professional manner or a political manner as everything was done under the Bush tyranny.
Given what we've seen thus far, I remain highly skeptical of the administration and what it will do. I hope they do the right thing, but I see no evidence to indicate that it will. I acknowledge they've not yet slammed the door shut, but there's been nothing said by any administration official that provides any positive hope, thus there simply is no real reason to believe, at this point in time, the politics will not prevail. And the politics we're talking about here is the worst sort I might add and the least justifiable given the issue and it's gravity.
May 6, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my hope, oleeb. If Holder fails to appoint a Special Prosecutor, I'm counting on international outrage. I'm counting on that Polish prosecutor who's looking into that black site where people were tortured. I'm counting on Garzon in Spain and the Spaniards who know of detention and torture and murder within their lifetimes. I'm counting on the EU itself. I'm hoping the weight of international outrage will dog Obama at every step, unless the wheels of Justice begin to turn in earnest.
That's what I'm counting on. I'll do my best. You'll do your best. We'll call for Holder to stand up and Obama to recognize his duty not to stand in the way. But in the end, I'm counting on the fact that there is no statute of limitations for war crimes. And that international justice will do it for us if we are too cowardly to face this on our own.
You can see that the repubs and the criminals did their best to undo the wheels of justice. You can see them weaseling their way into how the press crafts the issues. But at the same time, I sense fear on the part of those who did wrong. I sense defensiveness. I sense that they know they are on the wrong side of history.
I didn't want to write this blog. I had most of the info last night. I just wanted to do that fun blog that I wrote this morning. But when I did not see the battle engaged on this issue here at TPM, I felt compelled to take the time. For the very reasons you mention. That it's important to try and seize how events are perceived. And what galled me more than anything was to wake up this morning, see my NY Times, and feel they had not done their legwork - they had not checked their facts. And I, without all the expertise and time and assistance their reporters have, had a better understanding of the OPR than they seemed to have. Ok, I hadn't bargained on this evisceration of the DoJ-IG's powers last year. By rights that office could have prosecuted.
But we're making progress, I think. If Linsey Graham fears the power of bloggers, we are making progress!
May 6, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct that they are scared as well they should be. I think they care much less what side of history they are on than they do what side of the bars they are on.
The crminals always understand full well the consiquences of their crimes if prosecuted.
The Republicans are a very interesting and predictable group in many ways. For example, whenever they go off (as they so often do) and become virulent out of all proportion to whatever the Democrats are doing you can bet they are terrified that the Democrats may actually do something. It's always a sure sign of what the Democrats ought to be doing. Fortunately for the Republicans and unfortunately for the nation, the Democrats typically are so scared of their own shadow that when the Republicans start foaming at the mouth and threatening to get "really, really" mad if the Democrats dare do anything that, after they finish wetting their pants in abject fear, they dutifully do as the Republicans command.
Thus far, since the Republicans have lost power, we are seeing over and over a repetition of this startlingly dangerous, dysfunctional pattern of behavior on the part of both parties. the pattern of behavior has become so destructive over the course of time that it now threatens the very idea of the rule of law itself via the torture issue. And make no mistake, the rule of law is the central issue. This is especially disappointing with respect to the President and his administration though one cannot be too surprised. A leopard can't change it's spots after all and the DC Democrats are still the same timorous crowd of weaklings they were before last year's election.
But look at what is happening currently and you can see the dysfunctional pattern of behavior all over the political landscape of the capitol. On the torture issue it couldn't be clearer that these crimes occured, that they were sanctioned by the President, his inner circle and his most powerful appointees on down the line. The law is very clear. There must be investigations and prosecutions where warranted. No question about this. But what is happening?
The Republicans have let it be known that any even cursory investigation into the highly illegal activities of the Republican regime will bring Washington down in flames due to "partisanship" let alone prosecution of those responsible for the development and implementation of the criminal enterprise known as the Bush era torture program. Democrats, like a long battered prisoner with no hope of escape then immediately begin to dutifully comply and announce right off the bat that nobody who engaged in this highly illegal criminal activity in the CIA would be investigated or prosecuted because they did it "in good faith" and the administration holds fast to the notion of not prosecuting "policy disputes" as though breaking the law is a legitmate policy that is defensible. The Republicans do this because they know full well they are guilty and are terrified they may be held responsible for their crimes and so they immediately threaten the Democrats with political armegeddon for even thinking about enforcing the law. Terrified Democrats respond by cowering and backing away from their responsibility while trying to save face. It's absurd, yet it is exactly the dysfunctional pattern we have seen (and been the victims of) over and over again.
