Along with her colleague Joby Warrick, Carrie Johnson at Washington Post has a follow-up to Johnson’s Eric Holder story from last night. Emphasis mine.
After trying for months to shake off the legacy of their predecessors and focus on their own priorities, Obama administration officials have begun to concede that they cannot leave the fight against terrorism unexhumed and are reluctantly moving to examine some of the most controversial and clandestine episodes.
The acknowledgment came amid fresh disclosures about CIA activity that had been hidden from Congress for seven years, the secrecy surrounding a little-understood electronic surveillance program that operated without court approval, and word that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. favors naming a criminal prosecutor to examine whether U.S. interrogators tortured terrorism suspects.
The bolded part strikes me as very interesting. Do the writers mean to convey some inside information, or are they just putting a gloss on current events? Johnson also repeated that a torture inquiry will only look at interrogators who overstepped the Yoo memo’s limits, for what that is worth.
Overall, the number of column inches that the story devotes to dark threats from the right make it harder to argue with Zandar that the Washington Post is essentially giving the Obama administration one last chance to turn back before we all drown in Republican tears. The Bush administration left a ton of suspicious-looking threads hanging out in the open, and the story seems to imply that pulling any one of them hard enough will irreversibly open a Pandora’s Box of unwelcome surprises. I certainly hope so.
Overall the story gives the impression of a quiet moment just before a black anvil-shaped cloud blots out the sun, when the wind dies down and you can hear a plastic bag crinkle as it settles onto asphalt. If we’re lucky, Johnson’s clear implication that compromise and half measures won’t steer team Obama around this storm will convince them to give up trying and instead work with legislators like Chuck Schumer who want to do accountability right.
Ash Can
Drip, drip, drip…
Dennis-SGMM
“Nice little health care plan ya’ got there, Be a shame if something happened to it.”
Fuck me, and fuck the agenda. Go balls out and investigate and make public all of the crimes of Bushco. We aren’t going to get anything like UHC, banking reform, or a serious climate change bill out of Congress anyway so damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead on exposing the people (Republicans and Democrats both) who enabled the Bush administration to subvert both the Constitution, the law, and good sense.
r€nato
This is exactly what I was saying when I responded to your post the other day (yesterday?).
Once this ball starts rolling, no telling where it ends up.
Which is why the Repukes are desperate to keep Pandora’s Box shut tight.
r€nato
…this is yet another of the many, many reasons we should be grateful Obama won last fall. McCain/Palin would have buried or suppressed all evidence of Bush/Cheney illegality, not only making it highly unlikely that future administrations would go digging into the Bush/Cheney record but also establishing a precedent for future administrations wrt domestic surveillance, torture, and general illegal acts.
Viva BrisVegas
I know it’s not popular to talk about the Obama rope-a-dope, but almost everything that Obama does seems to be prefaced on White House releases, leaks and hints that are focused on increasing the public pressure on the Administration such that they seem to responding to popular opinion rather than just pursuing a partisan agenda.
That is, Obama loves to soften up the crowd before he makes his pitch. This being a classic case.
Martin
I call bullshit on the soft-pedal here.
It has been presented that Democrats are worried that this would derail the agenda – I fail to see how. The GOP are already fighting damn near everything that they can, but as of last week, the Dems have 60 votes and a huge majority in the house.
The only people that can derail the agenda are Democrats. Now, without Franken it’s a slightly different matter, but I fail to see in what way investigations would fuck up the agenda. Seems to me it would give the media something to hump while healthcare quietly got passed.
iluvsummr
@Martin: You’re forgetting the Blue Dogs (who Palin has offered to campaign for, as long as they share her views).
Ash Can
I believe it was kay who mentioned on yesterday’s thread that a special prosecutor appointed by Holder would by definition be operating independently of him. This would seem to set up the scenario of this special prosecutor unearthing and exposing a veritable portal to hell, and not only Obama but Holder insisting — rightly — that they had no control over the findings, and no choice in the face of the overwhelming conclusiveness of the findings but to follow the requirements of the law. Maybe I’m naive, but the more I see these indications of “we don’t want to do this, but we’re being forced to do it,” the more I suspect that the admin is simply striving to insulate itself as thoroughly as possible against the inevitable political shitstorm before Pandora’s box gets blown open.
