More on Torture

I do have a practical problem with it…and so does Obama, which is why he won’t pursue this for a very good reason: there are much bigger things at stake.
.
It would also mean a unilateral renunciation of powers that his office has acquired. Nobody can be trusted with these powers, and you cannot expect an executive to renounce them.
.
it’s good that you picked out the grid. that is the central, most important infrastructure investment to make. But for you to say that the media wants to pursue the torture story, well, I’ll just point out, Joe, that you are one of a very few in the Village who will call torture by its name.
.
that you find that column excerpt you’ve set out as exculpatory is insightful. That, in hindsight, you find it clear is fascinating. The Geneva Conventions are, painfully, clear. Inventing ambiguity in them is act of villains. These villains were enabled by elected officials who should have known better, and by media celebrities who were more committed to saying “Suck On This” than they were to any principles.
.
IAC, Obama said a president should be able to do more than one thing at a time. Perhaps the way to get bipartisan support is not to cave at the outset, but to embark on both the national vilification of the Republicans who have have put their party ahead of the country and the constitution AND on the restoration of the economy they have destroyed.
.
If you can’t play hardball now, when can you do so?

well, you’re right about Greenwald being overbearingly self-righteous.
_
But you’re dead wrong about prosecutions for war crimes being a distraction. If anything, they are needed because we face so many challenges abroad, and the Bush administration has so undermined US credibility. The only way to restore that credibility is show the world that the American people understand that what had been done in their name was unacceptable — and the Democratic Congress sweeping these issues under the rug for the last two years, combined with Team Obama’s willingness to also ignore these crimes against humanity, will send the world the message that the US is unrepentant — and underserving of international support.
_
Its also especially crucial insofar as our military is stretched so thin, and its going to take years (and massive amounts of money) to restore the military. War crimes trials are a time sensitive and cost-effective measure because they will restore the “soft power” of the USA.

Thanks for responding to the criticism, JK. And I see your point, understand it, and don’t particulalrly like it, but suspect you’re right – for the time being.
.
What’s the statute of limitations on war crimes? At some point, the bigger fish of saving the country from the bush years will be fried. At that point, we should re-examine this issue. No pardons. And in the meantime, Mssrs. Bush and Cheney, Addington and Yoo should be forced to keep the tale of General Pinochet in mind when making their vacation plans.

At the risk of inciting another attack by James Los Angelos, I am also concerned that in the clamor for criminal indictments we run the risk of taking our eye off the ball. Perhaps in the end they deserve ending up in the Hague, but I’m not willing to sacrifice our immediate and perhaps even long term future to satisfy a lust for revenge.

I think people have enough multi-tasking skills to investigate an administrations abuse of power and legitamization of torture and also deal with the economy, health care and environmental issues. Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. Torture sanctioned at the highest levels of government is not small potatoes.

“I had no idea how truly dreadful his Administration would become. I imagined Bush a conservative; I soon learned that he was a right-wing radical. Two years later, when the Abu Ghraib abuses were made public, I wrote this column, clearly denouncing his Administration. It is the sort of column that Greenwald never cites, never includes in what appears to be, but isn’t, the exhaustive research he stuffs into his briefs.”
.
And you see no connection between your (and your elite peers) nonchalant attitude toward holding the powerful accountable to the rule of law and the “surprising” behavior of the Bush Administration?! That’s why Greenwald, and many of us, take it so seriously. Everything starts there and you can have no responsive government without accountability. Pull your head out of your pride and reread the entire history of unaccountable governments and get back to me if you still think there are “bigger things at stake”.
.
And, BTW, your “what do television producers want to book” test is as perfectly weak as your understanding of the relationship between accountability and good government and the needle of your moral compass.

Could not disagree more Joe. All military and elected personnel take an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The constitution has been clearly and blatantly violated for awhile now. Fixing the economy doesn’t mean much if we lose our country in the process.
-
There isn’t a higher priority than beginning the investigations and prosecutions. That’s not however, to say that we can’t do both at once by assigning different people to each task. Should be pretty easy considering the skill sets don’t overlap at all.

Also, you know, if the republicans were reaching out and seeking the best policy in the public interest, that would be one thing. But their reaction to utter repudiation by the public is to ratchet up the partisan nonsense. There’s no compromise there, and to let a repudiated party, supporters of torture, shredding of the constitution and destruction of the US economy dictate terms is batsh!t crazy.

two other things..
_
1) one suspects that the real reason that Bush and his cronies will not be held accoutable is that any effort to hold them accountable necessarily implicates the Democratic Congressional leadership — people like DiFi, Pelosi, and Reid were “in the loop” even if they weren’t giving the orders, and any kind of “truth commission” would make it clear that their acquiesence to torture and other war crimes make them completely unsuited for public office.
_
Indeed, given the Obama/FISA debacle, one suspects that Obama’s “inevitability” as the Democratic nominee was based on a deal with the Pelosi’s and Reid’s to sweep everything under the rug.
_
2) Ultimately, its the media (i.e. the Joe Klein’s of the world) that would make war crimes trials “too much of a distraction.” Simply put, there should be no controversy over whether criminals are prosecuted, rather the media should treat it as a matter of course, and treat anyone who objects to the prosecutions as utterly amoral and so completely outside of the mainstream that any objections can be comfortably ignored.
_
But its the amorality of the Village, and people like Klein, that result in what should be a no-brainer becoming a distraction. TORTURE IS UNAMERICAN, and no journalist or pundit should even question whether those who authorized torture should be held accountable.

While I’m forced to admit that it was a previous conflict between Glenn and Joe that brought me to Swampland in the first place, I’ll refrain from trying to fan the flames. I will note that the difference between Glenn and Joe isn’t the one described in the post. Glenn begins with espoused principles and the relentlessy follows where the logic leads even if its a politically unpopular or undesirable result. Joe on the other hand starts with the politically desirable result and then hand-picks the principles he will espouse in order to arrive at the desired conclusion. The difference is one of style but if I chose the second path I would be very hesitant to refer to someone else as intellectually dishonest.

I don’t know, Joe. One man’s monomaniacal is another man’s consistent, know what I mean? You doth protest a lot.

The problem here is that most of you who dismiss the distraction angle are only thinking about things from the perspective of savvy political consumers. Please remember that you are the exception to the rule, even in this last year of unprecedented political engagement most of America is not in your league. You are the political junkies who breath this stuff so focusing on myriad issues is not at all problematic. Unfortunately, whether you are willing to admit it or not most of the country just can’t keep up, if they could the Bush administration could have never inflicted the damage they did. Moreover, as Joe so readily admitted and we know for ourselves that the msm will get focus on a trivial albeit lurid aspect of the story and get stuck – its what they do. So rather than just say what Obama ought to be able to handle multiple things give some thought about what the country can handle.

@Dee
I’m reminded of the quote from Robert Wilson when discuss the funding for Fermilab:

Pastore: Is there anything connected in the hopes of this accelerator that in any way involves the security of this country?
Wilson: No sir; I do not belive so.
Pastore: Nothing at all?
Wilson: Nothing at all.
Pastore: It has no value in that respect?
Wilson: It only has to do with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of men, our love of culture. It has to do with those things. It has nothing to do with the military, I am sorry.
Pastore: Don’t be sorry for it.
Wilson: I am not, but I cannot in honesty say it has any such application.
Pastore: Is there anything here that projects us in a position of being competitive with the Russians, with regard to this race?
Wilson: Only from a long-range point of view, of a developing technology. Otherwise, it has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things that we really venerate and honor in our country and are patriotic about. In that sense, this new knowledge has all to do with honor and country but it has nothing to do directly with defending our country, except to make it worth defending.

So while the people who you note, don’t pay close attention to politics worry about their jobs and their savings, I feel entitled to ask what it is about them that entitles them to their material comfort. If the answer is support for wars of aggression and a blind eye to torture, then perhaps we need to rethink the whole problem.

OT: Over at Newsweek, terrific May 2008 interview with Obama.

I will say this: I think less of both Klein and Greenwald for the juvenile need to put each other down all cool-like. Memo to them both: the issue is more important than your posturing.

.
JK: Glenn Greenwald has now piled on.
.
Oh dear. You’ve missed the larger criticism, Joe…from Greenwald’s update:

That’s the modern American journalist for you: reverence for politically powerful officials and criticism only for those perceived as powerless.

The way I see it, you’re quibbling over Greenwald’s use of the word completely and, well, have damned yourself with your own words:

I do not believe the aggressive interrogation of sociopaths does any damage at all to our glorious legal system, or to our moral values as a society.

