tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post4523890341331663261..comments2023-09-15T04:27:57.129-04:00Comments on Commentarama: Let The Inquisition BeginAndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-61397935574007631162009-08-29T16:54:37.758-04:002009-08-29T16:54:37.758-04:00Everybody might be interested in this open letter ...Everybody might be interested in this open letter from former CIA executive Herbert Meyer in "The American Thinker": <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574376633758594544.html?mod=djemEditorialPage" rel="nofollow">On Holder's Prosecution of CIA Interrogators</a>LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-5737459457998394652009-08-27T00:01:07.305-04:002009-08-27T00:01:07.305-04:00MegaTroll: You're right about Holder. He'...MegaTroll: You're right about Holder. He's a sanctimonious phony. When it was convenient, he supported enhanced interrogation, which of course he is now re-defining. But I have no problem with people who have consistently advocated the end of enhanced interrogation (I don't agree, but I consider it a respectable position). But Holder hasn't even been consistent. He's just another Obama political hack, and a dangerous one, given his position.<br /><br />The Black Panthers dismissal is exactly why I despise the man. Professional, career attorneys got judgments and defaults on several of the defendants, and he wouldn't even support that. He called us "cowards" for not openly discussing race, and then in the wake of the Gates travesty, he called us "racists" for doing exactly that. He seems to have plenty of time to prepare show trials, but none to do the job he is charged with doing. He is beneath contempt.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-32559984595074439822009-08-26T23:48:54.318-04:002009-08-26T23:48:54.318-04:00Lawhawk, Another great article. I don't trust...Lawhawk, Another great article. I don't trust a word Holder says. I don't see how he has any credibility left after he excused the Black Panthers. Also, wasn't one of the knocks on him when he got appointed that he wrote a memo approving torture? I seem to remember something about that, but I could be mistaken.MegaTrollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03234420338804013858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-66587260149071200072009-08-26T16:29:51.069-04:002009-08-26T16:29:51.069-04:00Andrew: All of that information is contained in m...Andrew: All of that information is contained in my original article. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.<br /><br />What he says is he is investigating "interrogation of <i>specfic</i> detainees." That would not be an appropriate subject for the high office of the Attorney General. If he is investigating possible illegal orders given by administration officials, he should say so. <br /><br />That is what he is fishing for, and it's inappropriate for a public announcement. If a low-level investigator should succeed in eliciting some proof that the allegedly illegal interrogation conducted by an overseas operative was authorized by a higher authority, that would be the appropriate time to be making a public announcement. I truly don't think that he is planning on personally going to Joe Smith, operative in Afghanistan, to ask "did you receive orders from Dick Cheney to violate the protocols approved by the Inspector General and the Congressional Committees?" <br /><br />That's just what he's hoping he'll find. Had he left out the word "specific" I would be annoyed, but I might have to accept his contentions grudgingly. He says nothing about investigating the operatives themselves, but rather investigating the detainees, who have largely been given the Al Qaeda handbook on how to depict a routine interrogation as inhumane torture. I guarantee you he will find plenty of that kind of testimony, and we're off to the races.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-35393234771724580312009-08-26T15:44:48.068-04:002009-08-26T15:44:48.068-04:00Lawhawk,
Here's what Holder said (from the LA...Lawhawk,<br /><br />Here's what Holder said (from the LA Times):<br /><br />"As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations," Holder said in a statement. "The department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter. I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow."<br /><br /><br />I think that explains what he's looking into and the scope. Also, the guy he picked to run the investigation apparently is already investigating the CIA. He was appointed by Bush's people to begin that investigation.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-67393568206736150112009-08-26T15:04:12.540-04:002009-08-26T15:04:12.540-04:00Andrew: OK. What's the major political/polic...Andrew: OK. What's the major political/policy issue? I'm fully aware that the details of an upcoming investigation are ordinarily not discussed in the public statement in order to avoid tainting the investigation. But I'd be surprised to find out that such reasonable restraint would ever stop Holder and his team from telling all, if he actually had anything.<br /><br />He isn't investigating the rightness or wrongness of former administration policy. That's settled. What the Bush administration proposed, the Inspector General monitored, and the Congressional Committees approved is different from what the Obamacrats have determined is "right." So what? How does that require an investigation of past acts, which were consistent with past policy but not with current policy?<br /><br />I don't want or need details. I just want the answer to one simple question: "What is the Attorney General of the United States investigating?" If he cannot articulate at least a simple general theory of what he is investigating, and how he is justified in doing so, it's a witch-hunt. I'm not concerned with <i>how</i> the matter is handled. I'm concerned with <i>what</i> they are handling, and <i>why</i>.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-62825299083659987772009-08-26T14:37:49.083-04:002009-08-26T14:37:49.083-04:00Lawhawk, I have rarely heard a DOJ investigation b...Lawhawk, I have rarely heard a DOJ investigation begin with a public statement that thoroughly outlines every issue that will be investigated. In fact, my understanding is that such statements are avoided to avoid the appearance of prejudicing the investigation.<br /><br />Also, investigations that touch on political policy will never be handled as low level criminal matters. They always assign some big DOJ name to run the case, and they tend to let them run it independently (or seemingly independently) so as to avoid the appearance of playing politics.<br /><br />As I said, I think people are rightly concerned, but I will wait to see how this gets handled.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-64711713550259767652009-08-26T14:28:49.628-04:002009-08-26T14:28:49.628-04:00Andrew: I have read the Attorney General's st...Andrew: I have read the Attorney General's statement. I have read the Inspector General's report. And I've read as many of the redacted reports as I have been able to read so far. I've seen the Congressional testimony. Taking all of that together, what exactly is it that Holder is investigating that is not purely political or unworthy of more than a simple low-level criminal prosecution? <br /><br />I certainly subscribe to the concept that the top officers in the Justice Department must investigate major wrongdoing. So we don't disagree on that. How does this fit into that concept? Based on Holder's own words, the first questions is "what is he actually investigating--specifically?" The second question is, "if what he is investigating is actually legitimate, is it so important that it requires the personal intervention of the Attorney General himself in a highly-public manner?"LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-41504652697732936302009-08-26T14:13:13.132-04:002009-08-26T14:13:13.132-04:00Thanks Bev, I agree with you entirely.