Anne Laurie
I love that image, Tim. In a good political novel, Obama’s minions would be planning how to use the Rethuglican/Blue Dog kabuki-cum-Wagner dramatics over “politicizing the processes of national security ! ! eleventy-one !” as cover for their introduction of a national single-payer health program. Let us hope that Barack and Rahm are as crafty as Disraeli or Trollope.
Dave
I’ve been looking around for (rather hard to find) pushback from the right on these trial balloons, and WaPo was the first place I went tonight. I was pleasantly surprised to find this piece and I think its framing makes investigations sound inevitable.
But really, is this all conservatives have? McCain: “I do not excuse [lawbreaking]. I am just saying: What’s the effect on America’s image in the world?” Cornyn: “if we chill the ability or the willingness of our intelligence operatives and others to get information that’s necessary to protect America, there could be disastrous consequences.”
That’s it? No one believes Cornyn’s line anymore, and I don’t even know WTF McCain was driving at.
My expectation is that Republican pushback will be a million variations on “But it’s not faaaair!” but I guess we’ll see. In any case, fuck them. I think they’re actually expecting it.
JGabriel
@Dave:
That and “But it hurts America and the liberals don’t care!”
That’s what McCain was saying in the quote you mention.
.
62across
Investigations of Bushco will stop DC in its tracks, congressional votes be damned. This is why the public pressure is critical. If the “people” are calling for it, Obama has the coverage he needs to continue to pursue his agenda. Talk about it at the watercooler, write to your newspaper and call your congresscritter. Make it clear that it is not just coming from the Obama administration.
lotus
Hilzoy makes the better argument, Brothers McCain and Cornyn:
Robertdsc-iphone
They were great during the campaign, but their record since taking office sucks. They’ll find some way to fuck it up just like almost everything else.
Redhand
Derail the agenda? What f*cking agenda? Making the world safe for GS mega-profits = financial reform? Keeping zombie banks afloat while tut-tutting about housing foreclosures not decreasing? Employing many of the same GWOT legal “theories” to perpetuate Bush’s power grabs? Signaling time and time again that we’ll have “health care reform,” so long as the insurance industries stay at the trough?
And the Repubs think Obama is a radical progressive? How about a huge disappointment in just about every area?
inkadu
Ehnk.
Anyone remember the Iran-Contra hearings? Pretty much nothing happened, except it turned Ollie North into a radio celebrity. This country is seriously sick in the head.
Napoleon
@inkadu:
Yeah, they pulled the plug on them when Clinton became President on the exact same theory that Obama has not been looking into Bush excesses, and a bunch of people who would have done jail time lived to serve in Dubya’s admin. That is another reason Obama is an idiot if he does not pursue lawbreaking in the Bush admin.
mclaren
It’s not evident to me that this will actually happen. Instead, it seems more likely that this latest public musing by Eric Holder represents yet another effort by Obama, Biden, Pelosi and the spineless Democrats to stave off a rising tide of outrage from the American people.
If you’ve noticed, every few months, new revelations of the atrocities and unconstitutional crimes committed by the previous administration provokes massive unrest in the American people. The Democrats immediately start talking about how “everything is on the table” (during the campaign), “we haven’t ruled out prosecutions” (shortly after Obama’s inauguration), and now of course Holder’s latest meaningless assertion.
When we start seeing White House personnel dragged into federal courtrooms in ankle chains, then I’ll believe it. Until then, it’s all just a sop to get the American people to shut up and quiet down. Holder’s statement is the equivalent of the police offericer’s adminitition to the crowd “Just relax” after they’ve beaten a handcuffed guy to death and the crowd is getting ugly and starting to hurl bottles and rocks.
Tim F.
Um no, this is the one thing that will not happen.
Remember that comprehensive report from Patrick Fitzgerald? There wasn’t one. How much have you heard from the Prosecutor investigating the US Attorneys scandal? If you heard two consecutive words about it then you have better sources than I do.
