Top

Skip to Content

Skip to Main Navigation

Skip to Archives

Skip to Sub Content

Main Content

Driving the Conversation:

The interrogation probe: Too far, not far enough, about right?

Michael O'Hanlon on Afghanistan--live reader chat Weds. 12:30 edt

August 25, 2009

  • close  
    Patrick Dorinson

    Patrick Dorinson, Commentator and Publisher of The Cowboy Libertarian:

    “Before you embark on a journey of revenge dig two graves”  Confucius


    Because no matter how Holder and by proxy Obama try to justify this dangerous move as necessary this is about revenge pure and simple. The Left wants Republican blood and won’t be satisfied until they take a good long drink. And while the first grave will be for CIA operatives and former Bush officials, the second grave will be for the Obama agenda and possibly his Presidency. More...

    There will be casualties on both sides and to what end? Is this the future of American politics and government where we use the power of the government to exact revenge on our political opponents? This is beyond the usual Washington partisan politics as our political class is in danger of splitting the nation like never before.

    But this should not really shock anyone as the entire premise of the Obama Administration is based on blaming Bush for the problems they “inherited”.

    And we all know what the next steps will be. Senator Patrick “Leaky” Leahy will leak every bit of information he receives because he wants a much bigger investigation. And he knows if he “selectively” leaks the mainstream media will be “horrified” and begin calling for a wider probe. And look for Leahy and Co. to press for the release of the torture photos now pending before a Federal Court. When that happens this will quickly spiral out of control and the pressing business of the economy and our many international problems will take a back seat at a critical time in our history.

    We have soldiers in the field some on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq and others, like the CIA who work the world’s shadowy back alleys inhabited by the terrorists. Both deserve our gratitude and support. This move increases the danger to them and by extension the danger to us all.
    As the old cowboy saying goes”Lettin’ the cat out of the bag is a helluva lot easier than puttin’ it back”.

    Well Mr. President, your weak acquiescence to this decision has not just let a simple housecat out of the bag. You have allowed the release of a wildcat. Good luck tryin’ to put him back.

  • close  
    Christine Pelosi

    Christine Pelosi, Attorney, author and Democratic activist:

    With a play cast in hell don't expect angels for actors. The hell of counter- terrorism is populated by some seriously devilish people. The question is what we do to stop them. Is counter-terrorism law enforcement or intelligence gathering? Seems to me we would have this fight no matter what President Obama or AG Holder decided to do with allegations that the counter-terrorists tortured the terrorists.

    Before the 9/11 attacks, counter-terrorism information was "stovepiped" within agencies and rarely shared between them. The 9/11 Commission tried to change that culture by encouraging information sharing, but essentially the difficulty is that agency missions are fundamentally different: stop crime before it starts or learn about crime while it's ongoing or after it happens and prosecute the offenders. Any local police department gang unit deals with this conundrum daily: who gets information; who gets immunity; how do we keep the community safe?
    Throw in the horrific attacks and asymmetrical warfare by non-US citizens, and the plot thickens.

    Where to from here? My initial take was that Eric Holder made a wise decision to listen to the career prosecutors who say the evidence reveals that some people may have broken the law and to take the next step with an inquiry. Other than blanket amnesty, he had no other choice but to follow the facts and the law. The context of alleged torture means that Holder (not the New York Times) should publicize as much information as possible to learn what tactics were used and what results actually came of the interrogations. We should know where the "line" was crossed and to what effect if we are to determine what the line should be (Army Field Manual or some other test) going forward.

    Since reading the reactions, I'm moved to add two thoughts:
    One, the "morale" of career prosecutors should get a mention here too - those who denigrate their work by calling their investigation a "witch hunt" do a disservice to law enforcement.


    Two, the larger issue here is what standard we want others to use when Americans are captured by our enemies.

  • close  
    Andres Martinez

    Andres Martinez, Director, Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program, New America Foundation:

    Too far. President Obama's instinct that it is time to move on was on target. What is remarkable to me is the degree of real-time legal supervision that went on in a ticking-bomb environment.

    This is not a case of rogue agents violating US and international norms in the heat of the moment. Legal guidelines were issued for interrogations, and we read of the interrogators themselves cabling back to Langley for guidelines where there might have been uncertainty. Officers, we learn, expressed concern about possible legal recriminations, and about whether the agency would stand behind them. Wonder why!