So, was Bush’s disregard for the Third Geneva convention “his single most callous and despicable act” standing “at the heart of the national embarrassment that was his presidency” or was it not damaging “to our moral values as a society”?
.
It’s that disconnect, Joe, that causes people to accuse you of bandwagon-jumping. And what in the h3ll is ‘aggressive interrogation’ supposed to mean, anyway?

Greenwald, he is monomaniacal on the subject of civil liberties.
.
And, of course, a high degree of concern over civil liberties is a sort of fetishism, “a hangover from the Vietnam era, when the Nixon Administration wildly exceeded all bounds of legality—spying on antiwar protesters and civil rights leaders.” Greenwald “doesn’t take into account the strict constraints placed on the intelligence community after the Nixon debacle, or the lethally elusive nature of the current terrorist threat.”
.

.
So the part I left out at the end was:
.
I’m wondering if Joe feels that Nixon shouldn’t have been investigated because, ya know, there were hot and Cold wars going on at the time…Also if Joe thinks that 41-year-old Greenwald is suffering a civil liberties ‘hangover’ from the Vietnam Era…

Oh good, this will be fun, like with the FISA issue. At least Joe is kind of on our side right now.
.
Here’s the heart of my problem with JK’s views on this:
.
which is why he won’t pursue this for a very good reason: there are much bigger things at stake
.
Joe, it’s harder to get bigger than the issue of breaking the law and whether or not it’s punished.
It affects everything from the environment to the military (ie no-bid billion dollar contracts) to education to the markets to the borders to everyday life (ie the War on Drugs and privacy issues).
.
If lawlessness cannot be rectified at the highest levels of our society, then it cannot be rectified at all.

Hi, I’m the Fourth Amendment:
-
Short Version: You can’t take peoples’ stuff or search them/spy on them without due process of law.
-
Hi, I’m the Fifth Amendment:
-
Short Version: No self incrimination AND no holding people to answer for serious crimes without an indictment from a grand jury.
-
Hi, I’m the Sixth Amendment:
-
Short Version: You have the right to a speedy and public trial.
-
Hi, I’m the Eighth Amendment:
-
Short Version: No torturing people.
-
I realize that the enemy combatants (and innocent people) detained in Gitmo and Bagram aren’t U.S. citizens, and strictly speaking, the constitution doesn’t apply to them. Of course, that ignores this:
-
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
-
That’s from the Declaration of Independence, and the phrase “all men” isn’t really applicable to only U.S. citizens.

@Paul dirks —
.
I am not suggesting that desires of the masses carries more weight than any other segment of society, or that we should be concerned about them to point of continuing to allow detrimental behavior to occur. But in considering their perspective as well as numerous others, we consider the possible obstacles that must be dealt with on the road to recovery. The Obama administration must deal with a whole host of critical problems and in so doing they must also manage expectations and perceptions which will not only depend on what’s actually happening, but also the media’s angle and focus and the past experiences and knowledge of the electorate. Based on our choice to engage issues on various sites I suspect most of can handle everything being thrown at us and discern the subtle nuances between positions, strategies and tactics. However, past history has proved that if Obama is going to succeed he is going to have to control Congress which is never easy but will be even harder if those folks in the masses begin to get antsy and are persuaded that Obama is going too far, too fast. Hence to need to manage their expectations and perceptions. I am merely suggesting that putting too much on their plate might prove counterproductive and adding criminal investigations may prove too much considering how we know the msm will never be able to handle it like adults.

If this could be shunted off to some bipartisan commission I’d be all for it. But the distraction possibilities can be seen in the ridiculous circus over Roland Burris, whose headlines obscured the swearing in of 530+ members of congress.
.
Furthermore, the media is so fickle that the story will change depending on who appears to be “up.” So after excoriating Rahm Immanuel for having had a conversation with Blago, and implying that Obama was tainted too, the media then decided that people were picking on a poor frail 71 year old (where were the cries of “frail” when John McCain was running) turned out in the rain. Then last night Anderson C. decided maybe is was scandalous after all that the Senate was going to seat somebody who might have purchased his senate seat, rightly pointing out that Burris saying that of course he hadn’t purchased a seat because “I don’t have any money” didn’t exactly inspire confidence in his veracity. Whichever way the wind blows the media seems obliged to say “on the other hand…” So it wouldn’t take long, I suppose, before the cable news was defending the interrogation practices of the Bush administration, and complaining that Obama was trifling with the country’s future by distracting us from the important business at hand.
.
Why can’t an international tribunal deal with this?

Bush is one of those people, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, who simply gets a free ride through life. He is above the law, that the rest of us have no way of getting around, and a million excuses will be found to justify it.

“Glenn begins with espoused principles and the relentlessy follows where the logic leads even if its a politically unpopular or undesirable result. Joe on the other hand starts with the politically desirable result and then hand-picks the principles he will espouse in order to arrive at the desired conclusion. The difference is one of style but if I chose the second path I would be very hesitant to refer to someone else as intellectually dishonest.”
.
With all due respect, the difference is one of principle versus, so-called, practicality. But good principle – such as official accountability – is eminently practical, it’s the only way to maintain good government. And practicality without principle leads to things like torture and official lawbreaking (and blind eyes to same).
.
I expect that many journalists, Joe Klein included, understand this. But they are immersed in an elite bubble where guilt, denial and rationalization are the self-preserving psychology of the day.

.
Cliff: If lawlessness cannot be rectified at the highest levels of our society, then it cannot be rectified at all.
.
Just about anything can be rectified as long as you have enough money and influence…If a male bus driver brought a mail-order bride from Malaysia gets caught imprisoning and torturing her, he’s going away for a loooong time. If you’re a President who signs an executive order that causes hundreds to be kidnapped from their homes, imprisoned, and tortured, well, you get pundits making silly suggestions that they should get a slap on the wrist or be made to empty bedpans at Walter Reed, at most.
.

What Sean said, in both posts.
‘
Joe, holding our elected officials accountable is probably the most important thing we can do, in this country. It’s what separates this country from “also rans.” We are not some third-world tin-pot dictatorship. If not us, who? If not now, when?

Aside from pursuing the Bush administration criminally would there be any benefit in writing new law to explicitly prohibit this kind of activity in the future? Much has been said about Bush setting a dangerous precedent and that the executive branch is unlikely to give the power back, perhaps the focus should be on Congress taking its power back by prohibiting this kind of aberrant behavior.

The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.

$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget

The Borgen Project focuses on fighting global poverty and addressing the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it completely by 2025. An estimated $19 billion would eliminate malnutrition and starvation around the world. Our current defense budget is $522 billion, in comparison.

The Borgen Project (borgenproject.org) provides lots of information about this issue.

I would be all for prosecuting war crimes against Bush. But I just don’t think it will happen. There has been ample time and evidence for the Congress to put a choak chain on these people, and nothing has been done. The dem leadership certainly has displayed no inclination to move even a resolution in the matter; they have extended FISA, they have endorsed the Bush view of the Gaza slaughter as we speak, in contravention to the rest of world opinion. As someone mentioned earlier, it may be a hot topic here, but to a majority of Americans, and in the current Congress, it is not on the radar.
.
I agree with Greenwald on civil liberties issues, but his views are certainly not overwhelming accepted (obviously). Joe, I enjoyed the old column about Righteous Bush more than I did the current one.

(T)here are much bigger things at stake.
.
This is a BS argument for inaction. Who would prosecute these crimes? Not Obama, not his cabinet, not the Fed reserve, not the DoD, not anyone who would be working on the critical problems listed. Will government cease to function if Cheney is questioned under oath? So just who will be distracted? The media? -who cares? media circuses happen all the time. The people? -we’re more distracted by the latest Britney nip-slip, BFD.
.
IMO, the “distraction” theme is a smoke screen. Our government doesn’t want to explore this because many “clean” officials will be dirtied; the media types won’t because (1) they’re afraid of embarrassment when they’ll have to account for their past, (2) you don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

Boy I have really struggled internally reading my esteemed colleagues(no snark)who post here. And Joe while I know you don’t directly interact with us who post thanks for acknowleding those who post and have points of view that are different from yours.
.
First and foremost, Klein and Greenwald should sit down and talk face to face (off the record). You both have more in common than you have differences. Joe, a challenge for you would be to have a on-air dialogue with Greenwald and engage in an exchange of ideas. I would find it useful and instructive.
.
I think common ground could be reached on the concept of a War Crimes investigation and/or Truth Commission modeled after the South African approach. There’s no statute of limitations on what took place, so use the next 100 days to address the economy and health care. They inextricably linked to each other.
.
Use that time to complete an preliminary investigation to find whatever documentation still exists about these heinous events.
.
A thought about the US Congress. They are truly a lagging indicator of the change a majority of voters made in November. The democratic senate leader ship are the gang that couldn’t shoot straight. They can’t even seat an elected Senator or appointed Senator from their own party. The GOP thinks the Bush agenda was reaffirmed in November for the next four years and will obstruct, obstruct, obstruct until the cows come home.
.
Obama must be focused on the economy in the short term and get his agenda launched quickly. The fewer distractions the better. I agree with many of the commenters that you can’t just walk away and take no action. However, there is no political will in the Congress or in the corporate media to move forward on a war crimes agenda. Tom Tamm the whistleblower who leaked the internal spying to the TImes is fighting against prosecutors when he should be receiving the medal of freedom.
.
The deck is stacked against a war crimes trial right now. But let’s never forget the indignity and inhumanity that was perpetrated by President Bush and his adminstration over the last 8 years. Let’s have all the truth come out. Our government instititution do not currently have the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.
.
I know I’ll face criticism from many of you and my ideas are probably flawed, but that’s my pragmatic view of the world right now.