These inquiries operate almost totally in secret. If the Prosecutor decides not to indict for whatever reason, we will never hear why or what they found.
Now let’s imagine that Prosecutor X uncovers a loathsome snake’s den of corruption and ancillary lawbreaking in the process of investigating something else. These guys are not Ken Starr – if it doesn’t fit inside their predetermined brief then they will not prosecute it. And you will not hear about it.
SiubhanDuinne
Hey, OT, but it took the Today Show a full 19 minutes into the program this morning before they mentioned MJ. I believe this may be a record.
geg6
I am cautiously optimistic that the main reason I worked so hard for, gave my hard earned pittances to, and voted for this president might (please the FSM) actually happen. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, more important than holding these scum accountable. Not health care, not the economy, nothing. Without the rule of law and respect for the Constitution, none of the rest of it matters. The country will be a corpse and not worth saving. At least, that’s how I feel about it.
Napoleon
@Tim F.:
And there shouldn’t be one. Fitzgerald did the right thing. If the prosecutor has enough to prosecute, he should. If he doesn’t, he should STFU, since anything he says is just a smear against someone he does not have enough evidence to prosecute.
If Congress (or for that matter the Prez) wants a report they should authorize an investigator to prepare one.
Tom
If anyone is prosecuted for the NSA program (and it’s looking more and more like someone should — it was pretty blatantly illegal) it should be Cheney. Addington and Yoo were the other two major players, but it was Cheney’s baby. In reality, it should probably be all three of them charged with breaking the law.
I find ironic the argument from wingers that we shouldn’t prosecute because it would set a bad precedent and hinder future office holders from properly protecting the country. The irony being that those on the right — supposed staunch protectors of the constitution and advocates of limited government — are looking the other way when the executive branch clearly violated the constitution and hid it from virtually everyone except those in the VP’s inner circle and those who carried out the program.
If they decide to move forward, it could get bad for Cheney, Addington and Yoo.
kay
Fitzgerald’s authority was broad.
February 6, 2004
The Honorable Patrick J. Fitzgerald United States Attorney Northern District of Illinois 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Patrick:
At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of “all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department’s investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee’s identity” is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General’s authority to impose or pursue. Further, my conferral on you of the title of “Special Counsel” in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.
Sincerely,
/s/ James B. Comey James B. Comey Acting Attorney General
joe from Lowell
Remember how all investigation and discussion of torture ended when the Abu Ghraib report was released?
Me neither.
And that, unlike this, was a inquiry specifically designed to whitewash the problem and end further investigation.
joe from Lowell
Patrick Fitzgerald…rings a bell…wasn’t he the guy who ended up prosecuting Scooter Libby for a crime that wasn’t covered by his original brief, but which he uncovered in the process of his investigation?
kay
@joe from Lowell:
No. His authority was plenary. Obstruction of justice is actually listed.
violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice
“related” is a huge word.
Tim F.
No. Fitzgerald prosecuted Libby for a crime that Libby committed during the investigation.
edit: or what Kay said.
It was extremely broad, as Independent Prosecutors go. And yet he scored one indictment, for obstruction, and we know nothing more about the criminal conspiracy that he investigated. This is because Independent Prosecutors operate in secret, they do not release a report and they do not chase any leads further than the boundaries of their authorization.
Fulcanelli
Regarding BushCo’s high crimes and misdemeanors, sadly enough, I think the only people who really want to open pandora’s box and unleash that political shit storm are political junkie bloggers on the center-left, the legal types and ultra liberals. And maybe those that sell newspapers, cause it will be a boon to them in sales.
With everything else that’s going on it’s hard for me to believe middle earth Americans have the stomach for taking it all the way to the mat, and that’s what pisses me off the most. Apathy.
And I still don’t believe George W. Bush will ever get spanked for it, Cheney and Rumsfeld maybe, but not Bush. Not with the the right wing media propaganda outfits and pundits like Limbaugh that exist and while his old man’s still alive. I hope I’m wrong.
