Reid calls torture commission 'unwise'

[masuki bance]

From NBC's Ken Strickland
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today said it would be "very unwise" to have an independent commission to investigate the CIA's interrogations procedures without having Congress conduct its own inquiry first. Reid says he'll follow the lead of Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein, who told Reid a public report could be finished "sometime late this year."

"I think it would be very unwise, from my perspective, to start having commissions, boards, and tribunals until we find out what the facts are," Reid told reporters in an off-camera session. "I don't know a better way of getting the facts than through the Intelligence Committee."

Other Democrats and outside groups have called for the formation of a 9/11-type independent commission, chief among them Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

But the Senate majority leader dismissed the claims of division within his caucus. "I'm not opposed to what Sen. Leahy has talked about, what Sen. Levin has talked about, and what some of the outside groups have talked about, Reid said. "But we have to get the facts before we decide which direction to go."

The Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin, echoed Reid's position, citing the vast amount of information under review. "Some of it has been destroyed... Some of it has been concealed, and some of it is just coming to light now because we have a Senate Intelligence Committee that is aggressively going after this issue."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/04/23/1905071.aspx

What's up with that?

[ShortnFiery]

1. I think many here have been disappointed with Reid ever since he FAILED to filibuster Alito's

confirmation.

BTW, how CAN Reid be legally unseated as Majority Leader of the Senate?

[Political Heretic]

4. Actually, I can't remember a single act of political courage on the part of Harry Reid

Since he became Majority leader.

[Political Heretic]

2. Reid will be implicated.

That's my theory on all these people trying to "slow down" or "stall" accountability to the law.

I think they knew about what was going on and are afraid they will be caught up in either political or criminal implications when that comes out...

[stopbush]

5. Bingo! bushco may have been mendacious as all get out,

but they were smart enough to tell leading Ds what they were up to so the Ds would be forced to squash anything that might lead to self incrimination. Remember the "we're gonna tell you this secret stuff but you can't say anything about it to anybody" crap bushco was pulling during their war? Well, this was part of that.

[The Magistrate]

3. House And Senate Committee Investigations, Sir, Should Be The First Step

A proper political climate for prosecution must be created, and this will take time and relentless exposure.

[Political Heretic]

8. Sadly it does not feel that time is on the side of those that want to see justice served.

It will be difficult to keep the sustained public attention to these issues of torture or sustained outrage over a long, drawn out political process. I'm pretty sure that many people in Washington would are likely to be implicated in any serious investigation are counting on this.

[The Magistrate]

14. It Does Not Seem So To Me, Sir

Popular outrage, to the degree that it exists in this matter, is at the 'mile wide and an inch deep' stage. This must be solidified. Continued exposure is the way to do it. Before facts, the arguments of opponents to legal action will come to seem increasingly nonesensical and shrill. Neither a 'blue-ribbon committee' nor a 'special prosecutor' would be rapid in their operation; even were they constituted this evening it would be a very long time before they issued any reports or indictments. This is not something that will, or can, happen speedily, whatever method is adopted.

It would be well, too, for people to drop completely this shrill canard that 'leading Dems are culpable'. It only muddies a matter that must be clear in the public mind, and it is neither true nor useful in demonstrating public desire for vindication of the law in this matter. What is of interest is crimes: conspiracy by leading lights in the previous administration to commit crimes of war that are felonies under U.S. law, and the issuance of orders to subordinates in the Executive branch to carry out those crimes once they were resolved upon. No Democratic political figure bears the least trace of criminal culpability in that chain of actions.

[Political Heretic]

15. You're first paragraph is encouraging and I hope you're right. Now about that second one.... :)

I was shocked honestly when I read your characterization of speculation that some congressional democrats likely knew complete details about the administrations torture programs and fear that information coming to light as "shrill"

Honestly, this seemed so plausible to me that I didn't even think there would be much disagreement about it.

"No democratic political figure bears the least trace of criminal culpability" - well, I can't prove that this is true, and I'm not sure how you can either. But I do assume its true. I'm not primarily thinking of criminal culpability. I'm thinking more of political fallout.

I think a lot of powerful people in congress really don't want it coming out just how completely complicit (if not supportive) they were of the administrations torture programs. I suspect in some cases people new full details, and I wouldn't be surprised if an investigation would uncover things like democrats on the record some place (in damaging memos or what not) saying they fully supported the program, or encouraging harsher techniques, etc.

Why don't I find this speculation to be "shrill?" Because we've seen this in the past. Democrats in congress were extremely compliant with the Bush administration on security, on wiretapping and on war. Now that public opinion has turned against that sort of complicity, it doesn't seem like an unrealistic leap to guess that there are some people who would rather there was no investigation into just exactly what all went on, and who knew, and how much they knew, when it comes to torture.

It suprises me that you find this to be "shrill" or unfair in some way.

