Greenwald: Why Congress--and Democrats--are moved to immunize Bushists against prosecution

[BurtWorm]

According to Glenn Greenwald:

http://feeds.salon.com/~r/salon/greenwald/~3/336117059/index.html

Harper's Scott Horton yesterday interviewed Jane Mayer about her new book, The Dark Side. The first question he asked was about the Bush administration's fear that they would be criminally prosecuted for implementing what the International Red Cross had categorically described as "torture."

Mayer responded "that inside the White House there <had> been growing fear of criminal prosecution, particularly after the Supreme Court ruled in the Hamdan case that the Geneva Conventions applied to the treatment of the detainees," and that it was this fear that led the White House to demand (and, of course, receive) immunity for past interrogation crimes as part of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. But Mayer noted one important political impediment to holding Bush officials accountable for their illegal torture program:

An additional complicating factor is that key members of Congress sanctioned this program, so many of those who might ordinarily be counted on to lead the charge are themselves compromised.

As we witness not just Republicans, but also Democrats in Congress, acting repeatedly to immunize executive branch lawbreaking and to obstruct investigations, it's vital to keep that fact in mind. With regard to illegal Bush programs of torture and eavesdropping, key Congressional Democrats were contemporaneously briefed on what the administration was doing (albeit, in fairness, often in unspecific ways). The fact that they did nothing to stop that illegality, and often explicitly approved of it, obviously incentivizes them to block any investigations or judicial proceedings into those illegal programs.

In December of last year, The Washington Post revealed:

Four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

The article noted that other Democratic members who received briefings on the CIA's interrogation program included Jay Rockefeller and Jane Harman. While Harman sent a letter to the CIA asking questions about the legality of the program, none ever took any steps to stop or even restrict the interrogation program in any way.

Identically, numerous key Democrats in Congress -- including Rockefeller and Harman -- were told that Bush had ordered the NSA to spy on American without warrants and outside of FISA. None of them did anything to stop it. In fact, while Rockefeller wrote a sad, hostage-like, handwritten letter to Dick Cheney in 2003 (which he sent to nobody else) -- assuring Cheney that he would keep the letter locked away "to ensure that I have a record of this communication" -- Harman was a vocal supporter of the illegal NSA program. Here's what she told Time in January, 2006 in the wake of the NYT article revealing the NSA program:

Some key Democrats even defend it. Says California's Jane Harman, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee: "I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities."

Harman then went on Fox News and pronounced that the NSA program was "legal and necessary" and proudly said: "I support the program." Even worse, in February, 2006, Harman went on "Meet the Press" and strongly suggested that the New York Times should be criminally prosecuted for having reported on the illegal program. And indeed, in 2004, Harman demanded that the NYT's Eric Lichtblau not write about the NSA program....

[nels25]

1. 2 Words - We Wish

it will not happen, simply because it will not be in the best interest of either President Obama or the Democratic leadership in the senate or house to pick this fight.

If you think we are angry about the Clinton impeachment just try this stunt.

The GOP will cry foul, the MSM will go nuts and any and all legislation will come to a standstill, the GOP will filibuster everything in the senate (unless we gain a filibuster proof majority, which is unlikely) nothing is going to get thru, you watch and see.

I am willing to bet most of the rest of the money I will ever make that a broad majority of the country will be outraged at the thought of an ex-president being tried in a foreign court that a large portion will also consider ill legitimate in this matter (remember that little thing of rejecting the authority of some sort of world court entity having jurisdiction over US citizens).

Have President Bush arrested for war crimes (again I question if the broad populace considers him a war criminal) and taken to the Hague for trial and look how popular the Democrat/Progressive brand will be. Not very.


We may like to take revenge but I can tell you taking vengeance can lead you into areas, you will come to regret even if you are in the right.

In this case it is best to let history be the judge, in the long haul it tends get it right.

[hootinholler]

4. Bull.

History hasn't gotten it right yet about the Kennedys nearly 50 years later, what makes you think it will get this right too. Our meager hold on credibility as a nation of law in the international community has been shredded and we are in free fall. If you think that the prosecution of these criminals will be a flash point, just let this fester another decade or two and we will be attacked by a coalition of countries who are sick and tired of being fucked with. I mean physically attacked, sanctioned by the UN, and it will be just.

The people I talk to are hungry for justice, not revenge. These are republicans and democrats. If we do not hold these criminals responsible with our laws, the rest of the world will with theirs (which are also ours).

-Hoot

[nels25]

5. All right I respect your opinion

I just have a different take on the situation.

Personally I do not think it will ever get that far, if it does one of us will be wrong and one correct.

As for an attack in the future, my bets are on China, IMHO they seem to want to tangle with us, if they do we are going to be in it up to our eye brows, and I am not at all sure we can take them.

Be allot of devastation though, here is hoping it does not happen!

[Bluestar]

6. Don't pick this fight????

What a curious post. If the Democrats are complicit (and it appears they are) let the chips fall where they may. We are no better off with Democratic criminals in charge than we are with Republican criminals in charge. It's time the truth comes out--it's the only way that real change can ever happen.

[underpants]

2. Becaaaaaause they are all in it together

There are few that even try to put on the air of not being slimebags

[LSK]

3. K&R