The vision of Cheney in manacles–which, I must admit, sends a thrill up my leg–is far more attractive to the people who run our media than the details of a rebuilt electric grid, which is far more crucial to the future of the planet but is not very leg-thrilling.

This is unfortunately right on. The public bandwidth has to be used very carefully. You *do* want to send the signal that crimes are crimes, and will be treated as such, otherwise we what’s to stop high crimes in the future? But unfortunately, as important as this is, it has to be weighed against an agenda that must be carefully planned down to the last detail. If I had to choose between Dick Cheney’s head on a pike or fighting big energy effectively and getting global warming under control, it’s obvious what you have to do, unfortunate as that is.

Joe-

Regarding your shots at Greenwald, I wonder how you would act if you kept pointing out obvious media timidity and collusion with high government officials, only to watch the cycle repeat continuously? To put it in Greenwald’s words: What would a patriot do?

Joke Line, spare me the self-righteousness. You’re flat wrong, which you’ll never admit because that’s just how you roll (see FISA). So just SFTU, please, and move on to the next thing.

It’s on, apparently. From Glenn’s latest update:

“…Klein makes other arguments in his defense — including his proud citation to an article he wrote in 2004 condemning Abu Ghraib (courageous!) — which I’ll leave to readers to evaluate [note that, contrary to Klein's claim, the OLC opinion asserting that Geneva protections do not apply to Guantanamo detainees, Alberto Gonzales' memo dismissing Geneva protections as"quaint," and Bush's formal decision declaring Geneva protections inapplicable to Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees occurred before -- not after -- Klein's February 4, 2002 Guardian article mocking those who thought there was something to be concerned about with regard to treatment of detainees. Moreover, worldwide horror concerning Guantanamo was common when Klein wrote that article (indeed, it was that horror which he was deriding). Klein's attempt to depict himself as some sort of crusader for proper treatment of detainees is a bit difficult in light of those facts, and given that he wrote: "I would actually prefer [Guantanamo detainees] be dressed in pink tutus”].”

Any response, Joe?

Andy – I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what you wrote. You’re pointing out ugly practicalities that many of us are going to have to accept.

Friar, did you open the liquor cabinet a wee bit early, today? Just asking…

It boggles my mind that anyone who claims to believe in democracy and the rule of law would also claim that capital felonies, Constitutional violations and war crimes should not be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted because it would be “impractical” to do so. There are countries where the law routinely looks the other way when powerful people commit terrible crimes. I doubt Joe Klein would wish to live in any of them.

I would love to see the Bush administration prosecuted but I as Kathy described in #21, there would be unrelenting coverage to the exclusion of anything else. Plus as mentioned in an earlier post by JNS, the Repub whining machine is already in gear and they are far better at their obstruction than they were during the Clinton impeachment.
.
I would favor investigation by something like the 9/11 commission, acting like a grand jury with the testimony available later.
.
The reason I think there should be some accountability is that Cheney, Rummy, et al learned their lessons from Nixon and Bush I and Iran Contra. Those cases were not settled. If nothing is done this time, the cancer that may be in remission for a few years will spring forth even stronger when we have the next Repub president.

Mr. Nice Guy -
_
I was in the middle of making a much longer post and came to the sad realization that nothing I was saying mattered, at which point obloquy seemed to be the only option.
_
Briefly: The evil has already been done. An America which can lower itself to the despicable acts of torture in which we are ALL to some extent complicit – for we allowed them to occur – can never again be worthy of the dreams of the Founding Fathers. We could salvage some sense of honor by trying the major players, both Democratic and Republican, and sentencing them appropriately, but the stain of the last eight years will never wash out.

And, I agree with Andy in his #31.

It will always be easy to come up w/excuses why we shouldn’t look into this stuff and who’s responsible for it. At the very least we need to come clean with ourselves and look in the mirror and find out what really happened.

Remember the 9/11 Commission? Bush didn’t want it and tried to block it. If Obama pulls the same thing re: human rights he’s no better.

ivb: “…the Repub whining machine is already in gear…”

It’s always in gear, it is always ready to go. Let’s, as they say, give them something to really cry about.
And the press will certainly cover war crimes prosecutions nonstop: that’s exactly how it should be.
If we turn our eyes from this disgrace today, we’ll have to face something much worse 10 or 20 years from now.

One last thing before I go to dinner, I suspect that part of the reason the Repubs are reving up their protests against the DoJ nominees is to distract from the idea of prosecutions and try to ensure that the ones they get in won’t pursue. Specter is in full steam against Holder, with Grassley close behind. They are bringing up the Terri Schaivo case (go figure) against Thomas Perelli pick for DoJ #3 spot because he was a lawyer for Schaivo’s husband.
.
These are typical of their tactics of making a lot of noise about irrelevancies to distract.

Joe, I think there is yet another practical point about holding this administration accountable for crimes committed:
.
Most Republicans in high office, I’m afraid, would be in jail.
.
We would have to look into Katrina, the current Paulson handouts, corruption relating to Haliburton, all kinds of K street stuff, you name it, they did it!

hla, I would agree, but I think we need new leadership before we can do that. I don’t see Reid being the one to lead the fight.
.
But, I could be wrong. /snark

Suppose we let our war criminals off scot-free. What, then, do we do if the mother of an innocent murdered in Bagram travels to Dallas and puts a bullet in George W Bush? After all, prosecuting her would potentially be a distraction as it opens ugly old wounds.
If we can agree to give a pass to anyone who personally seeks revenge against war criminals we choose not to prosecute, then I say, let those war criminals go. It could actually be pretty entertaining.

The fact that TV political gossip shows like can focus only on EITHER justice OR energy stimulus does not mean that the US government cannot pursue both at the same time.

The people who got away with it in the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Senior White Houses were the architects of the lawbreaking in the Bush JR White House.
.
That is the problem with pushing it under the rug. In 2016, if a Republican wins the White House, the people whose crimes are going to be ignored, are going to be high ranking members of the staff.
.
Bush just appointed Elliot Abrams to a 5 year stint on the Holocaust Museum Board. Eliot Abrams! Without accountability, in 2017, our AG could be Addington. Our Secretary of Defense could be Doug Feith.

Of courst there’s no way we could enforce the rule of law AND build infrastructure at the same time.
-
It’s one thing to say that our country is too corrupt and morally bankrupt to enforce it’s own laws. It’s another to shrug to then shrug and say, “That’s life!”
-
And for someone in the media to argue that we can’t do it because the media has a short attention span. Well …

“If you don’t believe me, try this simple test: count the number of television appearances I make this week to promote this sexy “war crimes” column.”
.
So write a column about the first time you got your c0ck sucked and leave the rest of us alone already. You want us to believe the determinant factor in the import of a story is if some scumbag CNN producer gets a woody for it? You’re an idiot.

“Of courst there’s no way we could enforce the rule of law AND build infrastructure at the same time.”
.
The whole world will know, Art, that us Americans can’t chew gum and smoke dope at the same time…

I think some of JK’s attitude stems from the idea that GWB is an exception.
-
True, Bush was the worst president in modern history. But this stuff becomes institutionalized. If no high-level officials pay a price, it will happen again, and we’ll go through another round of this debate. We’ve already lost the 4th Amendment – even most of the Dems don’t care to defend it. I don’t think we’ll get that one back, ever.

“I do not believe the aggressive interrogation of sociopaths does any damage at all to our glorious legal system, or to our moral values as a society.”
.
Hasn’t this been Bush/Cheney’s essential pro torture logic the whole time? Who gets to define ‘aggressive interrogation’? Who gets to define what a ‘sociopath’ is? Idiot.