[The Magistrate]

18. Lines In Political Action, Sir, Must Be Kept Simple If Mass Effect Is To Be Achieved

If you want wide public support for prosecution of war criminals in the Bush administration (and without wide public support for that you will never see it), the thing needs to be clearly focused on the criminals in the Executive branch who held authority directly in their hands, and on the specific actions they planned and ordered, exercising the direct authority they possessed. Spreading, softening, the focus away from this harms and hampers the effort. Clarity is essential. It does not matter if someone outside that chain of command acquiesced, or even approved: neither of these things is criminal, and this matter is one of crime and guilt for committing crime. If there were leading Democrats who, shall we say, behaved poorly, these people still are in office and must be moved to co-operate with the new direction of public demand. Calling them criminals and such will not help to secure their co-operation. Indeed, it will tend to solidify their opposition to the course you want them to take. Give them an out, say you understand they were steam-rolled, trapped politically, felt they had no choice, and point out that now, those constraints are gone, and they are free to do what they always knew was right....

[Political Heretic]

22. We're not talking about prosecuting congress persons. We're talking about why they drag their feet

So I'm not spreading or softening the focus. I'm at the best, giving opinion as to why I think there is feet dragging going on.

"If there were leading Democrats who, shall we say, behaved poorly, these people still are in office and must be moved to co-operate with the new direction of public demand."

Agreed.

"Calling them criminals and such will not help to secure their co-operation."

I don't feel like I did that. I'm not writing op-eds or blog posts name-calling congress persons. But on this forum, I'm giving my opinion that I am suspicious that many top level congress persons would be implicated in unflattering ways in this scandal and that this is part of the reason for feet dragging.

On the service, that might seem like a kind of "no s*** sherlock" sort of statement. But I just hadn't seen it addressed as much as I wanted so I thought I'd make the observation.

It's about understanding WHY things are happening the way their are, not about taking our eye of the ball of those most responsible for this tragic period of our history.

[The Magistrate]

24. Unfortunately, Sir, Claims That Fear Of Prosecution Is the Reason For Delay Are Not Infrequent Here

It would constitute 'calling out' to link to blatant examples just from today, but examination of threads touching on this matter will readily produce sight of calls for arrest of leading Democrats, for their banishment from office, and claims they are just as responsible as the Bush administration for the latter's crimes. Nor is this a particularly new phenomenon. There has long been a strain here which takes Democratic Party leaders as as much if not more of an enemy than Republicans. In a matter like this one particularly, that line is worse than useless; it is actively counter-productive.

There are two leading reasons for reluctance among professional politicians leading the Democratic Party to press for prosecutions of the Bush administration.

The first is that it has long been an unspoken tenet of our political system that losing an election is not a jailing offense. This is a chief reason why turnings over of power as a result of elections proceed so smoothly. A precedent, set for the best and most scrupulous of reasons, running contrary to this long understanding, may take on a life of its own, and be mis-used in future to justify purely political persecution of an ousted party. Sooner or later, there must loom down the road the possibility it will not be the result of elections, but rather the result of a quick canvas of the loyalties of various units of the armed forces and police which will determine who serves the next 'term' of office. Persons professionally engaged in the business of government will be well aware of this, and loathe to take the first step that might prove to be a stride along this very possible path. Whether one agrees with such caution or not, in this particular circumstance, it cannot be rightly said it is a specious or unreasonable fear.

The second is concern over the actual degree of political support for this course in the public at large. if prosecution does not enjoy wide and strong popular support, prosecution will recoil violently upon its authors. Public sentiment on this matter is yet fluid, and the native inclination of the public seems to have been, in earlier instances, to revert to the national tendency to antinomianism, and cling sturdily to the idea that because America is good, it does and can do no wrong, or at least that any wrong it does is done for such a good reason, flowing from such a good character, that it becomes in its essence a good thing rather than the wrong it may seem on its face. These are deep waters, Sir, and roiling them ought to be regarded with great circumspection.

All agitation on this matter therefore needs to be directed very particularly, at particular individuals and at a precise circumstance. It helps somewhat that the individuals who must be the chief focus are widely unpopular, and viewed as having failed the country in a variety of fields while in power. It is, in fact, only the economic dislocation, and the incompetence of the prosecution of the war in Iraq, that opens any scope at all for popular will towards prosecution for the war crimes the Bush administration engaged in, and even here, it is only the narrow question of torturing prisoners that the public will entertain; violations of international humanitarian law regarding the employment of military force in circumstances that cause death and injury to non-combatants in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the whole question of waging a war of aggression in Iraq, things of much greater scope and real import, are not and never will be admitted to the popular mind.

Any broadening of scope in this matter, beyond the narrow and precise charge that specific named individuals in the Executive branch conspired to commit the felony of violating international law regarding the treatment of prisoners, and gave orders to commit that felony and saw to the execution of those orders to commit that felony by their subordinates, does active harm.

[ljm2002]

6. "What's up with that?", you ask...

...from my perspective, it is apparent that what's up is that Congress would like the chance to protect its own backside before anyone else gets a chance to look at all the evidence.