Lawhawk, I...Thanks Bev, I agree with you entirely.<br /><br />Lawhawk, I don't see yet that it's a bogus investigation. I agree that there are indications it might be, but I will withhold judgment until I see what they are doing.<br /><br />I think it is important to raise the point as a warning, and certainly to watch closely. But I will wait to see what they do before deciding.<br /><br />And if this is a witch-hunt and the whole thing is bogus, then I think they need to be held accountable in a very public way. But if it's not a witch-hunt, then I have no problems with the investigation.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-63881474755999465502009-08-26T13:46:26.836-04:002009-08-26T13:46:26.836-04:00Bev: It is true that if Holder finds nothing of a...Bev: It is true that if Holder finds nothing of any genuine legal note, he will quietly drop the issue around election time. But that is a major part of my objection to the whole thing. Once again, we will have diminished the vital role of the Deparment of Justice by having it waste valuable time investigating political crimes. If this were merely about a few CIA or other operatives exceeding the guidelines for enhanced interrogation, it wouldn't rate an inch of public notice. But it isn't about crime. It's about playing "gotcha" with political enemies. That seriously damages the underlying purpose of Constitutional government by the rule of law. And I don't care which party does it--it's wrong, and it's bush league.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-43859136126230276942009-08-26T13:39:48.580-04:002009-08-26T13:39:48.580-04:00LL: Obviously, I agree that this is a witch hunt....LL: Obviously, I agree that this is a witch hunt. I pay my taxes in part to have a Justice Department that pursues genuine crimes, not policies of a previous administration with which the current administration disagrees. <br /><br />I don't pay my taxes for the government to conduct witch-hunts so I can feel relieved after they've spent millions of dollars of the taxpayers money to prove I'm right.<br /><br />We mustn't get comfortable with the idea that some CIA operatives might not be found to have exceeded their authority. But that is not the purpose of this witch-hunt. It's to trap some high-level official from the other party into doing something that Holder can call an attempt to subvert the Constitution and pervert common decency.<br /><br />It's political. It's reprehensible. And it's a monumental waste of taxpayers' money and DOJ resources.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-61988847938400854192009-08-26T13:31:43.637-04:002009-08-26T13:31:43.637-04:00WriterX: I agree that this will blow up in their ...WriterX: I agree that this will blow up in their faces. It was done to gain political advantage, and it's likely to do the exact opposite. Yet that is my exact point. It's political. That isn't what Deparments of Justice in mature republics do. Any possible violations of the law in place at the time were probably already investigated and prosecuted, and those that weren't can and should be handled by ordinary attorneys in the criminal investigation division. It doesn't require the direct and very public intervention of a highly-politicized Attorney General to investigate individual alleged criminal acts. In other words, it doesn't require a Grand Inquisition.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-14002483087228565032009-08-26T13:26:13.467-04:002009-08-26T13:26:13.467-04:00Andrew: I don't see what it is that you disag...Andrew: I don't see what it is that you disagree with me on. I never suggested that the government shouldn't probe wrongdoing. But this has all been vetted multiple times before. The law, good sense, and the Constitution doesn't require that you keep going until you finally find some mid-level functionary with a personal agenda to dig up information on low-level alleged crime.<br /><br />There is nothing in these reports that hasn't been hashed over multiple times before. If Holder wants to assign some back-bench attorney to investigate individual violations of the rules that were in place at the time, approved by the Congressional Committees and watchdogged by the Inspector General, fine. <br /><br />The Founders built a prohibition on ex post facto laws and bills of attainder into the Constitution for good reason. It was in part to keep overzealous political prosecutors from turning legal acts into illegal acts after the fact. Holder isn't looking for criminals or crimes. He's looking for political enemies to humiliate publicly. This is about as genuine as the Plame investigation, and is designed to produce the same result. Trap a political enemy into making some kind of foolish move, then find some obscure statue to make it look like the official they're crucifying was worse than any member of the Manson Family. <br /><br />And as for Obama and Holder establishing a precedent which could come back to bite them, that is a major part of why I oppose this idiotic fishing expedition. I don't want any government, Democrat or Republican deliberately using its Department of Justice to pursue political enemies while ignoring the serious business of protecting the American people.