Of course, in the vein of corruption on a grand scale, but pipsqueaky when in the Maddoff shadow:
.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7819220.stm
.
Still, every litter bit hurts…

Bush screwed the economy up so bad, we need to let him get away with war crimes and the murder of thousands of people. This argument is so typical of gutless moderates. I suspect Obama will latch unto it too.

hla: > What, then, do we do if the mother of an innocent murdered in Bagram travels to Dallas and puts a bullet in George W Bush?
‘
I think I, for one, would applaud her. I’d even donate a few bucks for her defense.

53: > us Americans can’t chew gum and smoke dope at the same time…
‘
Of course not, dude. That’s because we’re eating Funyuns while we’re smoking dope. Gum doesn’t satisfy the munchies, man!

“I was wrong” Is it that hard to say?
.
Many Americans, traumatized and humiliated by the events of 9/11, were tempted to support the invasion of Iraq and even torture (if only sub-consciously and with the necessary euphamisms of “taking the gloves off,” “enhanced interrogation,” “aggressive interrogation,” etc.) because it made them feel better. There was a burning desire to make people — Arabs, Muslims — pay for our pain and to say, as Tom Friedman so eloquently put it, “Suck. On. This.”
.
I get that. But is it too hard to simply say, “you know, I was angry and I said (or wrote) some things that, in hindsight, did not live up to the ideals of America”? Is that really so hard?

Nothing like seeing two looney, deranged lunatics in Klein and Greenwald, who know nothing about warfare, the military, the law (or anything else) discussing the “prosecution” of “George W. Bush” for “war crimes”. I especially enjoy seeing that the two freaks think their debate is of some importance. Those fools live in some insular worlds ….

textee, I’d like to engage in a battle of wits with you, but it would be unfair fighting an unarmed opponent!

Also, Joe’s May 2004 column was absolutely not a “denunciation of the Administration”:
.
“”This is not the America I know,” Bush said of the torturers, as if U.S. soldiers were exempt from the temptations of absolute power that have plagued occupying armies from the beginning of time. ”
.
Joe is blaming the soldiers, not condemning the administation! Bush’s fault? Not ordering torture. No, Bush’s sin, according to 2004 Joe Klein, was naively believing that the soldiers could withstand “temptations”. That our poor soldiers could never live up to the righteous moral convictions of President Bush, which were, in Klein’s eyes, “no doubt, matters of true faith”.

As usual I’m late to the party. But here goes another stupid opinion from drunk Gunny.
.
Joe-man up and do a bloggers head with Glenn.
.
Joe-Bush’s crimes are not your fault nor are you responsible for them.
.
Joe-You are responsible for telling us about them. Addressing them. Calling the Administration on them.
.
Joe-Glenn is not your problem. Your problem is that (you) instead of doing what I mentioned above decided (without Glenn’s help, assistance or encouragement) that you would rather tell everyone that its really too hard to investigate the criminal activity of our government because we have bigger problems.
.
Joe-Your actions now brings back the attitude you took during the “Primary Colors” debacle that you yourself caused. It prompted Ms. Carlson to note:
.
“Time columnist Margaret Carlson seemed to enjoy the many ironies of Klein’s plight. “The political columnist who specializes in exposing the self-indulgent moral relativism of fellow baby boomers badly lost his way,” she wrote in July 1996. Klein, she noted, had attacked the Clintons’ “lawyering, fudging, misdirection, obfuscation and generally slouchy behavior” whenever they faced tough questions. “The intensity of their denials is fascinating …” he had written once. “They defend their virtue against all reason; they never inhale.”
.
http://dir.salon.com/story/people/interview/2002/04/08/klein/index.html

First off, albeit on a wholly unrelated issue, GG did commend Joe recently for his smack-down of the neocons. Reluctantly perhaps, but clearly he is capable of tipping his hat to the ultimate villager.
-
Personally, I think there’s far too much blacklisting on the left–if David Brooks is perceived to a MSM weathervane hack, well, then anything he writes cannot possibly express something of merit? That’s patently absurd. This goes for Friedman et al, those with fingers in the air, testing the winds, employing historical revisionism–I think we’re sophisticated enough to sort the wheat from the chaff.
-
I agree with GG’s arguments, but at the same time I think Joe makes the more compelling case at this moment in time (and I can make that assessment by assessing his case stripped of the context of his previous body of work; actually, I can make it without even contemplating who the author is–it’s irrelevant). Unlike drooling progressives (and I have a wet spot on my collar), most Americans don’t give a flying sh-t that torture took place. Most think if Jack Bauer can do it… And sure as hell, given the state of the union, they don’t want to see a partisan bloodwar on the streets of DC. Even if our so-called liberal leaders in congress weren’t wholly complicit, this would and could go no where and therefore it does little more than get the rocks off of the haters on the left, mobilizes the haters on the right, and nothing gets done to address a failing state (read what’s not been going on for decades). And personally, I’d like to see my friends and family stateside have some hope of a better tomorrow.
-
“overbearingly self-righteous”
-
Pot: Mr. Kettle, you’re black!
-
“Its also especially crucial insofar as our military is stretched so thin, and its going to take years (and massive amounts of money) to restore the military. War crimes trials are a time sensitive and cost-effective measure because they will restore the ‘soft power’ of the USA.”
-
Funny, I thought progressives weren’t so enamored with notions of restoring our military or “soft power”–see, some of us, don’t want Clintonesque hegemony to replace Bush militarism. In other words, using Clinton at state to harness the world’s regard with less bellicose rhetoric. Meanwhile, status quo. For those of us who live abroad, you’re smoking dope P-Luk. The world’s population hasn’t forgotten the last 60 odd years of US fo-po folly and excess. Would putting Bush, Cheney in shackles, help, yes, but only if our insane fo-po changed fundamentally. The dem enthusiasm about Afghan, the GOP enthusiasm about HRC at state. Trust that the world sees through the b-s.

Textee, bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha.

*points at textee, laughs some more*

“I do have a practical problem with it…and so does Obama, which is why he won’t pursue this for a very good reason: there are much bigger things at stake.”

Presidential Oath of Office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Mr. Klein, do you really think that President Obama will be able to uphold his oath of office if he allows the Justice Department to ignore known lawbreaking merely because our political aristocracy feel it’s too difficult or not important enough to hold these criminals accountable? Seriously, do you really believe that there is something more important in this country than upholding the rule of law?

“Seriously, do you really believe that there is something more important in this country than upholding the rule of law?”

He thinks the rule of law should be followed, outside of Washington DC. Rich and powerful people ought to be able to break the law, in the name of bipartisan compromise, the highest value in the corridors of power. The supermen may make the law, but they are under no obligation to follow it.

It is not like anyone is asking Joe to prosecute the Bush administration personally. Nor is it Joe’s responsibility to look at what is on any administration’s plate and decide what they are too busy to do.
.
WTF is the problem with not excusing law breaking by our government and calling them on it?

jcapan, how right you are. The Bush excesses are a mere extension of 60 years of mindless fo-po. Joe Klein has stated that Obama will bring fresh air to to fo-po room. I doubt it.
.
The sociopath interrogation line makes me laugh everytime I see it, cinci quotes it above in #4, What makes me smile is that I have long believed that what draws Bush, Chaney, Rummey, and all the gang together is that they all, in fact, are true sociopaths.

“I think some of JK’s attitude stems from the idea that GWB is an exception.”
.
I could be totally wrong about this but what I’m reading is that Joe, like many of his authority-loving elites, trusted George Bush and got punked. Now he wants to trust Obama. As an elite, establishment player, he’s fallen for the foolish conceit of all elites – that they deserve their power and wealth (their success is a product of meritocracy) and, therefore, deserve respect and trust that they will fulfill the duty of their jobs. The powerful always have a strong incentive to deny the source of elite power as well as the inevitable effect of unaccountable power, even as they witness it with their own eyes.

“For the first time in the nation’s history, more than one in 100 American adults is behind bars, according to a new report…it cost an average of $23,876 dollars to imprison someone in 2005″
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28cnd-prison.html
….but none of them have ever been to a Beltway cocktail party right Joke?

Joe.
.
Speaking only for myself here. I’ve appreciated your writing this past year, and your very public repudiation of your prior Democrat-bashing habit, as well as your stand against AIPAC excesses. I’ve stated that a couple of times.
.
Speaking only for myself, I am not “taking you to task” for your column. My prior posts were, I would hope, part of the very frank discussion that needs to take place publicly about what is to be done with the war criminals that have occupied the White House for the past 8 years. If my writing has been a little rough, it is because I am not a professional writer, and it is a subject that I have very strong feelings about.
.
At least you are talking about it. I appreciate that, even if I don’t agree completely with your position. You are the *only* MSM, you and Andrew Sullivan (who doesn’t allow comments), that is talking about it. That’s why you are getting all the flak. I admire your guts for putting the subject up for discussion. Please don’t stop talking about it. Others will eventually join in and take some of the heat off, I think.
.
But, let’s do have the public discussion.
.

cinci, all those locked up, as you know, are the wrong kind of people.

