Why are leading Democrats Afraid of a Special Prosecutor to Investigate Torture?

[FourScore]

EXCERPT:
There are not exactly throngs of Democratic Congressmembers beating down the doors of the Justice Department demanding that Attorney General Eric Holder appoint a special Independent Prosecutor to investigate torture and other crimes. And now it seems that whatever Congress does in the near term won’t even be open to the public. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said this week that he prefers that the Senate Intelligence Committee hold private hearings. The chair of the committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, has asked the White House not to take any action until this private affair is concluded. She estimates that will take 6-8 months.

“I think it would be very unwise, from my perspective, to start having commissions, boards, tribunals, until we find out what the facts are,” Reid said Wednesday. “I don’t know a better way of getting the facts than through the intelligence committee.” It is hard to imagine other Democrats bucking Reid on this and there is certainly no guarantee that the committee will release an unclassified report when it concludes its private inquiry. While Representative John Conyers says he will hold hearings, that is not the same as the independent criminal investigation this situation warrants.

Then there is the deeply flawed plan coming from the other influential camp in the Democratic leadership. The alternative being offered is not an independent special prosecutor, but rather a more politically palatable counter-proposal for creating a bi-partisan commission. This is a very problematic approach (as I have pointed out) for various reasons, including the possibility of immunity offers and a sidelining of actual prosecutions. Michael Ratner from the Center for Constitutional Rights has also advocated against this, saying this week it will lead to a “whitewash...”

SNIP

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) added to this mix by saying that he had seen a partial list of Congressmembers “who were briefed on these interrogation methods and not a word was raised at the time, not one word.”

Among those on the House Intelligence Committee at the time was current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She has said, “we were not, I repeat, we were not told that waterboarding or other enhanced methods were used.”

“What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel … but not that they would. And that further, further the point was that if and when they would be used they would brief Congress at that time.”

But contrary to Pelosi’s assertion, The Washington Post reported that Pelosi and other Democrats were “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 briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange...

...“Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.”

MORE:
http://rebelreports.com/post/99536019/are-leading-democrats-afraid-of-a-special-prosecutor-to

[mike_c]

1. a large portion of the U.S. political leadership is complicit...

...on BOTH sides of the aisle. The democratic party base needs to clean house and expose the leaders in Congress who aided and abetted Bush administration crimes against humanity.

[Echo In Light]

7. True, that

[Faux pas]

2. You're asking a rhetorical question, right? They're all as guilty as

sin. Wonder why they thought all this would never come out? Arrest them all and let's start fresh.

[HopeHoops]

3. EXCELLENT question!

I agree with the point that "political differences" are not grounds for prosecution - that's what dictatorships are so proficient at. But we are talking SERIOUS war crimes here! We are bound by international law and treaties to prosecute those responsible.

How could there be opposition to an outside independent council to investigate this? Obviously it would require careful selection of the members, specifically to construct it from those beyond question in their integrity. Just get it done already!

[LibertyMan12345]

4. Congress is corrupt

Really simple, Democrats have as much to hide as the Republicans, a lot of what Bush implements during his eight years was bipartisan, so investigating these things leads to pain on both sides

[cliffordu]

5. Could be they're letting the maximum amount of evidence get released to the public

before they start closed door hearings of seat a grand jury.

If any dems are involved they should go to fucking prison as well.

[jkshaw]

6. "Could be they're letting the maximum amount of evidence

get released to the public before they start closed door hearings ..."

This has been suggested by others, and I hope it's the case.

[stillcool]

8. a classic case of 'be careful what you wish for'

excellent article..

http://www.truthout.org/042009R
Of Black Holes and Radio Silence

Monday 20 April 2009

by: Elizabeth de la Vega

A former prosecutor examines the special prosecutor debate

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

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


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

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

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

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

[leftofthedial]

9. "democrats" have been (and are) part of the problem over the last 30 years.

[arthritisR_US]

10. hearings are very public and the information coming from them tends to

be also but once you get a special prosecutor all things are hush hush with findings only revealed, and only limited at best, at the end. I think there is more transparency with hearings BUT I could be wrong.

[cascadiance]

12. But we should also learn from the 9/11 Commission that we can't have a secret "bipartisan" group...

either.

Even with the Families of 9/11 watching that commission carefully and making sure that the likes of Henry Kissinger wasn't allowed to run it, we still never see a lot of the real facts we deserved to hear, like what Sibel Edmonds testified about, amongst others.