<br /><br />Like you, I have no objection to genuine probes to determine wrongdoing. This is a bogus probe, and it's objectionable as hell.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-57919844999788747272009-08-26T13:08:07.387-04:002009-08-26T13:08:07.387-04:00StanH: It's another example of the most lawle...StanH: It's another example of the most lawless administration in memory attempting to draw attention away from itself.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-65758716898915173732009-08-26T13:00:28.236-04:002009-08-26T13:00:28.236-04:00Andrew - I actually agree with you, Andrew. Let t...Andrew - I actually agree with you, Andrew. Let them investigate, but we also need to hold Holder's feet to the fire to make sure there is a thorough investigation as Cheney has requested. So far all I have seen is what puts Bush & Co in the worst possible light. Fortunately, the MSM might be coming out of their koolaid-induced stupor and have begun doing their job.<br /><br />However, I predict that the results will coincide with the 2010 or 2012 election cycle for maximum effect if they spin it against Bush. It will disappear entirely if Holder finds they cannot spin to their advantage.<br /><br />Okay, this keeps rolling around in my brain Please forgive me - History of the World Part I - <br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5McSEU48Y8BevfromNYChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14953050916932306270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-52131038215884572142009-08-26T11:26:28.824-04:002009-08-26T11:26:28.824-04:00I believe that this is being done only to satisfy ...I believe that this is being done only to satisfy the fringe. It will backfire, however, and only bring more dissatisfaction with the Obama administration. To say that this is Holder's decision is laughable, but at least Holder knows that if it does backfire that Pres. Obama will point the finger at him. It reminds me of when the president said Joe Biden was in charge of ensuring a lack of wasteful spending with the Stimulus Bill. It's always good to have a scapegoat! Clever.Writer Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16505411188186283813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-50552818905973280292009-08-26T10:52:52.845-04:002009-08-26T10:52:52.845-04:00LL, I'm not saying that it probably won't ...LL, I'm not saying that it probably won't be a witch-hunt, I fear that it will be. And if it is, then I think the intelligence community and the Republicans (and any honest Democrats) need to come down hard on Holder/Obama.<br /><br />But I'm not opposed to a review of the actions of government officers to make sure that they did comply and to make sure that the law is adequate. That's my distinction.<br /><br />I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt at this point, though I am suspicious.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-23505949273402013722009-08-26T10:23:24.994-04:002009-08-26T10:23:24.994-04:00This is the problem, Andrew-
DOJ established guid...This is the problem, Andrew-<br /><br />DOJ established guidelines for aggressive interrogations (and what CIA did falls short of what I would call "torture" but that's semantics).<br /><br />CIA case officers followed the guidelines they were provided. Holder knows that because everything was witnessed, multi-sourced and video taped.<br /><br />It's a witch hunt.LLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05538854359365988863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-61668930010399358192009-08-26T10:17:26.892-04:002009-08-26T10:17:26.892-04:00Lawhawk, As you know, I disagree with you on this ...Lawhawk, As you know, I disagree with you on this issue. I have no problems with genuine probes of the actions of anyone in government (current or former). In fact, I want to see that because I don't like the idea of my government doing what it is not allowed to do.<br /><br />Will this turn out to be a genuine probe or a witch-hunt, that I don't know yet. If it turns into a witch-hunt, then I hope that the CIA and DOJ career people expose and savage the political people, and that the Republicans in Congress use this issue to tear Obama apart. I also think that Obama better be careful that he doesn't establish a precedent that lets the next president conduct a similar witch-hunt against him.<br /><br />That said, until I see that this is indeed a witch-hunt, I will withhold judgment because, as I noted, I have no objection genuine probes to determine wrongdoing.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-69055896732803985982009-08-26T09:59:19.413-04:002009-08-26T09:59:19.413-04:00Great article Lawhawk! Once again our Savior is mi...Great article Lawhawk! Once again our Savior is mirroring the Carter Administration, The Church Commission. Barry’s minions believe that this will rally his base, about 18% that are true barking leftist moonbats, to come to their master’s defense. Picking a fight with Dick Cheney is unwise beyond belief, that man paddled Barry early on, and will take Barry back to the woodshed. This action by Holder/Obama is another indicator of how badly things are going in Barry’s Whitehouse …boo-hoo. The bloom is definitely off the rose.StanHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07395708786509590321noreply@blogger.com