James, LA, I notice you are much more kind and diplomatic with Joe than you are with KT. Just an observation.

Well formerlyjames , they wouldn’t get in the cocktail party through the front door, some of them could conceivably be there working for the catering company I suppose…or shining Joe’s shoes.

cinci, shoes aside, whoever they are, we gots more of em than anywhere in the world by a long shot.

Maybe the ‘bigger problems’ are these:
.
Pardons
.
Loss of millions of emails
.
Lots of the wrong people in the wrong places (Gonzalas comes to mind, there are more…)
.
With roadblocks like these, who needs obstacles…

I think Joe’s column is admirable. I think that it’s important to move forward. But unless we address what has been done in the name of the United States over these past years, it will surely happen again.
.
The impeachment clause is dead; there is no way to remove a criminal president if his party decides against it. The pardon process is not dead: there is no way to sanction or punish a criminal president.
.
So, what is to be done? “Nothing” is a vindication of Bushism; “something” is institutionally problematic.

…not only more of them, but smug, self righteous politicians talking about personal responsibility and the need to set examples all the while. Tonight, I’m really, really feeling Robespierre.
.
/So, what is to be done? “Nothing” is a vindication of Bushism; “something” is institutionally problematic.’
.
Guillotines I say!

…not only more of them, but smug, self righteous politicians talking about personal responsibility and the need to set examples all the while. Tonight, I’m really, really feeling Robespierre.
.
‘So, what is to be done? “Nothing” is a vindication of Bushism; “something” is institutionally problematic.’
.
Guillotines I say!

[...] Klein responds here.  He accuses me of being “monomaniacal on the subject of civil liberties.”  He once [...]

“while all the carping pains an Anglophile like me, most Americans don’t give a fig about what you think. There is the old American bias toward seeing Europe as tired, flaccid and hopelessly parochial.”
.
Just so you know Joke, when I was carping I had a hard on that could cut glass. Sure, I was smoking a joint and listening to Rage Against the Machine….but I was rock hard.

“formerlyjames Says:
Thursday, January 8, 2009 at 7:49 pm
James, LA, I notice you are much more kind and diplomatic with Joe than you are with KT. Just an observation.”

@James LA —
.
You might want to ask yourself if you have a problem with women in general or at least the ones with strong opinions because your earlier attack on me (not the first one I might add)was not only undeserved because there was clearly a misunderstanding about what I was trying to say. It was beyond the pale since it got quite personal for a reason known only to you. I was saying essentially saying some of the same things said in this thread and the previous one and I didn’t see you attack any of them.
.
Below I repeated the post that sent you off the deep end and while I am willing to accept that I may not have written it as clearly as I should have, this was by no means an attack on you. It was not even a response to what you were saying even though it immediately followed your post. I was trying to encapsulate the discussion taking place in the outside world and despite your assertion that I was doing what I usually do: creating an outrageous straw man, bashing, finger waving, tut-tutting, and oh wait for it — putting stupid words in the mouths of my fellow commenters — I thought I was exploring my thoughts with other thoughtful commenters. Perhaps you could read it again and tell me how we saw things so differently.
.
I am by no means in agreement with those who claim the public’s alleged lack of desire for accountability is a good reason to ignore the rule of law and let the Bush administration off the hook. However, I also question those who are clamoring for Bush’s head on a pike as if going after the administration legally will not have consequences beyond making Bush and his friends uncomfortable.
.
Granted, I am risking the ire of my fellow commentators by suggesting that this is not a black and white issue. But I think we have a responsibility not just to agitate for a single course of action but to encourage the exploration of the pros and cons of a variety of means to reassert our core values. It may very well turn out that the best course of action is to charge Bush and the crew with war crimes, but we ought to have a richer discussion before we demand the subpoenas or condemn those who disagree. Off the top of my head some of my questions include: Where would this fit in the list of public priorities? What are the possible consequences for our foreign policy initiatives? How would this impact the office of the presidency going forward? Would this leave us vulnerable to civil sanctions in international courts? With everything else going on how will the media handle this would we end up taking our eye off of the immediate goals of saving our economy? Please, no attacks based on principals or the law comes before everything else. Indictments may indeed be the way to go — I am just saying where is the discussion about what this path would mean to the nation and if there are other means to achieve the same goals that might produce a better overall outcome?

Dee, the constitutional, moral, and civil violations of the Bush regime are clear to me. I would try the bunch of them in Nuremburg just for effect. But I am whistling against the wind. It won’t happen. So, let’s move on and call further such acts for what they are in the future as they occur. For now, I decry the outrageous behavior of the great US ally Isreal and the slaughter and violation of innocent people in Gaza. Maybe one day, there will be a Congress that will offer true oversight.

To expand a little, US citizens may not be there, but US citizens have funded and provided the encouragement and armaments for what is happening in Gaza now. And the US Congress has passed a resolution saying that the suffering of the innocent civilians in Gaza is the fault of Hamas. Absurd nonsense.

To expand further, the idiot zionist fascists have killed more of themselves during the incurrsion than Hamas has done in years.

To highlight stinking US fo-po, when Russia responded to serious attack by Georgia, it was a big deal. Compared to what Isreal is doing now, Russia’s actions look like a Mother Teresa mercy mission.

I seem to be alone in the room. Goodnight everybody, I will turn out the lights as I leave.

Obama’s national security capital has already been depleted by the Panetta pick. He’s go far from enough in the tank to do anything to go after Bush. That’s just worthless.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

If the U.S. doesn’t have the resources to prosecute for war crimes at this time, might I suggest we use one of Bush’s own tactics–extraordinary rendition. We just drop Bush et al off at the Hague and then let the International Criminal Court take it from there.

formerlyjames, I usually find your posts agreeable, but I don’t like this slant against the Israelis. Granted, they’re not perfect, but it’s not like Hamas, et al, are just sitting there, doing nothing, and Israel is beating them up. They’re picking civilian targets, too. Paint them both with the same brush.
‘
And if the plight of the refugees over there is such a humanitarian crisis, why don’t the other Arab nations take in these people?

Off the top of my head some of my questions include: Where would this fit in the list of public priorities?
Within the Justice Department, it should have a fairly high priority. (What Justice Department priorities do you think are more important?)
_
What are the possible consequences for our foreign policy initiatives?
it would help restore the reputation of the United States in the eyes of the world.
(Perhaps more importantly, what are the consequences for our foreign policy if we DON’T hold our leaders accountable?)
_
How would this impact the office of the presidency going forward?
It would let subsequent Presidents know that crimes against humanity will not be tolerated.
(And again, more importantly, what is the impact on the office of the presidency if we don’t hold a President accountable for egregious crimes against humanity?)
_
Would this leave us vulnerable to civil sanctions in international courts?
It leaves us no more vulnerable than we should be — if you were tortured by the Federal Government, wouldn’t you want to sue?
_
With everything else going on how will the media handle this would we end up taking our eye off of the immediate goals of saving our economy?
It shouldn’t make a difference — and I can’t see why it would.
_
Please, no attacks based on principals or the law comes before everything else. Indictments may indeed be the way to go — I am just saying where is the discussion about what this path would mean to the nation and if there are other means to achieve the same goals that might produce a better overall outcome?
There are only two options — either we try Bush and his cronies ourselves, or we provide full co-operation to an international tribunal that can hold the trials. To suggest otherwise means that you find torture acceptable, because you choose to do nothing when it has been done in your name.

Interesting article from a Profoundly Uneramerican author who writes for a profoundly Unamerican magazine. Doing what it takes to save American Lives is Never UnAmerican whether its waterboarding, firebombing of Dreden or using Atomic Bombs on civilians. And yes EVEN sending Japanese to interment camps.

Protecting the civil liberties of a terrorist who may have information about a pending attack on Americans IS UNAMERICAN. The US Constitution is not a Suicide Pact.

If he has information about a pending attack to kill Americans I will volunteer to attack the Car Battery to his Genitals . But Joe Klein is always more concerned about Terrorists than Americans. Right Joe?? Screw Americans? Especially the Gentile types huh?

shepherdwong – That’s just it. The mindset (I think) is: How were we supposed to know that GWB, who seemed like a guy you’d want to have a beer with, would turn out so horrible? But of course it will never happen again, because next time the media will be on the alert.
-
But of course that never happens. When (not if) it happens again, we’ll go through the same hand-wringing routine.

Lets remind everyone of another Joe Klein comment

“The notion that we could just waltz in and inject democracy into an extremely complicated, devout and ancient culture smacked–still smacks–of neocolonialist legerdemain”

Of course he ignored the fact that Imperial Japan was a devout and ancient culture who thought their emperor was a deity and we waltzed in an established an amazing Democracy. But Joe is more interested in Bush Hate that truth.

But here is Klein on Meet the Press in February 2003: “This is a really tough decision. War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it–it’s–it-it probably is.” When Tim Russert presses Klein on why he thinks Iraq is “the right war,” Klein responds, “Because sooner or later, this guy has to be taken out.

Is Joe a Neoconservative nut or just as dishonest as they come?

dencal: No, in this case JK realized he was wrong and admitted it.

I’m happy enought that JK brought up the issue of torture – although he brought it up essentially to dismiss it.
-
I just get frustrated, because apparently justice in this case will never happen, not for any legal reason, but simply from a collective failure to imagine that our leaders could be held accountable for their actions.
-
A society that doesn’t believe in its own foundation of laws is doomed in the long run. If the president can do whatever he wants, why do we have laws at all?

I missed Swamp today, but this post and comments provided great late-night reading. Thanks for the post Joe, and the impassioned, righteous comments. There’s not much to add, except maybe this: Joe, how could you have ever had the illusion that a GWB presidency would be anything less than a disaster? Were you a horrible judge of character, or did you just not do any research? Prior to his election in 2000 GWB was a complete failure at everything he did. Ever hear about his record on executions as governor of Texas? http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17670 – sound familiar? You think he’s ever given a sh!t if innocent people die? And Cheney, Rummy, etc., they all had records… C’mon Joe, I’m baffled enough that so many people voted for these scum bags TWICE, but you’re a reporter – get a clue. And for the record, not prosecuting them for their crimes would be a travesty.

JK:
” .. which is why he won’t pursue this for a very good reason: there are much bigger things at stake ..”
—-
hellslittlestangel Says:
” .. It boggles my mind that anyone who claims to believe in democracy and the rule of law would also claim that capital felonies, Constitutional violations and war crimes should not be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted because it would be “impractical” to do so. ..”

Perhaps it is time to remove the blindfold from Lady Justice – so that she can tell what/who is ‘practical’ to prosecute …
Maybe we should suspend the Supreme Court and the whole justice system while BHO stimulates Joe Klein’s priorities…
—-
Art Pepper Says:
” .. I’m happy enough that JK brought up the issue of torture – although he brought it up essentially to dismiss it. .. “

Some may wonder why Joe would promote a line of action which would qualify as ‘anti-American’ or contrary to what we cherish as our values and virtues. Maybe we are asking the wrong question. Let us re-phrase the question this way: Does Israel want these prosecutions? What would be the ramifications for Israel if such prosecutions proceed in USA?

Well, look. I don’t think Joe brought it up to dismiss it. What I am getting is that he is genuinely troubled about it. You take someone like Ruth Marcus, her mind is made up that “in order to prevent something like this from happening again” we need to let these people off the hook. See: Ruth Marcus: Why torture prosecutions would solve nothing | Dallas Morning News . This same attitude applies to, I think, most of the opinion elite — the Broders, the Cohens, the Brooks. Okay WE dismiss them as amoral useless hacks, but they have a great deal of influence on the consensus thinking in DC.
..
I think that Joe is more troubled about this. But you have to remember that the consensus opinion in DC is to let them off the hook. I commend Joe for throwing the subject out for discussion. It isn’t that easy to break out of that Beltway mindset. Obviously, he read the comments from the prior post and gave them some thought. It appears he is willing to take some unfortunate incoming flak to see if there is really no “public appetite” for prosecution. I hope he has concluded that there *is*.
.
And, again, At least he is talking about it.

I appreciate James, LA’s take. And while Beltway Think does matter White House Think matters more and if BHO has no appetite for investigating then all the noise in the world isn’t going to make a difference.

I am very very late commenting on this but I will still add my 2 cents. To say that not prosecuting Bush Co for war crimes because it might be a distraction is the height of idiocy. By that justification every cop should stop arresting killers and murderers because they might be distracted from protecting the public. When our President commits war crimes he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law in order to deter future presidents from doing so and that includes Obama if he were to ever take the same tact. Right now one of the biggest problems with our foreign policy is a lack of credibility. We do whatever we want to whomever we want and nobody is ever held to account. But at the same time we denounce the leaders of other countries for their actions. How hypocritical can you get? Do you really think Bush Co did all of they things they did not feeling like they could get away with it precisely because of this kind of bullsh!t attitude? Its what our country is known for by now. Nixon, Reagan, Bush all commit crimes against our constituation but none of them spend a night in jail. If we are really going to try to ensure we don’t torture again or start needless wars again or spy on our own people again then prosecution is the needed deterrent. Hell at least investigate if for no other reason than we can understand the depth of what actually happened. Some people have said the average citizens don’t care about Bush getting prosecuted but you know what, isn’t it funny that NOBODY has commissioned a poll to see where Americans stand on this? I wonder why that is. I wonder why people fear to know what the real feelings of the people are. Now wasn’t it BO who said we should be able to do more than one thing at a time? It is not like he will be heading the investigation so how does he get sidetracked? How does an investigation into the Bush administration divert his attention one iota away from the problems facing this country? If you say its a political problem then I say that makes it even MORE important to do it. If we are seen as letting Bush Co off for political expediency what does that say about our country, really? I tell you what, the next time you are pulled over by a cop for speeding try telling him you shouldn’t get a ticket because of the crisises our country is facing. Watch him laugh in your face and then ask yourself why Bush should be granted any more leniency than you are. If Bush Co are not investigated and or prosecuted for the illegal acts they committed in office then we guarantee that it will happen again down the line. And if you can explain to me how that is a good thing for this country then I will take it all back. But if its just because its the EASY thing for this country well I have to say that doing things the easy way is partly responsible for the problems we are going through right now.
.
And Joe Klein couldn’t sniff Greenwald’s jock strap on this issue nor on the I/P conflict or just about any topic. Joe doesn’t have the courage of his convictions and thats why he bends with the political winds. Name me one issue that Klein has stood apart from his collegues on and spoke truth to power when it wasn’t the popular thing to do. Greenwald does that on the regular and while I don’t agree with all of his positions at least he is frikkin consistent.

Regardless of what Kline & Greenwald think is best as to our war crimes, if there is any formal raising of the subject, such a formal presumption might provoke Bush into a presumtive pardon.

January 21 should be a National Holiday of Integrity otherwise known as Henry Waxman Day (D-US Representative from California). That is the day that Waxman can hand out indictments without Bush being able to grant pardons to his co-conspirator/idiots.

sg,
.
I’m on your page about the investigations/prosecution, but as to your question about Klein, here: Daniel Levy: On Joe Klein and the Jewish Neoconservatives. About consistent, are people not allowed to change their opinion based on public debate? That seems unfair.

Still trying to wrap my head around the idea of there being something wrong about monomania regarding civil liberties. You’d pretty much have to say Jefferson was that way, wouldn’t you? Extremism in defense of freedom is no vice.
.
Heh. I was about to post this, but realized I hadn’t seen whether GG had posted an update in response. He did. It says what I just wrote, but, of course, more eloquently:

Joe Klein responds here. He accuses me of being “monomaniacal on the subject of civil liberties.” He once before called me a “civil liberties extremist.” I’m not sure why he thinks those are insults. I actually consider them compliments, and even incorporated the latter phrase — “civil liberties extremist” — into every speech and presentation I’ve given since then (always credited to Klein), to explain how one is perceived these days if one opposes torture, believes in the warrant requirement, and thinks that high political officials should be actually bound by our laws and punished when they violate them.

I see the sentiments on the comments are about 95 in favor of immediate war crimes tribunals, three in favor of postponement, and two are in favor of cheese. I am among the three, as I hope that the mills of the gods may grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.
.
At some point I hope to see Bush, Cheney, Addington and Yoo in the dock over their complicity in the greatest outrage to the principles of this country ever perpetrated. But I am a realist. There are many, many, many willing accomplices and mere apologists who are still in positions of power and who will resist, no matter the cost to our country and the world in lost initiative for dealing with the economy, healthcare, infrastructure, etc., any attempts to bring their activities (or inactivities) into the light of day. So for now, a full-court press into court would be, sorry, counter-productive.
.
I know this is not satisfying to the 95, and frankly it’s not satisfying to me. I’d love to see Bush & Co. carted out of Washington in a tumbrel, or tarred and feathered on a rail. But whatever brief joy that would give me would be soon lost as the counter-attack was launched. Wait for now, is my advice.
.
It is my fervent hope that someone, somewhere, is compiling a list of names and a room of evidence for the future. The naming of Panetta to the CIA is an encouraging sign. The lack of a clear “no prosecutions” statement from Obama – despite numerous invitations to do so – is another. I hope that even now, with little fanfare the torture regime is being disbanded, its supporters dispersed, and its defenders weakened and demoralized. Once that is accomplished, and not before, is the time for truth, justice, and vengeance.