We still haven’t seen that CIA report on torture that was supposed to come out have we?
kay
@Tim F.:
Prosecutors don’t release the names of people they investigate and don’t indict not because they lack authority or are covering up, but because to do so would be wildly unfair and unethical. He indicts, or not. No in-between sort-of-implicated. They can’t release suspicions. It doesn’t take much to indict. The “ham sandwich” joke is funny because it’s true. Only one side presents. If he didn’t bring an indictment, he didn’t have anything.
gizmo
The amazing thing is that the task of defending the most fundamental American Constitutional values has been left to the liberals and us dirty hippies.
Slaney Black
What some people don’t understand is that politics is a war of attrition. You do not win unless you can expurgate or discredit the other side. Now, there’s tactical considerations about whether a particular line of attack is strategically viable…But basically, you can’t prevail unless you consign a whole lot of your opponents to the outer darkness.
Republican terror policy and health policy are not separate things you can attack separately. The same people drive them both; the same strategy of scaring the bejeezus out of people and keeping them servile drives them both.
Notice that everything in Congress seemed to grind to a halt when the torture pix weren’t released? It wasn’t a coincidence. If we don’t constantly bludgeon these people out of credibility with evidence of their own crimes, they will continue to bludgeon us.
joe from Lowell
kay,
I note that you didn’t provide Fitzgerald’s original authorization. The letter you quote was issued months after Fitzgerald was given his original brief, in response to his request for a clarification about the scope of his powers, which was motived by further wrongdoing – that is, obstruction of justice – discovered in the course of his investigation of the original charges.
In other words, the answer to my question is “yes, Fitzgerald did prosecute Libby for a crime that was not covered in his original brief. The scope of his investigation was expanded at his request, in response to evidence of wrongdoing he uncovered.”
Tim F.
That isn’t a “No,” it’s a “yes.” “…during the investigation…” is a category of “not in his original brief.” Your denial makes no sense.
So broad that he didn’t realize, until he requested clarification weeks later, whether he was allowed to investigate crimes not explicitly covered in his original brief.
That is a false statement. Just to pick one of the many facts we learned about the case because of that investigation: Richard Armitage was involved in the leak. I could go on and on, but it only takes one fact to falsify a statement.
kay
@Tim F.:
they do not chase any leads further than the boundaries of their authorization.
Not to belabor the point, but that’s just wrong. Again, Fitzgerald had plenary authority to pursue any crime related to the disclosure. That would certainly include a criminal conspiracy to disclose Plame’s name.
Because we were disappointed in the result does not mean he had a limited authority. He didn’t.
joe from Lowell
Fitzgerald didn’t stop at an Obstruction charge because he lost interest in bringing the leakers to justice, but because he was unable to get the evidence he needed, owing to the Obstruction itself.
kay
@joe from Lowell:
I read them all, and I disagree. I think the first was all-inclusive and was clarified by the others. Read the paragraph in the original. All the important words are in there.
Fitzgerald was (wisely) looking for clarity on his original authority, probably because there was a political campaign underway to paint him as a runaway special.
kay
@joe from Lowell:
That’s how I took his famous speech. I mean, that’s what he said, with some baseball analogies thrown in to confuse me.
joe from Lowell
Tim,
True or false: the first time you ever characterized the Special Prosecutor method of investigating Bush-era torture as inadequate was after you read that Holder was thinking of appointing one.
joe from Lowell
kay,
In hindsight, after reading all of the later letters and seeing what Fitzgerald did, you’ve decided that it was clear from the beginning what powers he had to expand the investigation.
Let us note that career federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald himself did not, in real time, consider the matter to be clear, and requested additional clarification.
Tim F.
Um yes, Plame was the point of the inquiry. We never disagreed on that.
Here is the same question phrased more usefully. Imagine that Fitzgerald uncovered evidence that Cheney ordered torture. You have done better than most here at citing relevant law, so I sincerely hope that you can settle this. Would Fitzgerald have had the authority to pursue this potential crime?
Napoleon
@Slaney Black:
You are absolutely correct. Well said.
kay
@Tim F.:
If he uncovered illegality he has an independent duty to disclose it. No limits. He’s the State. He took an oath to enforce the laws, not some of the laws. If Fitzgerald had uncovered a murder while investigating the Plame issue, do you honestly believe he’d say “not my job! I’m here on the disclosure issue!” He’d refer it to law enforcement, who would investigate.
For what it’s worth, I actually think this is a done deal.
I don’t know how you announce you’re considering a special because of a report you read in June that “sickened” you, and then say “never mind”. I don’t see that happening. What’s he going to say? Evidence came to light that exonerated people?
kay
@Tim F.:
You’re asking the wrong question. The question isn’t does the prosecutor have some limits on revealing (not pursuing) illegality.
The question is does Holder consider the three torture memos that were not withdrawn controlling. It’s a purely legal question. I’d argue that the withdrawn memo makes the memos that were not withdrawn not controlling, but that argument may well suck. It’s what comes to mind.
I think we have to wait and see. But while we’re doing that, speculating on Holder’s motives is both unfair and fruitless.
Tim F.
Yes, I agree that he has a moral duty to report it, and in his day job as a US Attorney he would have a legal duty to do so. What I need to know is the legal language that specifically pertains to an Independent Counsel. If Fitzgerald needed to ask about whether he had the authority to pursue obstruction of his Plame-related investigation (which Comey responded that he already did, indicating that he did not specifically need to ask), that would indicate that Fitzgerald’s task as an IP was legally restricted relative to his normal freedom as a US Attorney. Again, I think that we need to see the relevant law.
kay
@Tim F.:
Disclosure is different than pursuit. He has to disclose. Not in some abstract moral sense, but because not disclosing illegality is essentially obstruction.
Tim F.
You continue to insist that I am writing about Holder’s motives. Said motives strike me as much less interesting than the consequences of what Holder (via, of course, anonymous sources) proposes to do. One can commit a terrible mistake with nothing but the best intentions.
kay
@Tim F.:
The language is on the DOJ website. What you need is the language that pertains to Holder’s special, and you don’t have that yet.
Tim F.
There is the nugget of this entire argument. Having followed two IP probes so far, I believe that unlike a US Attorney, an IP is bound by law not to disclose anything other than what he writes on an indictment. Neither of us has cited the relevant law. Until someone does I don’t see where we can go.
mclaren
geg6 said:
Absolutely 100% true. That is the crucial issue here.
Unfortunately, that boat has sailed. Obama has already thrown out the constitution, he’s pissed on the rule of law and wiped his ass with it and thrown it in the garbage. And he did it himself, not just by covering up or by refusing to prosecute the crimes of the previous administration.
In fact, Obama has gone farther in throwing out the rule of law than Cheney and the sociopaths of the previous 8 years. Obama has gone farther in tearing up the constitution and setting it on fire. Obama has now publicly proclaimed that even if suspects are acquitted by a military commission, he still has the power to kidnap them without charges and hurl them into secret prisons forever without a trial.
Obama’s detention after acquittal policy
Let’s be clear here:
Obama has now decided that he alone, as dictator, has the power to kidnap people who have been acquitted of crimes, and slam them into black-hole secret prisons without hope of trial, for the rest of their lives.
Rule of law?
You’re talking about the rule of law?
Are you people drunk? Are you on dope? Are you people high? What on earth makes you think you can bring back the rule of law by prosecuting people in the previous administration who ripped up the constitution and pissed all over it, when Obama is ripping up the constitution right now and pissing all over it as we speak?
I don’t understand you people. Are you bunch of nut jobs? You’re like people standing around during a bank robbery who are talking to each other and announcing, in tones of stern authority, “You know, we really have to restore the rule of law around here, and the way to do it is by prosecuting that guy who robbed the armored car last year,” and meanwhile the bank robbers are gunning people down all around you and citizens’ heads are getting blown off and the bank robbers and running past you with big sacks of money shooting everyone right and left.
And your response?
Your response is to ignore the bank robbery and keep talking about how terribly terribly terribly important it is that we prosecute that gang that knocked over the armored car last year.
Seriously. Are you people brain-damaged? Are you high? The constitution is being flushed down the toilet right now, today, as we speak, by Obama’s “preventive detention” policy…
…And your big concern is to “restore the rule of law” by prosecuting all the crimes and outrages of the previous administration??????
People, wake up! Yes, you need to prosecute all the crimes and outrages of the previous administration…but if Obama tries to issue an executive order that claims the authority to kidnap people who have been acquitted of crimes and hurl them into secret prisons without a trial, then Obama needs to be impeached. And any congressman or senator who supports that illegal unconstitutional kidnapping and imprisonment in a black hole also needs to be impeached.
You want the rule of law back?
It starts by OBEYING THE CONSTITUTION.
Amendment 4: the right of the people to be secure in their persons from illegal search and seizure.
That means you cannot kidnap someone off the streets without charges and without a warrant.
Amendment 4: Due process.
That means not the president, not any judge, not any goon with a SWAT team mask and helmet, not God himself can order someone dragged away to a secret prison without charges. Ever. PERIOD.
Amendment 6: the right to a speedy trial.
That means that once someone is arrested, he must be tried. It’s not optional. It’s not a privilege. It’s not something you do if you feel like it. EVERYONE ARRESTED MUST BE TRIED IN A COURT OF LAW BEFORE A JURY.
Amendment 8: no cruel or unusual punishment.
That means you can’t just grab someone off the street and toss him into a dungeon somewhere forever. That’s the very definition of cruel and unsual punishment.
WAKE UP!
You want the rule of law back, it starts by shutting down Obama’s illegal unconstitutional kidnapping scheme HARD. If he refuses to stop it, you impeach him.
The rule of law is paramount, but it doesn’t start by hauling the previous administration into federal court. It starts by obeying the constitution of the United States of America right now, today.
jrg
Crittenden: If Cheney was not doing anything wrong, why was he hiding?
We went into Iraq to kill al-Qaeda (or so we were told). That cost more than a trillion dollars. After that colossal f*ck up, you’ll have to forgive those of us who wonder why Cheney felt he needed a program with no congressional oversight.
RememberNovember
Sometimes exposing a wound to open air will allow for better scab formation/healing.
Irrelevant,YetPoignant
Sometimes wounds don’t heal.
rachel
If Ted Rall had any artistic talent, he’d be mclaren.
passerby
@Dave:
Along those same lines…in the search for why it’s such a political 3rd rail, and from what I gather from pols and pundits alike, seems as though democrats aren’t too eager to have this go down either.
I can only wonder why. Even the idea of an investigation without actual prosecution seems to have congress Rs and Ds scurrying away to the nearest dark corners.
Why, instead, aren’t more of them using the “it’s not up to us (congressfolk), that is the responsibility of the AG of the US and subsequently the SCOTUS”–Shorter congressfolk: Leave me outta this.
What? Why?
mcc
I just can’t follow what’s happening in the blogosphere anymore. Every discussion is a debate between those who support Obama’s secret, unannounced plans to investigate torture/wiretapping/whatever and Obama’s secret, unannounced plans to forgive or continue torture/wiretapping/whatever. Or a debate over the wisdom of the Obama administration’s secret plans to abandon the public option as revealed by one unclear, semi-sourced quote in the WSJ. Or how Sotomayor is secretly pro-life and just hasn’t told anyone. Nothing seems to be based on anything but anonymous quotes– and not even the whistleblower-type anonymous quotes where there’s some sort of arresting reason to take them seriously. An aura of unreality permeates.
bob h
We are warned that going after torture law-breaking will destroy the “goodwill” and comity that has built up in DC. What goodwill and comity are we talking about? The Republicans have tried to destroy Obama from Day 1.
mclaren
mcc claims:
Obama’s secret unnanounced plans?
What are you people talking about?
Can’t you read?
Headlines scream the news from every major paper in America, and you claim Obama has “secret unannounced plans”?
Washington Post: White House Weighs Order on Detention
Officials: Move Would Reassert Power To Hold Terror Suspects Indefinitely
Here’s the link.
How is this “secret”? How is this “unannounced”?
mclaren
Banner headlines on every major newspaper in America, and you call this “Obama’s secret unnanounced plan”???
The New York Times:
President’s Detention Plan Tests American Legal Tradition
What “secret”? What the hell are you people talking about????
mclaren
Obama stood in front of the constitution of the united states and gave a speech carried by every major newspaper and every TV news show in America, and you call this “Obama’s secret unnanounced plan”????
Here’s the YouTube video of Obama’s speech that was carried on all the major networks:
Watch Obama’s speech for yourself!
Wipe the Cheetos dust off your faces and wake the $#@% up! This speech blasted across the airwaves and got carried for days on every TV screen in America. And you’re calling this “Obama’s secret unnanounced plan”??
Secret????
Unannounced??????
WTF???
mcc
Hi mclaren,
Obama’s announced “indefinite detention” program is unconscionable and should, and will, be smacked down by the courts if they ever attempt to implement it. It’s also not something I mentioned or alluded to anywhere in my post, so I’m not really sure I understand your reply…? My post was responding to Tim F’s OP.
This said, the “indefinite detention” program also occasionally provides some pretty good examples of blog debates treating anonymous quotes concerning unannounced plans as fact. For example, in the last week I have seen bloggers praising the Obama administration for abandoning the “indefinite detention” program, based only on anonymous quotes claiming the administration intends to do so. On a similar vein, although your latter two links are of course well grounded, I can’t help but notice that the information that comprises that first Washington Post article (about a particular executive-order-based implementation of that plan) is “according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations”…
mclaren
mcc pointed out:
Yes, you’re exactly right that it’s difficult to discuss these issues when all we have is statements from “senior officials” who attended the meetings.
I think you’ll agree, though, that this kind of problem is unavoidable when we’re dealing with executive orders. If we were concerned with a bill before congress to allow preventive detention, the text of the draft legislation would become public and we could discuss the exact wording of the legislation in detail. We could also pressure members of congress with phone calls and letters and emails.
We don’t have that luxury here, because an executive order is a unilateral decree by the President of the United States. It’s not submitted to any deliberative body for a vote. Therefore by its very nature an executive order precludes the possibility of discussing its precise wording until such time as the President issues it — by which time it is, of course, too late to influence the issuance of said executive order.
If what you’re saying is that we ought to refrain from discussing forthcoming or contemplated executive orders because we don’t have precise knowledge of their exact wording, surely it cannot have escaped your notice that this is tantamount to saying “We can’t discuss proposed executive orders at all until they are issued, at which it’s too late.” Which really amounts to saying “Shut up and click your heels and salute, oberleutant.”
I agree wholeheartedly that we’re bound to wind up swimming in a miasma of partial information when we debate executive orders which have not yet been issued. But I think you’ll agree that so much extralegal power has now been vested in the Executive branch, especially over the last 8 years, that most of what goes on in the U.S. government now seems to occur by Executive decree of one kind or another. So while it’s awkward to fumble around with second-hand reports of what Obama’s executive order, we must either make do with the best info available or say nothing until it’s too late — which, when we’re dealing with executive orders which flagrantly violate the constitution, isn’t an option.
Your larger point, I think, is that far too much power is currently vested in the Executive branch. What we really need to do is cut back drastically on the scope and authority of executive orders. Congress and the judiciary need to slap down the practice of “signing statements” (unconstitutional evasions of the legislative branch introduced under Reagan) and the practice of the president unilaterally ordering the entire U.S. army into a foreign country (wholly illegal under the constitution; congress is vested with the power to declare war, not the president) and certainly activities like JSOC and SOD (Joint Special Operations Committee, the “black ops” wing of the Pentagon, and Special Operations Division, ditto — both are fancy code names for gangs of SEAL and Delta Force assassins the President can order into foreign countries to murder or kidnap anyone he wants at any time, activities which take place entirely outside the constitution, and, as we’ve seen with Cheney’s assassination squads, entirely outside the oversight of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the regular intelligence and army chain of command).
Congress and the judiciary need to shut down these extralegal unconstitutional arrogations of executive power. Until they do so, we’re left in the increasingly untenable position of speculating on the basis of leaks by anonymous “White House officials” about what went on inside secret meetings in the White House, where powers formerly exercised by Congress and the courts are increasingly being concentrated.
mcc
Yes, I’ll absolutely agree with that.