    No one who inhabits the real world should be shocked that mind games were played on the likes of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed - who was told his family would be hurt if he didn't collaborate - in an attempt to elicit more information.

    In rare cases where interrogators clearly violated the law, prosecutions have proceeded, as they must. But for the Justice Department to embark on a fishing expedition, reviewing once again officers' behavior that was authorized by the highest levels of the government at the time, is a cynical attempt to politicize national security. More...

    There is a legitimate debate about the appropriateness of these harsh interrogation techniques that aren't clearly torture, and the Obama administration had every right to discontinue them.

    But it's sad that the Attorney General now feels compelled to go looking for front-line CIA agents to prosecute for engaging in behavior and for following orders that did not clearly violate international norms. Sad, and dangerous.

  • close  
    Yousef Munayyer

    Yousef Munayyer, Policy Analyst, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee:

    Reading through the recently released report about threats of rape, killing family members, and physical abuse, I got the same squeamish feeling I normally get reading human rights reports documenting the treatment of prisoners in some third world country. But that disturbing feeling was amplified as I flipped back to the CIA emblem on the cover only to be reminded that this was being perpetrated by Americans who should be subject to American law, not by henchmen on some autocrats payroll.

    The probe is the right way to start and it’s a shame that it takes consistent pressure from civil liberties groups to goad the Department of Justice into doing its job.

    • Cesar Conda

      Cesar Conda, Republican strategist, former Romney and Cheney advisor:

      If anyone really wants to become squeamish, read the 180-page al Qaeda terrorism manual seized from the home of an Osama bin Laden disciple in Manchester, England in 2001. It offers budding terrorists a how-to guide on the subjects of assassination, kidnapping and preparing poisons. Lesson Sixteen is particularly gruesome, instructing the best ways for al Qaeda terrorists to assassinate with a knife (“anywhere in the rib cage”), with a blunt instrument (“where the veins and the arteries converge in the neck”) and with the hands (“poking the fingers into one or both eyes and gouging them”).

      My point here is that the CIA’s “threats of rape, killing family members, and physical abuse” may have been necessary and appropriate to prevent the actual killing of more American “family members” by al Qaeda terrorists after the 9/11 attacks.

      • Yousef Munayyer

        Yousef Munayyer, Policy Analyst, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee:

        My point here, which is reinforced well by your comment, is that American’s should never use Al-Qaeda as measure of morality, even in times of crisis. We must constantly hold ourselves to a higher standard, even among liberal democracies, if we are to truly lead the free world.

  • close  
    Thomas J. Whalen

    Thomas J. Whalen, Professor of Social Science, Boston University:

    More like long overdue. We are a country of laws, not of men. Somewhere along the line, members of the Bush administration and the C.I.A. lost sight of this fundamentally important principle. Now it's time to pay the fiddler.

  • close  
    Cesar Conda

    Cesar Conda, Republican strategist, former Romney and Cheney advisor:

    The Central Intelligence Agency documents, released Monday, prove that the enhanced interrogation techniques used by CIA personnel on al Qaeda suspects during the Bush Administration yielded critical information that prevented further terrorist attacks. CIA Director Leon Panetta called the released documents "an old story," and said President Obama wants "to look forward, not back" when it comes to the treatment of suspected al Qaeda terrorists. But with the yesterday's announcement of DOJ's interrogation probe, apparently the President wants to look back, not forward when it comes to the CIA personnel who helped save American lives.

  • close  
    Mickey Edwards

    Mickey Edwards, Princeton lecturer and former Republican congressman:

    The attorney general's decision to move forward with an investigation of this country's interrogation practices in connection with the 'war on terror' is momentous -- and in more than one way. As I’ve written before, when federal and international law is violated, "not looking backward" is simply not an acceptable option. I’m sure most Americans agree with president Obama that we'd rather look forward and that we'd rather not make life difficult for American servicemen or intelligence officers doing their duty. But we don't have the luxury of simply letting bygones be bygones; the law means something or it doesn't. More...