James LA
.
Yeah they can change their opinions due to current debate but he seems to change his by the latest opinion poll. Even the link you provided shows Joe Klein standing against a war with Iran at a time when most Americans also don’t want said war. Is he really to be commended for something that pretty much every non Jewish person who isn’t a Neo Con is saying? Not in my opinion.

. And while Beltway Think does matter White House Think matters more and if BHO has no appetite for investigating
.
This is a symptom of the cancer that Bush has infected the country with. There is no way you should expect the president to act to limit his authority. The idea that only he can do this is part of the problem. This is the duty of the Congress, to reassert its role as a coequal branch.
.
It will put Republicans in a weird position. They do their best to limit Democratic Presidents’ power. (See Yoo and Bolton suddenly discovering the Senate role in treaties.) But the path for doing is punishing Republicans……

sg,
.
I was referring to his stand against AIPAC. I was courageous of him to to do that and I don’t think you should take that away from him.
.
I think you misunderstand the debate, billiecat, unless you are exaggerating for dramatic effect in characterizing the majority as calling for “immediate war crimes tribunals.” Criminal investigation, subpoenas, yes. The fear is that the matter will be dropped and swept under the rug once again, as happened with Watergate and Iran Contra, because the beltway has no appetite for calling Republicans to account for their crimes.
.

James LA

What was courageous about it? Seriously?

sg,
.
No one in the history of the beltway, either politician or journo, has ever called AIPAC out on their rhetorical gangsterism, until Klein.
.

“Aside from pursuing the Bush administration criminally would there be any benefit in writing new law to explicitly prohibit this kind of activity in the future? Much has been said about Bush setting a dangerous precedent and that the executive branch is unlikely to give the power back, perhaps the focus should be on Congress taking its power back by prohibiting this kind of aberrant behavior.”

We’ve had laws against torture since before the founding of the Republic. George Washington ordered the death penalty for anyone who mistreated prisoners in ANY way. The Eighth Amendment (you know, the Constitution -the highest law of the land?) also forbids it. The country is also a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, as well as the Convention Against Torture (as ratified treaties, these two laws trump every law but the Constitution itself). In 1996 Congress passed the War Crimes Act, which allows the death penalty for those who kill prisoners while mistreating them. None of these laws allows exceptions.

So there are already laws against torture and murder. We just have a government and media (including pro-torture hacks like Joe Klein) who want no part of enforcing them. Welcome to Argentina circa 1977.

James LA
.
What can they do to him? He is Jewish after all.

I think that Joe is more troubled about this. But you have to remember that the consensus opinion in DC is to let them off the hook. I commend Joe for throwing the subject out for discussion. It isn’t that easy to break out of that Beltway mindset. Obviously, he read the comments from the prior post and gave them some thought. It appears he is willing to take some unfortunate incoming flak to see if there is really no “public appetite” for prosecution. I hope he has concluded that there *is*.
.
And, again, At least he is talking about it.
–
James, LA, well said. The fact that Joe is writing about this indicates he is troubled. It’s also sad that everyone is so grateful – and rightfully so – that anyone in the MSM is willing to talk about the breakdown in the rule of law.
–
I can see the merits of both sides in this debate, although after hearing about the incidents recounted in Angler I’m now convinced that investigations need to proceed in order to deter against similar actions in the future, by both Republican and Democratic Presidents. I don’t think anyone, including Obama, should have the kind of power Bush (okay, Cheney) had. But perhaps a compromise would be to investigate top-level aides, such as Addison (that was my mom’s suggestion actually). Without the support of those aides, Bush and Cheney would not have been able to implement their illegal and unconstitutional policies. It’s important that in the future top aides know they risk criminal prosecution for their actions, even if they were following a President’s orders.

Re Public appetite:
.
22,000 votes at change.gov for prosecution. Leading the pack.
.
http://tinyurl.com/93xy7s
.
Naturally, the NYT is snarky about it.
.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/advocates-of-a-special-prosecutor-for-bush-seek-an-answer-from-obama/

I like and respect Greenwald and agree with him on most issues, and I am monomaniacal as well on civil liberty issues, being a civil liberties extremist myself, *** AND PROUD OF IT ***** buuuuut.
.
This is an important discussion. I wish GG hadn’t drug up and derided some of Joe’s old stuff. Doing stuff like that tends to make the MSM go back into silence; it is, and has been, easier for them not to bring this stuff up than toss it out for discussion. So in that way it isn’t very constructive. I’m all for vigorous debate and we need it here more than almost any other issue but I’d rather see it be constructive. I’m bitter too about the vicious marginalization that we civil liberties extremists experienced back then as well. If someone is now having doubts, and is willing to throw it out for public conversation, I think that is commendable.
.
jelperman outlines the actual laws that govern this stuff, so it is ludicrous of people in the beltway to call for more laws or whatever to “ensure it doesn’t happen again.” That’s Marcus’ line, and Joe mentioned it as well. There is NO QUESTION that these people violated numerous laws, serious laws, felonies, capital crimes. Including George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney.
.

Obviously nothing will happen until after the inauguration and then we will know who Bush has pre-emptively pardoned — since he did pre-emptive wars, he will certainly feel able to do such pardons.
.
As I mentioned before, I think the reason that Rove has targeted the DoJ, especially Holder, is to begin the fight against investigations. Mitch McConnell was on Morning Edition this morning saying that there were “serious” problems with Holder (as well as expressing his shock at the terrible deficit, that seems to have sprung up unnoticed without his help.)

.
A little OT, but here’s what I wanna know. Back when Repubs were in charge, there was a 75-25 preponderance of Repubs on the teevee and the reason given was “because the Repubs are in charge” they had to have more Repubs on for commentary. Now that the Dems are in charge, they feel compelled to put the opposition on. Ergo, a preponderance of Repubs. How does that work?
.
Part of it, of course, is inept Dem message management. Paging Jim Manley. do your job!
.

james, LA – I dunno, maybe I am being over dramatic. Or maybe the 95 aren’t being clear. What, exactly, is wanted? I want a low key process of preserving what can be preserved until the time is right for full-bore investigations. I don’t hear anyone here saying (except maybe textee) no investigations, period. Maybe there’s more common ground here than I thought.
.
ivb – well, his daddy did pre-emptive pardons over Iran- Contra, and that was small beer compared to this. So that won’t surprise me at all. And I suspect you are on target with the opposition to Holder, which is why I am in favor of keeping powder dry (as much as that phrase has fallen into disrepute due to its overuse by certain Democratic leaders).

I wonder if BHO, by being outwardly “against” prosecuting this, is actually holding his cards close. Ya know, to avoid tipping his hand, leading to pre-emptive pardons. Just a thought…

This has nothing to do with revenge. It has to do with the rule of international law and redefining our country as a country that actually see itself as a member of the international community, not it’s noble king who is above the law. That said, I think whoever brought up the fact that the democrats complicity in these crimes is why they won’t be prosecuted domestically is exactly right. Saying it’s not a good idea because we have too much on our plate is a pathetic and disgusting argument, however, and I lost a lot of respect for JK because of it. If we’re able to establish a commission, by the time they come back with a report recommending prosecution it’ll probably be 2011, and hopefully the economy will be on the road to recovery by then.
Imagine the signal we could send, though, if we the citizens were somehow able to send these people to the ICC.

People have been punished for this. Army privates, the real culprits!

billie,
I think the major argument (at least from me, others can speak for themselves) is a call for criminal investigations. No not this very minute. Not, perhaps, even the month of March. But soon, before it gets swept under the rug by the course of events. That’s what the consensus of the Beltway is — to forget about it and hope it doesn’t happen again. That’s the argument, in my view. Appointing a commission will do exactly that. Look at the 911 commission It delayed reckoning for literally YEARS in their secret meetings, and the report was of course redacted. And we learned practically nothing. That’s the danger of a “truth” commission. We will end up without the truth. But that is far different than immediate tribunals. See what I mean?