On health care, the Republicans let it be known that any genuine effort to reform health care in this country will be met with such fury and megadeath that once again, Washington will burn in the partisan fires stirred up by those nasty liberals and for good measure they wag their fingers at the Democrats and scream that single payer is not even to be discussed in any form or else!!!! Why do they do this? Well, they understand that if the Democrats actually tried to represent the interests of the people (which is what they bamaboozle people into thinking every couple of years) there's a damn good chance we'd end up with some form of single payer health care like every other civilized country on earth and they don't want that. God forbid! So they threaten the cowardly Democrats who dutifully obey their orders (out of fear and weakness)and both the new President and numerous Senators make it clear that the only subject up for debate will be some form of subsidy program for private insurance (which will be of little help to the average American but a prospect for huge profits for the insurance companies) instead of even any discussion of the actual options we have as a nation--the chief option being single payer. Once again, the same dysfunctional pattern of behavior on the part of both parties.
On the economy we see Republicans raising hell over the stimulus bill and the President's budget which will plunge the nation into irretrievable debt because it costs about 3 trillion dollars altogether. They threaten to adopt a scorched earth policy that will leave Washington in ruins if Democrats continue down this profligate path of "governemnt spending". They do this because they are terrified that if Democrats actually follow through on their promises to attend to the needs of the nation and not just of the rich that the Republican Party will never regain power and they are absolutely correct! So, dutifully, Democrats modify the stimulus package, cut back on the budget, etc... to mollify the Republicans who, naturally, will never be mollified. Democrats also start hesitating about the budget and whether we can really afford to start taking care of our basic infrastructure, the schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, and so on. Meanwhile the Republicans say nothing about the tens of trillions of dollars being literally handed over to Wall Street's crooked rulers with no strings attached. It's unlmited, free money for the biggest con-men and fraudsters that ever lived! And the welfare for Wall Street program dwarfs anything being borrowed to pay for the budget or stimulus. Democrats do this to demonstrate that the Republican Party isn't the only party capable of prostituting itself to the rich and powerful at the expense of the common man even while Republicans claim the Democrats are wanting to impose a socialist state upon the people.
I think this illustrates the pattern we have been seeing, but getting back to torture specifically, I agree with you TheraP that we should all continue applying whatever pressure we can on the subject. I do believe there will be continued international pressure applied as well and I'm glad of it.
But I think the thing that will be required to keep the torture issue on the front burner and to really hold the feet of the administration to the fire (sorry for the torture allusion)is for there to be ongoing, direct action that forces the question and that exposes the administration and the Democratic Party's hypocritical efforts to sweep the issue under the rug. Otherwise, that is almost surely what is going to happen. At least, there is no reason to believe, thus far, that they will not succeed in sweeping it under the rug barring ongoing intervention of the public and the international community in demanding the US government do it's duty and carry out the law.
May 7, 2009 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You point to what I see as the central issue as well:
Everything else comes into this. It's like the axel around which everything revolves. Once you destroy that or undermine it, you have hobbled a necessary instrument for a free society.
I too am extremely troubled by the way that health care is being herded into a corral where the insurance companies are waiting to prey upon us. So I may have to turn my attention that way again - very soon.
Peace be with you, oleeb. Namaste.
May 7, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the rule of law is the issue.
Tactically speaking though we have a major problem in that the party we are all relying on to preserve, protect and defend the rule of law clearly does not have the courage of its convictions and is reticent, at best, to step up to the plate. That disturbing dysfunctional behavior DC Democrats engage in is the biggest hurdle we face with respect to just about every issue including very importantly the rule of law issue with respect to the Bush torture program. They seem unwilling to really fight for anything they claim to believe in when it counts. All of them promise to fight for health care for all, for ending the war, for taking effective action on climate change, etc... But once the election is over they immediately revert to their usual pattern of selling out their constituency.
It is at times like this, when they have all the votes they theoretically need when the DC Democrats are revealed for the liars and hypocrites they often are. In fairness, it isn't all of them, but it is always enough of them to thwart progress and progressive legislation and policies.
This pattern of betrayal has been going on since Truman was President. He complained bitterly about the "Republicats" who stood in his way on domestic issues across the board most notably on his national health insurance plan. Personally, I think the nation has tolerated enough of this and it is time to start not only calling out the Democrats who choose to take the campaign cash and comfort of the support of the rich and powerful over doing the right thing and it is time to make sure they routinely have primary challenges. No doubt the Republicans suck and are much worse than the Democrats on every issue, but if we honestly assess why progressive policies fail it is almost always because of the number of Democrats who undermine and derail progress in alliance with the Republicans.