    There is something heartening -- and something chilling -- in general holder's statement. The heartening part is the recognition that justice requires investigation when there appears to be a strong suggestion of wrongdoing. But here's what's chilling. Read the fourth paragraph of holder's statement. If one acted in 'good faith' and 'following guidance,' the department, holder says, will not prosecute. That simple little statement is absolutely fraught with legal significance. first, it is a complete reversal of the position the united states has held for more than half a century, dating back to the Nuremberg trials of Nazi officials after world war ii, that 'following orders' does not mitigate culpability. That is no small thing. Perhaps that standard was too strict, but changing it should follow a serious discussion of the moral and legal consequences; such a profound values judgment should not be reversed without due consideration and national dialogue.

    Second, the statement raises questions about the scope of an attorney general's authority. If an investigation determines that a law was violated, does an attorney general have the authority to unilaterally determine that the illegal act shall not be punished? Even presidents don't have that authority, even though president Obama has tried to claim it. A president (but not an attorney general) may issue a pardon after the fact, but that's the extent of his ability to allow a lawbreaker to escape punishment. That’s what makes us a nation of laws, not men. I hate this: it's terrible to be in this awful bind but that's the result of the bush administration's cavalier disregard for law.

  • close  
    David Biespiel

    David Biespiel, Poet and writer, Attic Writers Workshop:

    To answer the question is a complicated we don't know yet because, as every anti-crime proponent will tell you, the FBI is going to have to go as far as the investigation requires to determine the facts and whether those facts require prosecution. The question, however, is quite simple: Do we permit interrogation tactics that violate American laws? More...

    Cheney Republicans will reflexively oppose this investigation because it might undercut this remarkable assertion by Vice President Cheney today that "the policies of the Bush Administration were directly responsible for defeating all [emphasis is mine] efforts by al Qaeda to launch further mass casualty attacks against the United States"--further attacks, that is, after the "policies of the Bush Administration" completely, utterly, and comprehensively failed to prevent the one al Qaeda day of attacks on September 11, 2001.

    But it strains credulity and logic to blame the Obama Administration, Attorney General Holder, and the FBI for an investigation, initiated in 2004 by the CIA itself and kept secret until now, into alleged CIA interrogation abuses during the Bush Administration. The money quote, in the Washington Post story, comes, not surprisingly, in the last paragraph:

    "[Former CIA inspector general John L.] Helgerson...said in an e-mailed comment on Monday that he undertook the study in part because many CIA employees involved in or aware of the program 'expressed to me personally their feelings that what the Agency was doing was fundamentally inconsistent with long-established US Government policy and with American values, and was based on strained legal reasoning.'"

    And what were those practices that are "fundamentally inconsistent with long-standing US Government policy and American values?" Sleep deprivation, stress positions, choking, mock executions, threats against family, water-boarding, including over 100 deaths of detainees in US custody. What the secret report reveals is the obvious: Many in the CIA were unhappy with the Bush Administration's possibly illegal, certainly immoral interrogation methods.

  • close  
    James J. Zogby

    James J. Zogby, President, Arab American Institute:

    What some critics from the right and left don't get is that Eric Holder is doing what an AG is supposed to do - enforce the law.

    The report of the CIA's Inspector General may have been ignored by the Bush Administration's DOJ, but Holder has correctly decided to investigate.

    To those who say "But they were only following orders", I say "Shame on them and you" and "Read the damn report and see what was done!" More...

    To those who say "what about Cheney and Bush?", I say "Investigators must first establish whether or not there was a crime. Only then can they proceed to determine who authorized or covered-up the crime.

    And to the "running mouths" on Morning Joe who, this a.m., were going on about how politically dumb it was for Obama to take on the CIA given all the other crises on his plate, I say "The AG should not be in the business of making political calculations. This is about re-establishing our respect for the law and accountability under the law.

  • close  

    Who's Saying What, in The Arena:

     

  • close  
    Steve Steckler

    Steve Steckler, Chairman and founder, Infrastructure Management Group (IMG):

    According to Holder, if you tortured "in good faith" you'll be fine. So, is aggressive interrogation now a hate crime, where what you're thinking gets you extra punishment? Perversely, any doubt that this was a political sop should be put to rest by the AG's statement. He spent more than half of it trying to ward off the fallout, but if you really believe what the Bush administration did broke the law, and you've already got reams of information to decide, then there should be no hedging, no waffling and no sort of eyes-averted announcement. It's the administration that's looking guilty of something.