I have questions about how indictments and prosecutions could proceed.
.
It appears that this can be tried domestically or at the International Criminal Court (The Hague). Would a domestic trial be held in Federal court or the Senate? If possible, I would rather this proceed abroad (to avoid “distraction”). Does the ICC have power to extradite US citizens? Can the individuals in question simply be “handed over” to the ICC?
.
Also, this statement on the ICC’s site raised more questions.
.
.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an independent, permanent court that tries persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The ICC is based on a treaty, joined by 108 countries.
.
The ICC is a court of last resort. It will not act if a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system unless the national proceedings are not genuine, for example if formal proceedings were undertaken solely to shield a person from criminal responsibility. In addition, the ICC only tries those accused of the gravest crimes.
.
.
Does the investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee count as “a national judicial review”, thereby limiting any trials to US courts? And are Presidential Pardons “formal proceedings… undertaken solely to shield a person from criminal responsibility”?
.
I’ll try to do some research over the weekend (but its the NFL playoffs…) and hopefully answer my own questions.

** that should be “investigat(ion)… by a national judicial system”

pint,
I am really not knowledgable about this but I would definitely not favor any action by the Senate. As a matter of fact, on MADDOW the other night, Senator Levin explicitly said that it wouldn’t be appropriate for the Senate to take action, beyond the investigation that they did. I hope your search this weekend will be productive, and we can all benefit. Scott Horton and Phillipe Sands have written quite a bit on how this might be done.

Intro to American Law 101:

…the son of former Liberian President Charles Taylor has been sentenced by a US court to 97 years in prison for torture – BBC, Jan 0, 2008.

You have a very short memory, Mr. Klein. Maybe this quote from the rest of your Guardian article of February 2002 will refresh it:

“The noted Anglican hostage mediation expert Terry Waite wrote recently in the Guardian that: “I can recognize the conditions prisoners are being kept in at the US camp at Guantanamo Bay because I have been there. Not to Cuba’s Camp X-Ray, but to the darkened cell in Beirut that I occupied for five years. I was chained to a wall by my hands and feet, beaten on the soles of my feet with cable, denied all human rights and contact with my family for five years . . . Because I was kept in very similar conditions, I am appalled by the way we — countries that call ourselves civilised — are treating these captives.”

Total rubbish, of course. The Camp X-Ray Yankophobe fiesta has died down in the past week as it has become clear that the prisoners — I see no need to use euphemisms here — are not being treated badly at all. The Red Cross has been in. Doctors are caring for them. They receive three square meals a day. They pray (and we provide arrows to point them the way). There’s no air conditioning, but the winter heat in Cuba isn’t exactly devastating. The cells are eight feet square; not the Ritz, but not quite inhumane, either. They were shackled and goggled when they were being transported, but no longer. They wear orange jump suits, which are probably an improvement over their Afghan cave-wear (I would actually prefer they be dressed in pink tutus, to give them an appreciation of the freedoms accorded western ballerinas). They are not being tortured, Terry. They are being interrogated.”

The plain fact of the matter is that you never even considered the idea that the US might be torturing prisoners, even as you wrote articles stating point blank that you did not believe the Bush Administration- the same Administration which was even then creating euphemisms about their legal status (and did you ever bother to wonder WHY they were doing that?)- ever would or even conceivably could mistreat them.

You all but admitted in that article that you didn’t care what happened to those prisoners; now, six years later, you are calling upon our next Administration to not prosecute the men who tortured at the orders of George Bush for those very crimes you failed to spot, did nothing to investigate, swore up and down they would never commit.

This is cowardice, Mr. Klein. You failed in your most basic responsibility as a reporter to actually find out- or even TRY to find out- what was happening, and now you want us to forget about it as if it did not happen. And what is your excuse? That the Obama Administration has “more important things to do”?

As opposed to what? You may welcome the idea of living in a nation like Singapore or China or Russia or Cuba, where everyone is healthy except those who are dragged off the street and made to disappear. But I was taught by the men and women serving on RAF Upper Heyford Air Force Base that, as Americans, we were supposed to be the good guys. And the men and women who raised me were absolutely clear on what that meant. You do not torture. You do not lie. You do not commit crimes at another man’s order. Those who refuse to do so are called heroes, and those who say they were “just follow orders” are called Nazis.

Of course, we both know why you really want us to forget about what men like George Bush and Dick Cheney did. Because the sooner America forgets about them and their crimes is the sooner America forgets about your utter failure as a reporter. But I would like to see the men who transformed my beloved Air Force into a taxi service for CIA torture dungeons pay for their crimes. And I don’t see any reason to forgive and forget until they actually pay for what they did. That means prosecution, conviction, and jail time, Mr. Klein. No slinking off like Augusto Pinochet to spend his life in quiet retirement while his victims spend decades trying to find out where their husbands’ and wives’ corpses are buried. And no more pardons.

I wish Joe (or someone) could research one question I have never heard asked, much less answered:

at about the time the Khaled Sheikh Mohammed (‘KSM’) was captured — I believe a short time before his capture — his two small sons, then aged 6 and 9, were detained (in Pakistan, I believe). So far as I know nothing has been heard of them since. I wish someone could find out what became of them, how they were treated and where they are now.

If anyone has information on these two lads (the world’s youngest political prisoners, at least at the time of their capture) I ask them to drop me an email at yangshuo2006@yahoo.com — or better yet to publish it and merely point me to the location.

bartron01, thanks for reminding us that Joe Klein is not intellectually honest.
.
Joe Klein, The Guardian, February 2002:
.

The noted Anglican hostage mediation expert Terry Waite wrote recently in the Guardian that: “I can recognize the conditions prisoners are being kept in at the US camp at Guantanamo Bay because I have been there. Not to Cuba’s Camp X-Ray, but to the darkened cell in Beirut that I occupied for five years. I was chained to a wall by my hands and feet, beaten on the soles of my feet with cable, denied all human rights and contact with my family for five years . . . Because I was kept in very similar conditions, I am appalled by the way we — countries that call ourselves civilised — are treating these captives.”
.
Total rubbish, of course. The Camp X-Ray Yankophobe fiesta has died down in the past week as it has become clear that the prisoners — I see no need to use euphemisms here — are not being treated badly at all. The Red Cross has been in. Doctors are caring for them. They receive three square meals a day. They pray (and we provide arrows to point them the way). There’s no air conditioning, but the winter heat in Cuba isn’t exactly devastating. The cells are eight feet square; not the Ritz, but not quite inhumane, either. They were shackled and goggled when they were being transported, but no longer. They wear orange jump suits, which are probably an improvement over their Afghan cave-wear (I would actually prefer they be dressed in pink tutus, to give them an appreciation of the freedoms accorded western ballerinas). They are not being tortured, Terry. They are being interrogated.

Joe Klein, doing his part to cover up torture in February 2002.

You protest too much, Klein. Say it clearly: You are willing to sacrifice liberties and principle for a perceived (short-term) benefit.
That willingness will come back to haunt you.
America is past its zenith, and there is no way the next superpower will hold back from taking every opportunity to abuse laws just as the US has these past years (at least since Reagan).
Enjoy the fall.

“I do not believe the aggressive interrogation of sociopaths does any damage at all to our glorious legal system, or to our moral values as a society.”
Spoken like a sociopath.

“our glorious legal system” indeed.

Anyone who reads you and who reads Greenwald knows who the dishonest one is, Klein.
And it ain’t Glenn Greenwald.

Read your own columns and compare them with what really happened.
Then think. You can still become an honest journalist who speaks truth to power. Or (because the foregoing takes great courage) who, at the very least, reports honestly.

To do so, you will have to get out of your circle of mal-influence. Those lunch and dinner dates.

I paraphrase Klein:
“I have a practical problem with” . . doing the right thing/ prosecuting criminals/ upholding America’s principles/ protecting the constitution/ upholding rule of law . . . how would you like to phrase it, Mr Klein?

“Obama, won’t pursue this for a very good reason: there are much bigger things at stake. We are in the midst of an economic crisis.”

Principles? Money?
Klein votes money.
Meet him for lunch to get your story favourably presented. In TIME MAGAZINE, yet!

[...] President, accused of involvement in authorising and approving torture policy. I’m inclined to agree with Joe Klein: I would have no moral, legal or spiritual problem with the Obama Administration pursuing this [...]

[...] me for years of being what he calls a “civil liberties extremist” or “monomaniacal on the subject of civil liberties” — as though that’s some type of insult, when I view it as being exactly the [...]

[...] me for years of being what he calls a “civil liberties extremist” or “monomaniacal on the subject of civil liberties” — as though that’s some type of insult, when I view it as being exactly the [...]

[...] me for years of being what he calls a “civil liberties extremist” or “monomaniacal on the subject of civil liberties” — as though that’s some type of insult, when I view it as being exactly the [...]