Our government is deeply, deeply corrupt. The Jane Harman story, for just one example, is but the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg. Approval of torture techniques, being bought and paid for, acting as foreign agents -- all this and more goes on as a matter of course in our government, and it cuts across party lines.

[LaurenG]

7. Unwise?

:shrug:
edited

[Gidney N Cloyd]

9. The math on this one is easy: Reid is up for re-election in 2010. If ...

...Feinstein delivers a senate report at the end of this year, and that stalls the start of an independent commission until early 2010, the findings of the commission won't come out until after the November elections. And that will help a LOT of Democrats whose names are going to be closely associated with the torture issue keep repub opponents from using it against them.

[vaberella]

10. Reid, Reid, Reid...if you're right...our dems are devious...

but I don't know if they can be trusted.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

11. Obama agrees with Reid

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/senate-leaders-opposes-interrogation-inquiry-panel/?hp

[Renew Deal]

12. Reid needs time to cover his tracks.

Yes, I'm very cynical about this.

[asphalt.jungle]

13. don't these commissions usually end up being one big farce anyway?

has their been a more overhyped, worthless exercise in time and money wasting than the 9-11 commission?

[paulk]

16. Since Durbin backs him up on this

I'm willing to give Reid the benefit of the doubt

[Cass]

17. I think we should go straight to an independent commission if the DOJ won't undertake

their own criminal investigation.

The last thing we need is blowhard grandstanding politicians muddying up the waters with manufactured talking points.

[stillcool]

19. Apparently there are several ways to skin a cat...

excellent article...

Of Black Holes and Radio Silence

Monday 20 April 2009

by: Elizabeth de la Vega

A former prosecutor examines the special prosecutor debate.


We must have a prosecution eventually, but we are not legally required to publicly initiate it now and we should not, as justifiable as it is. I'm not concerned about political fallout. What's good or bad for either party has no legitimate place in this calculus. My sole consideration is litigation strategy: I want us to succeed. And our best hope of doing that is to unflinchingly assess - just as any lawyer would do when contemplating choices of action in a case - what we would have tomorrow if we got what we think we want today. We should obviously think twice about pursuing an intermediate goal, however satisfying it may appear, if it would be counterproductive in the long term. There are times when it's smarter to wait before taking a prosecutive step and this is one of them.
---------------------------------------

First, the bottom line: From the perspective of anyone who wants Bush and Cheney and their top aides to be held accountable for their crimes, the designation of some sort of independent prosecutor right now would be the worst possible eventuality. It's a move that has so many downsides - and holds so few real benefits - that I would be more inclined to question President Obama's motives if he appointed a special prosecutor than if he did not. There is a reason why former prosecutor Arlen Specter - a Republican senator from Pennsylvania - has voiced support for a special prosecutor, while former prosecutors Patrick Leahy and Sheldon Whitehouse - Democratic senators from Vermont and Rhode Island, respectively - would prefer a public inquiry.


What is it? Well, for starters, there is - under currently available US law - no such thing as a truly independent prosecutor. There has not been since 1999, when the independent counsel statute expired. Accordingly, regardless of the title given this individual - and whether she were tapped from inside or outside the Justice Department - this appointee would, at a minimum, be required to follow internal DOJ policies and her delegated authority could be revoked at any time. (The regulations that authorize appointing a non-DOJ attorney as "special counsel" - found at 28 C.F.R. Part 600 et. seq - actually make possible substantially more attorney general oversight into prosecutorial decisions.)

Under existing federal law, in other words, the notion of a special prosecutor who would be entirely free from political and institutional influence is illusory. Given that fact - and that it is ordinarily an extremely dumb, not to mention unethical, idea to announce investigations - when an administration does announce that it is naming a "special counsel" of any sort, it is largely a public-relations maneuver. The president thereby appears to be committed to the rule of law, but is, in fact, parking an extremely inconvenient problem in a remote and inaccessible lot.

Once this happens, all who wish to avoid the issue have a ready excuse. The president can refuse to comment because there is an ongoing criminal investigation. (Remember Bush's press person, Scott McClennan?) And members of Congress from either party can look the other way, because - again - there is an ongoing criminal investigation. It's a perfect dodge.

http://www.truthout.org/042009R

[DearAbby]

20. He hasn't shut the door....

re-read the statement, pay close attention to this part "Congress conduct its own inquiry first." Reid said.

I would like this to be done professionally and legally. I don't want there to be, for any way those who had committed these "crimes", to have any kind of wiggle room. The stakes are high.

Don't let up tho, make them hear us, in forms of faxes, letters, emails and telephone calls. Keep up the pressure. We are a nation of laws, and no one is above the law.

[The Magistrate]

21. Quite True, Ma'am: We Must Keep Up the Pressure....

[mvd]

23. Hi, Magistrate! How have you been doing?

Nice to see you. :hi:

Reid's position seems like Holder's, so I can't get on him for this one. We'll see what happens later in the year.

[AzDar]

25. As Senate Majority Leader, has Reid gotten ANYTHING right? Anything?

'Cause I'm drawing a blank...