  • close  
    Rory Cooper

    Rory Cooper, Dir., Strategic Communications, Heritage Foundation:

    Liberals need to end their war against the CIA and those who protect us. On a day when we should be talking about the $2 Trillion Obama had to add to his insane $7 trillion deficit projections, we are instead discussing a repetitive, political witch-hunt. More...

    It was not coincidental that our nation wasn't attacked in 8 years. Nancy Pelosi and Members of Congress were briefed on a program that everyone admits gave us high-value information. By creating another recruiting tool for Al Qaeda extremists, the left has continued its destructive Global Apology Tour on the backs of the men and women who serve our nation. Crushing the morale of CIA agents, and worse, making them risk-averse will not make terrorists like us.

    And it is outrageous for the White House to suggest that the prosecutor is working independently from the President. Eric Holder is the President's Attorney General. This is not an independent position, unless liberals are willing to take all references of Alberto Gonzalez and John Ashcroft out of their Bush-bashing dictionary. President Obama is the one calling the shots, and he is the one prosecuting the young men and women who kept us safe since 9/11 rather than thanking them. If all of these senior officials are devoted to this re-hashed investigation, moving detainees from Gitmo to Michigan, and using criminal statutes to execute a global war...who is focusing on the terrorists? Are we safer today than we were yesterday? No.

  • close  
    Stephen M. Walt

    Stephen M. Walt, Professor of International Affairs, Harvard:

    Here’s a simple standard: we should hold the Obama administration to the same level of performance that we would demand of other governments, if they had been torturing Americans. If we expect other governments to hold top officials accountable for torture or other crimes, then we should do no less here. One of the core principles of this country is (supposed to be) that no one is above the law. Here’s a good opportunity to prove that we mean it.

  • close  
    David Orentlicher

    David Orentlicher, Professor, co-dir., Center for Law and Health, Ind. University Schools of Law and Medicine:

    Not far enough. Holder's announcement makes clear that the review will prevent the kind of investigation required by fundamental democratic principles. Our constitutional system rests on the ability of the people to hold public officials accountable for their actions. With a limited investigation, we will not know enough of what happened to assign full responsibility and respond accordingly.

    Military principles of accountability demand no less. I'm reminded of the Navy's response four years ago when a nuclear submarine crashed into an undersea mountain. Even though the vessel's crew relied on official maps that indicated a safe passage, they could have taken extra precautions that would have avoided the collision. That was sufficient for the Navy to relieve the submarine's commander of his duties. It also was sufficient for the commander to accept full responsibility. Would that our civilian leaders take accountability as seriously.

  • close  
    Fred Barbash

    Fred Barbash, Moderator:

  • close  

    Did You See This?, notes and comments:

    Dick Cheney: "The activities of the CIA in carrying out the policies of the Bush Administration were directly responsible for defeating all efforts by al Qaeda to launch further mass casualty attacks against the United States. ... President Obama’s decision to allow the Justice Department to investigate and possibly prosecute CIA personnel, and his decision to remove authority for interrogation from the CIA to the White House, serves as a reminder, if any were needed, of why so many Americans have doubts about this Administration’s ability to be responsible for our nation’s security.”

    Read more:

  • close  
    Rick Beyer

    Rick Beyer, Documentary filmmaker, author, history guy:

    Thank goodness Eric Holder and the administration have refused to simply let this get swept under the rug. I don’t believe they have done it for political gain—in fact I think it will be a political nightmare. But it is the right thing to do. We should not tolerate torture, and we should not fear an honest investigation into whether or our government has engaged in practices that violate our law and our national honor. More...

    I am amused at those critics who proclaim loudly day after day that the US government is too hopelessly inept to handle healthcare, but simultaneously argue that its activities in the area of national security are so perpetually flawless as to be beyond question or reproach.

  • close  
    Frederick Schauer

    Frederick Schauer, Professor of Law, University of Virginia:

    The inquiry at this stage is about right, although, like any inquiry, it may well expand as further information is revealed. But it is important that the inquiry focus on the legality and morality of the practices and not on their effectiveness. Torture is wrong not because it is ineffective, but because it is wrong. And it is wrong even if it is effective. More...

    Critics of torture who talk about its ineffectiveness shift the debate in a morally and legally unfortunate direction. The more that critics of torture stress its alleged ineffectiveness, the more they can be understood as endorsing effective torture, and the more they implicitly support the argument that extreme threats can justify effective torture.

  • close  
    Bradley A. Blakeman

    Bradley A. Blakeman, Republican strategist, consultant, entrepreneur:

    The President has a problem with saying what he means and meaning what he says. He said quite emphatically that he wants his Administration to "look ahead and not look back", with regard to interrogation practices of the prior Administration. More...

    We know that career Justice Department officials during the Bush Administration looked into the same allegations of abuse of interrogations by career CIA employees, that Attorney General Holder is now investigating, and found that there was no criminal liability. The allegations are over 5 years old and the interrogation methods are no longer in practice by this Administration.

    There has got to be a cost benefit analysis to rehashing and disclosing information that will cause great damage to our country by providing fodder for our enemies to exploit. America as it is, fights with one hand tied behind our backs in fighting terrorism. Our enemies do not fight pursuant to law or treaty. They do not fight for a nation state or wear uniforms. They fight in the shadows and strap bombs to themselves and walk into markets and hotels and blow themselves up, killing whoever happens to be there at the time. I am not suggesting that we should stoop to their level. I am suggesting that we not purposefully hurt our country by creating a problem for ourselves that no longer exists. The President was right to state that we should look forward and not back. Now he needs to lead on that statement and make it a reality before needless damage is caused to our intelligence services, our troops and our population.

  • close  

    This Just In, breaking news:

    Obama reappoints Bernanke

  • close  
    Julian E. Zelizer

    Julian E. Zelizer, Professor of History and Public Affairs, Princeton:

    When there are this many questions circulating in the public sphere about what the CIA might have done in pursuit of terrorists, a preliminary review is not sufficient. Indeed, it would make things worse. Should the Justice Department stop this too soon, it will have intensified the concern with, and knowledge about, ethical and even legal wrongdoing by our government, while giving the impression that the current administration is not serious about investigation and simply trying to find political cover. A short-circuited investigation would also make this a story about President Obama, not just the Bush administration, and could be quite damaging to the White House.

  • close  
    Greg Dworkin

    Greg Dworkin, Contributing Editor, Daily Kos:

    On another topic, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released a report assessing H1N1 preparations. The recommendations are here, full report here. It is gratifying to see science drive the process, and it is hoped this report will be taken seriously by everyone in preparation for what may hit us (I made a small contribution to the report.) CDC.gov and flu.gov are two go-to sites for information. CDC now has more than 300,000 followers on twitter, and blogs and social media as well as newspapers and TV will play an important communication role. This is something we are all in together, and we will get through together. Prepare by planning for how to care for yourself at home (if ill), and practicing good handwashing technique and respiratory etiquette. Advice for businesses is here, more guidance from CDC here. Take the time to look over the material before the pandemic virus comes back in the fall.

  • close  
    James Carafano

    James Carafano, Heritage Foundation, Defense and Homeland Security:

    Been There, Done That

    AG Holder has managed to pick a course of action that angers the right and the left.

    Th right argues Holder is just throwing a bone to the ACLU and the White House is just running against "Cheney" and trying to distract from the Titanic healthcare debate.

    The left fumes its "not enough" or "only the start."

  • close  
    Timothy Stoltzfus Jost

    Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, Law Professor at the Washington and Lee University:

    Until Dick Cheney is held accountable, not far enough.

  • close  
    Fred Barbash

    Fred Barbash, Moderator:

    We invite and value reader commentary. Please register here, with my assurance that the information is not shared, and is used only in the event we need to authenticate a post. Thanks for participating.