One of the biggest reasons Benedict Arnold Democrats like Baucus, Nelson and others betray Democratic principles and programs is because they pay no price for doing so. They carry the water for the rich and powerful to avoid being put out of office. If real Democrats start demonstrating their ability to put them out of office too, then the DINO's will at least no longer be able to betray the party and the people without ever facing any consequences.
May 7, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I agree we are not seeing what we want to see from our elected reps, with exceptions. Like Feingold who does not take money from special interests.
Nevertheless, I think we have to place responsibility on the voters as well. Plus the concept of corporate citizens. Since the corporations can pay people to do their lobbying for them, while many citizens lack the time or the drive to educate themselves on the issues - the corporations too often drive the message about almost any kind of legislation.
It would be easier if we could just simply blame the dems or the dem reps.
Good discussion here!
May 7, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
We basically agree, but I'm arguing that in addition to the responsibilities we have as citizens that we have to be honest with ourselves that a good portion of the Democrats are nothing but lying, hypocritical politicians out for themselves and it is those politicians that stand in the way of doing what is right a great deal of the time. Those Democratic pols are the property of the special interests that have limitless funds. Everyone expects the Republicans to be the tools of those interests, and I think many Democrats fool themselves into thinking our party is not plagued with the same corrupt, self-serving sorts of individuals who have simply found it convenient or in their personal best interest to run as Democrats.
May 7, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
My sense, oleeb, something I concluded in Jr High, is that politicians, as a group, are bad news. I just had this sense that the kind of people drawn to politics, in general, are not people I respect. Again, I think there are some good ones. But to imagine you could start any party and not end up with politicians - at least in this country - is a fiction. I'm glad there are some we can respect.
So, rather than blame "Dems" I simply stick to the issues and advocate what is right. And I'm not sure what it accomplishes to "blame Dems" - they're mostly better than the alternative, even if they are pols.
May 7, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't blame them. They are what they, but this lot claims to be something they aren't: for the people.
I want to hold them responsible for their actions. I want Democrats to be able to understand why it is Democrats almost always fail to deliver on their promises. It is because of a certain kind of Democrat, not all of them. It isn't difficult to discern who they are. Once identified, then people need to work to either get them to do the right thing (which almost never works) or replace them. I'm for dispensing of the beating the dead horse of getting them to do right and just finding replacements.
May 7, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice find TheraP!
As good as one of those "Blue Ribbon panel" commissions the Senate or the House would use to sweep crimes under the rug...
May 6, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've written a lot to others just now. My hope is in the lack of a statute of limitations for war crimes and international outrage, combined with international investigations and prosecutions. One or another this will end up in Court. It's not an internal matter - not when war crimes have occurred.
May 6, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know if you caught this from NPR TheraP (considering your interest in the psych aspect thought I'd link it):
May 6, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I caught the whole interview. And became increasingly outraged as it went on. There was a great blog on that here:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/05/05/military-psychologist-justifies-torture-through-shallow-24-utilitarianism/
To which I wrote a comment:
May 7, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
That comment reads as if I selfishly care only about my profession, but as anyone who reads here knows, I've tirelessly written against torture. This, however, was a comment sparked by the post to which it responded.
And I recommend that post for its good presentation of the facts.
May 7, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think your comment sounds selfish at all, Thera. It was a good post. The one thing that caught my attention (I didn't hear the interview, just read it) was this:
"James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, are the psychologists who originally proposed applying the harsh tactics used in SERE training to detainees held by the United States government."
I knew they "pioneered" the reverse SERE program of interrogation for the DOD, But I didn't know (or had forgotten) that they took it to the DOD. This gives rise to the same question I asked in a blog a few weeks back- would we have used the same barbaric historical torture methods on these detainees if these "doctors" had not brought them in (not realizing they were the same torture methods of our enemies for ages)?
May 7, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Thera. I say so humbly, without you and rowan and cyants and seashell and everyone else here, I'd be incapable of keeping up.
Everyone really needs to, and you mke it so much easier.
May 7, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
bwak, we all do our part. And do not neglect the part you play. Your comments may sometimes be brief. But they are never without clarity and a strong moral compass. Your voice here is priceless!
May 7, 2009 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ack!
The Times haz been reading TPM??!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/opinion/07thu1.html
May 7, 2009 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's proof that what we do here and others do elsewhere in the blogosphere is gradually moving up. It's proof that the criminals do not control all aspects of issues any longer - that they can't just feed their twisted thinking to the press or convince the electorate or by fiat change our judicial system.
But we have a long way to go. I read that editorial this morning and it was good to see - both that and it's twin here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/opinion/07thu2.html
Both appeared today under one overall heading.
But, as I said to oleeb above, we have a long way to go. And we have to keep up the pressure. Of course I know I'm talking to the choir.
May 7, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink