Torturers May Be Prosecuted

The world has known for quite a while now that the United States was commonly using torture against Muslim prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay. For years, the Bush administration denied they had approved the torture, and tried to put the blame on underlings that were caught carrying out their orders. It was the old lie about "a few bad apples".

But now there is no longer any doubt that torture was approved and ordered by the highest levels of government. Instead of a few apples being bad, we now know the whole tree was rotten from top to bottom. We know this because of top level secret memos by Bush administration officials that were released in the last few days.

Now if this was any other country, our government would be the first to demand the torturers be prosecuted -- both those who carried it out and those who ordered it to happen. We made that clear in the trials of the Germans and Japanese after World War II. We also made it clear that the excuse of "I was just following orders" was not a justifiable defense.

But it looks like that breaking of law only applies to other countries, and not to our own country. The Obama administration has been loathe to prosecute anyone involved in the torture. Attorney General Eric Holder has told us that intelligence officials "who acted reasonably and relied in good faith on authoritative legal advice from the Justice Department that their conduct was lawful, and conformed their conduct to that advice, would not face federal prosecutions for that conduct."

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel seemed to take that even further by saying "those who devised policy" also should not be prosecuted. He said, "It's not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back." But it looks like he may have spoken too soon.

Yesterday, President Obama said that while he's " not suggesting that it should be done", he is leaving open the question of whether those who ordered the torture should be prosecuted or not. He said it would be up to Attorney General Holder to decide whether to prosecute anyone or not.

Frankly, this is disappointing. It looks like Obama is tossing this hot political football to an underling, because he doesn't want to take the heat for making a decision on this matter. Holder will have to take all the flak for whatever decision he makes.

I really don't see how this can not be prosecuted. It is very clear that both American and international law has been broken. It is a choice between morality and politics -- and in that kind of choice, morality should always win. All of the torturers should be prosecuted -- from those who ordered the torture to those who carried it out.

But I guess I should be grateful that at least the Obama administration is leaving open the possibility that those who ordered the torture can be prosecuted. If I had to choose between those who ordered it and those who carried it out being prosecuted, I would have to choose to prosecute the higher-ups who ordered it, because prosecuting that group would be the most likely to prevent it happening in the future.

It is still unlikely that anyone will ever be prosecuted for the torture, and that is a sad comment on our country. What has happened to our belief in justice? Does the law no longer apply equally to everyone?

(NOTE -- Picture above is from Seeds of Doubt.)

"A Pillar Of Integrity"

Last Fall, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was convicted of lying about receiving gifts and huge discounts on his home renovations. A few days later, he lost his bid for re-election in a very close election. Since that time, he has been waiting to learn what his sentence would be.

But yesterday, all of that changed. On orders from Attorney General Eric Holder, the Justice Department has dropped all charges against Stevens, and has asked the trial judge to vacate the verdict. All of the media immediately began to talk about how Stevens was innocent and how he had been railroaded by the Justice Department. Personally, I don't know whether he's innocent or not. At this point, it really doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because of the egregious errors committed by the Justice Department prosecutors. They were so far out of line that they could have convicted him regardless of whether he was innocent or guilty. It's a vivid portrait of just how far out of line the Justice Department had become under the Bush administration.

With the help and direction of Karl Rove, Bush turned the Justice Department into a group of administration "hit men". They put their loyalty to George Bush ahead of the Constitution and the rule of law. Career attorneys were fired and Bush loyalists were hired, and no one cared how many laws had to be broken or rules had to be bent to get the convictions they wanted.

By the Fall of 2008, it had gotten so bad they were even turning on their own. Once they targeted Stevens they hid evidence from the defense attorneys and who knows what else. It was a matter of getting a conviction at any cost.

When Eric Holder (pictured above) took over as Attorney General, he looked at the Stevens case and at the department Bush had left him, and he realized it stank to high heaven. He knew something had to be done, so he issued the order to drop the charges against Stevens.

Holder said, "I have determined that it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial." He went on to say that from now on the Justice Department would insure ALL cases would be "handled fairly and consistent with its commitment to justice."

Stevens' attorney called Holder "a pillar of integrity". I believe he's right. Holder's action doesn't just give Stevens a bit of justice -- it sends a message to the entire Justice Department. A message that says the Constitution and rule of law are once again supreme, and all defendants will be treated fairly -- even those from another political party (or religion, race, sex, etc.).

Now that the dark years of the Bush administration are over, we can once again be proud of our Justice Department. It looks like President Obama chose the right man in Eric Holder.

A Couple Of Good Cabinet Picks

Nobody seems to know what's going on with the pick for Secretary of State in the Obama administration. There are those who say Hillary Clinton is a lock for the position, others who say serious vetting is going on and it's up in the air, and still others who say the pick will not be Clinton because of her husband. It looks like we're going to have to wait to see how that comes out.

But according to sources within the Obama group, it looks like two choices have already been made. The first is former senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota (pictured). He has been chosen to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This is a very good pick.

In some departments (like State or Treasury), it might make sense to pick a moderate. But the Department of Health and Human Services needs a strong progressive voice. This is the department designated to help the poor and underprivileged, and with a strong recession (and maybe even a depression) coming on fast, we need someone willing to help these people instead of ignoring them like the last administration did.

This is also the department that will have a key role in fixing our broken healthcare system. In fact, Daschle is probably going to be a major force in designing a universal healthcare proposal. Fortunately, Daschle is a man with a proven progressive track record. I think he's the right man for the job.

The other pick is Eric Holder to be the Attorney General. He has the right experience, having served as Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration, and he is ready to step up to the top position. Maybe now we can put civil rights and voting rights back on the agenda at the Justice Department. The Bush administration has ignored both areas.

I hope all of Barack Obama's cabinet picks are as good as these two.