  • close  

    Lee (MMBJack) McCarty (guest), , NV:

    What a great morning to meet Timothy Stoltzfus Jost online with my number one unresolved political issue I have been for many months (since joining Politico.com/Arena) during the campaign spring of 2008 - providing commentaries no doubt are controversial - as they attempt to unravel the near miss (from my perspective) of our great nation governed by a nucleus headed by Vice President Dick Cheney - which only on one level has been named "The NeoCon Movement". On the "Con" side of this descriptive word is descriptive of the nature of his whole Administration. I say this "his" with the force of my full conviction non-political in intentions (again from my perspective). Yes, I do see things from a viewing point not commonly understood. George W. Bush was Dick Cheney's personal pick - to carry out as President the Dick Cheney Agenda which I have termed as representing the Military-Industrial Complex President Eisenhower voiced as his last words on his Presidency as "Beware of". As the head of the campaign Vice Presidential Committee he chose himself as Vice President - a bold move by any definition of intentions. The "Star Wars" dreams of President Reagan are alive still in Dick Cheney but this time as in Totalitarian government.
  • close  

    Stefan Saal (guest), , NH:

    Politics is one thing, but the law is something else. Our nation will be on a long slide if we forget that. Has Cheney forgotten that he and Bush (and the Republicans generally) were in charge on the morning we got our two front teeth knocked out? Despite ample warning, too. Following that trauma, the shallowness of their commitment to American principles and institutions was something to behold. O America, wherefore the Rule of Law?
  • close  

    Linda Conley (guest), , OR:

    The more the far-left puts this country in danger as a result of this probe, the more they obsess over the Bush administration's policies to keep us safe as a nation, the more Obama's ratings will plummet and Cheney's go up. How utterly foolish of these folks to assume that the rest of the country, outside of the 20% liberal faction, want this probe to take place. We know the enhanced interrogation techniques were used to save us from another attack. They worked. It is unsettling to see again, the far left play the morally correct side when this is the same group who pushed for and won, many decades ago, the ability to dismember a baby in the womb up until the time of actual delivery, in many cases as anyone with an ounce of honesty knows, for little or no reason at all -explicit torture to death of the smallest and most innocent among us, but, you'll hear it said -- I am the nut. No probe needed. Such hypocrisy! Instead, our country, suffering in a recession that will worsen by next year and see unemployment go up to 10% by the year's end, instead, our country has to be tossed into the far-left's obsession with Bush/Cheney just at the moment the public option for health care looked darn near dead. Coincidence? Hardly.
  • close  

    Kenneth Wills (guest), , TX:

    Not satisfied. These directives came from the top. CIA officers would not do something they have never done (i.e., torture), that they know is against the law, unless they were told by superiors. In my view, justice isn't served by punishing the foot soldiers. Yes, they should be punished for carrying out those directives but, so should their leaders. Torture is a crime. When the Barrow gang (of Bonnie and Clyde fame) committed crimes, we didn't declare "let's just go after the gang members--not their leaders" for their crimes. That's unacceptable. It destroys our democracy precisely because the law has to be applied fairly and equally to everyone, not so much because it's democratic, but because to do otherwise is the definition of tyranny.
  • close  

    Patrick Northway (guest), , IN:

    Is Mr. Holder FINALLY adhering to the rule of law??? Pretty sad question to be asking about the Attorney General of the United States. If the Bush Administration violated the law- right up to Dick 'n' George- they should be held accountable. If CIA agents violated the law, they should be held accountable. The ONLY ones crying "politics" are those who violated the law deliberately and do not want to be held accountable and their supporters who benefit from their violations. That is the ONLY question that should pertain to the Department of JUSTICE and the only one Americans truly care about. If Mr. Holder does not have the courage or conviction to enforce the law equally, he should step down, disgraced. If the rest of you do not have the presence of mind to preserve your own democracy; you will lose it.
  • close  

    Michael Vogler (guest), , VA:

    Much too far. But what should we expect these days? The Democrat leadership turned on the Iraq War because it was a tool to use politically against the Bush Administration. We have an administration that has removed the term "terrorist" from our national lexicon which was set-up by the Bush Administration. We have a President who feels it necessary to travel to Cairo and Europe and apologize for America's past "mistakes". We have an administration that made a "statement" about the release of a Libyan Terrorist who killed 200 Americans in 1988. We have a new war where "enemy combatants" who are seized on the battlefield are read Miranda Rights. On this issue at hand we have Democrat House Leaders who were briefed by the CIA, as part of law instituted after the 1984 Iran-Contra hearings, on the interrogations being used to gain valuable information about suspected future terrorist targets. Will AG Holder hold those Democrat leaders accountable? Just like it was DWe now live in a country where our politicians looks for any means to damage the other political party as opposed to moving the country forward together. This is another example of just how bitter and divided our politics and national discourse has become.
  • close  