If we have a secret commission, we'll get a worse whitewash than the 9/11 commission.

We need to have public hearings and have all of these folks on the record so we can do a house cleaning. And congress critters that haven't got roped heavily in to the corruption going on there (and you all should know who you are, because it is hard for many of us on the outside to tell these days), need to find the strength to stand up to the corrupt elements of their own parties and work towards restoring the trust of the people in our government by REALLY cleaning house, not just giving it a "pretty" facelift.

[arthritisR_US]

14. I so agree! My worst fear is another " "pretty" facelift". n/t

[cascadiance]

15. The one "solution" I fear most is Feinstein's "secret" 6-8 month commission!

Given her wanting to recommend Jane Harman to head the CIA, I really wouldn't trust a secret commission headed by her with a ten foot pole, especially wasting 8 months doing it, giving the criminals a LOT of time to cover their tracks and come up with ways to escape accountability. The one good thing you'd have with that is that you'd have someone like Russ Feingold on that committee who I would hope wouldn't allow DiFi's BS to persist too long.

[arthritisR_US]

18. a committee with those two is a freaking nightmare...a whitewash by DINO's...

wonder when/if DF and JH's war profiteering will be investigated?

[cascadiance]

19. Well, Jane Harman's in the House, so she wouldn't be on the Senate Committee...

But if it is a commission that would span the house and the Senate, then yeah, I would fear her being on it too. Hopefully with the current news, that's not an option.

But given that history, like I noted before, I do NOT trust Feinstein to run a committee to give the public the appropriate money, but is more likely to be one to facilitate a coverup.

[arthritisR_US]

21. good point! boy can I be daft... I just don't trust either on ANY committee. n/t

[Lochloosa]

11. I think it would be a good thing not to have a SP. Thom Hartman makes a good case against it

It then becomes secret. A black hole.

Let the information come out. Let it sink in to the American public just what these fuckers did.

Then prosecute.

[arthritisR_US]

20. those are my sentiments exactly....sunshine, I want lots of sunshine here! n/t

[chill_wind]

13. It seems to me they are all over the place..

just as your OP points out-- not only not in close agreement with each other, but not even in agreement with themselves in earlier positions taken, or maybe there is just some modifying and clarifying as time goes on..

Congressman Conyers is calling for an Independant Prosecutor..

Congressman Nadler has called for both a Special Council and a Congressional Investigation.

Pelosi is on record saying she favors beginning a prosecution process right away-- criticized the prospect of any Truth Commission that would give immunity...

see- Glenn Greenwald on Pelosi appearance on Rachel Maddow - commentary when the Leahy proposal emerged in February

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/25/pelosi/

Russ Feingold & Sheldon Whitehouse had been supporting a commission (but they are stuck for now under DiFi's very untransparant panel).. Senator Feinstein is doing her own Senate Intel thing behind closed doors.

Harry Reid is happy enough with that. Which is a bit worrisome.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3846551#3846645

Just yesterday--

Reid, Pelosi Split on Commissions
April 23, 2009 1:48 PM

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters today that he is against the idea of starting a so-called "truth commission" to look into the issue. He believes that, for now, the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into the issue is adequate. Until we get all the facts, Reid said, people should "relax." He added: "Justice should be served, but it should not be retribution."

But Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters yesterday that she favors a truth commission. So does Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy, D-Vt., and several liberal Democratic Senators, including Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-

more at-

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/04/reid-pelosi-spl.html

AG Eric Holder has his own clear role to play. As to Congress, this all some very, very crucial decision making in terms of their own role as far as how exactly they will structure theirs. Let us fervently hope they get it right in the long term.

[ThomWV]

16. This is beyond easy - put the briefer on the stand with the original briefing papers

And then ask the Briefer what was discussed, in what level of detail, and who was present. You know, they keep files about things like Congressional Briefings - it will be no problem at all to find out who the briefer was and subpoena them.

[McCamy Taylor]

17. I believe a number of them are still being blackmailed by Cheney and Rove.

Harman was meant to serve as a reminder that all the secrets which the administration promised to bury if Dems went along with them are still out there and can still be uncovered.

[Individualist]

22. If that were true (and I don't believe it is), anyone who allows fear to interfere

with doing his/her duty should resign.

[autorank]

23. When you vote to authorize and appropriate for an activity, you're resopnsible.

That's why.