    Lee Olyer (guest), , CO:

    Timothy Stoltzfus Jost sums up the Left's position perfectly. This is all about a witch hunt to "get Dick Cheney" by any means possible. That's why this is a horrible idea for the Democrats. Does the Obama administration really want to be seen as backward looking and vindictive in the midst of all the crises the White House has been crowing about since day one? This is worse than politics as usual - this sets a new precedent in criminalizing political opposition. Our enemies (the ones who want to kill every American regardless of affiliation) have to be shaking their heads in disbelief at this nonsense.
  • close  

    Josh Blumenthal (guest), , NY:

    TS Jost wrote, "Until Dick Cheney is held accountable, not far enough." What happened to our presumption of innocence?
  • close  

    Jonathan Wolfman (guest), , MD:

    It's telling that former Vice President Cheney is the first harsh voice to condemn Attorney General Holder's measured decision to probe those who authorized illegal CIA interrogations under the past administration. This included, apparently, permission to convince detainees they would be forced to watch their captured children and mothers raped. Mr. Holder's not investigating CIA field personnel who carried out illegal acts. He's probing people who ordered the subversion of existing law, policy-makers who did not care to try to change law but who were content to break it. Mr. Cheney may be upset for reasons that go beyond his concerns for national security and are more self-interested.
  • close  

    William McEnery (guest), , RI:

    I guess Rory Cooper doesn't care about the rule of law. If they did nothing wrong then what's teh problem. Accountability, what's that. We should worry about the hurt feelings of some CIA operatives who may have broken the law. He is right how we are not safer than 8 years ago due to N. Korea testing nukes under GW. Iran becoming a power player due to the invasion or Iraq. Afghanistan becoming more volitale due to GW taking the eye off the ball. So Rory, where are your principles? In the Heritage Foundation's bathroom stall I bet.
  • close  

    David Mueller (guest), , CA:

    The interrogation probes will accomplish what? In the short term, a respite for the besieged? This country loves to do post action reports and self administered psychoanalysis of our actions. The presumption is that Americans must be held to the highest moral and ethical standards because we are a nation of laws and our own constitution demands it. Now that the opposition is in power, that which the previous administration did must be examined against the backdrop of the oppositions own political bias. Let's assume that this review and all the other reviews of wrongdoing serve as a force to "course correct" the ethical and moral compass of this nation. If that were true, this nation should be the most united, most prosperous country on the face of the earth, at this point in time in our history. Is that what you see in reality? No, we have become a nation divided by party with a citizenry so cynical and morally bankrupt, that the result is a nation on the verge of bankruptcy. In every sense of the word. Let's prosecute those who are fighting others who have no rules or constitution. Once the political show trial is complete, who will stand between you and the blade in the future? United States of America? We were once.
  • close  

    Andrew Slobodien (guest), , IL:

    Debate of the Day: As the blog entries here illistrate, Politico has become an instrument of the right wing, and is as much deserving of a boycott as Whole Foods. Debate. Will Politico show enough character to allow this comment to be posted? Thanks all.
  • close  

    Carl Owen (guest), , OK:

    Let's see, the overriding belief that justified the torture program was that it produced actionable intelligence. Whether it did or not is , at this point, immaterial. Using that premise then any intelligence gathered by any intelligence agency using torture is justifiable. Then the KGB (now SVR) and China's Ministry of State Security and Pakistan's ISI and the Palestinian Authority's Intelligence and Security Service have every right to torture to get information. But only if it works. So if they happen to not get good stuff we prosecute but if some, indeed any, information is gleaned then the torturers are exempt from prosecution. Kinda like robbing banks. It's illegal only if you get caught. Pretty crummy logic if you ask me.
  • close  

    Luke Maffei (guest), , CA:

    This isn't so much a chime in, as a thank you to James Zogby. You're comments and your calm thoughfulness are always more reasonable than the world seems willing to tolerate. It's always a pleasure to read your take on the news.
  • close  

    Anthony Noel (guest), , NC:

    Just right. The harangue here would be of far lower decibels if all concerned would simply read Newsweek's excellent piece on Mr. Holder's approach to his job in particular and this daunting task specifically. He has taken and is determined to continue taking highly deliberate, measured steps on this issue. He is simply doing his job and following the facts wherever they lead. The piece is here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/206300
  • close  

    Kiel Mills (guest), , OH:

    I am a 26 year-old college student and public library employee. I have not forgotten 9/11, and unlike some of my leftist colleagues, I DO NOT hold George W. Bush personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Middle East. Mostly because I am rational, and base my statements on facts. Concerning The current White House Administration's War On The Right - I mean their investigation of potential detainee abuse - I believe that giving up the methods of interrogation that have prevented another terrorist attack on our country for the past eight years is a grave mistake. And that mistake is only compounded by the Obama-Holder investigation of detainee abuse. Obama would like us all to forget (see politico's article about Obama's Word Downplay Wars), but WE ARE STILL FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERROR. We need to stand by the men and women who have protected us from terrorist attacks since 9/11, and continue to use the interrogation methods that provided us with precious intelligence regarding those narrowly averted attacks. The Democrats who are pushing this investigation should be ashamed of their willingness to condemn our country, and bow to terrorists.
  • close  

    Michael Vogler (guest), , VA:

    almost 10% unemployment, over 14% in many states and a $800 billion stimulus package that hasn't even been spent. We have hundreds of thousands of seventeen year old students not graduating from our failing public school systems each year, yet Democrats take millions from the AFT and NEA each and every year and block any proposals to support Charter Schools and Voucher Programs. Our auto manufacturers received billions from honest tax payers in the form of bailouts, yet labor unions like the UAW, who get their pensions and health care paid for the rest of their lives, give millions each and every year to the Democrat Party. We are bankrupting future generations of this country, we have no solutions on how to pay for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and the Democrats want to spend another trillion on universal health care. And this is what this administration thinks is the most pressing issue of the day? Heaven forbid we focus on the corruption rampant in every corner of our state and federal governments, lets take the CIA to task and take the focus off the current administrations horrendous track record, and bring back what works, Bush and Cheney bashing.
  • close  

    paul cass (guest), , CA:

    When Republicans were trying to reverse the results of the 1996 presidential election by impeaching Bill Clinton, they screamed about defending "the Rule of Law" at all costs. When it's one of their own who is accused of lawbreaking, on the other hand, they scream about "criminalizing policy differences," as they did during the Iran-Contra prosecutions and the prosecution of Scooter Libby - and as they are doing now. Do they really think no one notices their blatant hypocrisy? The CIA failed to protect us from the 9/11 attacks. But Republicans claim - without proof - that the CIA has protected us from many subsequent plots. When will the authors of these many nefarious plots be brought to justice? Well, of course they can't be because that would somehow harm "national security." What nonsense. As we all know, those prosecuted for terrorism-related offenses during the Bush years were largely a bunch of self-deluding wannabees who had nothing like the resources or abilities needed to do any damage. We've long known that Republicans exaggerated the danger of such plots for political purposes - a fact recently confirmed by Tom Ridge. So why should we believe anything they say on the subject now?
  • close  

    Brad Apking (guest), , FL:

    A number of the responses are perfect examples of what's wrong with our country today...attention spans of a goldfish. Do you people that support this forget what the rationale was behind it, and/or how many people "intense" interogations were conducted on?!? 3000 people died on 9/11, yeah I said it...9/11. It wasn't a game then, and shouldn't be now. Some of you praised the AG for doing his job. Well what was he doing when he got Mark Rich pardoned, or got the FLN members pardoned? His job? Please. This is nothing but PBO getting Holder to do his dirty work to get the focus off failing policies DOMESTICALLY. So remember the next time you're told by your boss to do something, and even have mulitple lawyers give you documentation stating that it's legal, that you may one day be charged with a crime. One other thing...when someone plans a massive terrorist attack, is it seriously on the same level to tell them you're going to rape their children knowing full well no one is? The liberal moral equivalency is mind blowing. I guess we don't even want to mention tax avoidance versus tax evasion either do we? Too many people try to see things through a twisted prism. This is life or death, not a game.

Comments

Archives

Archives

Sub Content

Arena Referee

Arena Players

Current and Former Elected Officials
Strategists, Scholars and Authors