Holder Says He Will Not Permit the Criminalization of Policy Differences

[BlueJessamine]

Source: ABC NEWS

As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.

"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted," he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."

But Holder left open the door to some legal action, saying that though he "will not permit the criminalization of policy differences," he is responsible as attorney general to enforce the law.

"If I see evidence of wrongdoing, I will pursue it to the full extent of the law, and I will do that in an appropriate way," he added.



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1

[DS1]

1. This is it

They aren't going after the lowlings, they're going for the top.

[Schema Thing]

3. And they're going to have some of those lowlings on their side

testifying against those who put them up to it.

[DS1]

8. All it takes is for L. England and Granier to cover their asses and name

the people who gave them the orders, and for those people to name the people who gave them the orders all the way to at least Rumsfeld.

[stillcool]

10. Seems like they already have that...

the memos and the report clearly point out where the orders came from, and what specific interrogation techniques were to be used. They reiterated time and time again in minute detail, how these techniques were to be applied for the sole purpose of placing the thinnest veneer of legality over the orders they were giving.

[Wizard777]

11. Former Brig. Gen Karpinski already did that on Olberman.

She flayed Cheney.

[defendandprotect]

29. or jail suicides . . . ???

[guruoo]

12. This 'preemptive immunity' could have them coming out of the woodwork

[onehandle]

20. That's all I ask. nt

[JDPriestly]

35. Actually, I hear a cop-out in Holder's words.

Whether to torture or not to torture is not a policy issue. It is a matter of human decency.

A person who has been waterboarded 183 times in one month has probably suffered brain damage from the oxygen deprivation and probably has a nervous disorder from the extreme stress.

The sleep deprivation also can have long-term effects. These torture techniques are not just harmless jokes.

I don't have sympathy for someone like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, but torture is against everything our country stands for including the rule of law and the idea that, in the eyes of the law, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

[BR_Parkway]

36. But should we prosecute the camp guard low ranking MP who escorted

them back and forth from their cells for this? Given the classification, would he even have known what he was handing over a prisoner for?

I hate to use the phrase 'just following orders' - but if the MP had every reason to believe that he had been given a lawful order that had been looked at by all of his chain of command and blessed - is he really guilty of being an accessory?

I think this is the problem that many are grappling with - there's no question about some of the people who should be prosecuted (based on what we currently know) - but when the entire chain of command is corrupted all the way at the top - how far down do we go?

On the surface, it seems fairly cut-n-dried - We're the US, we don't torture and it's a violation of the law if someone does - prosecute them.

But it also seems that there are many others who are going to be caught up in this web, and that is going to take some careful investigation and prosecutorial discretion I think.

[JDPriestly]

41. Each case should be considered on its facts and on the applicable law.

We already have soldiers serving time or who have served time for torture -- that appears to have been authorized if not ordered. Why should intelligence officers get by with it? I'm not saying they should not get by with it. I'm just asking on what legal basis would they get by with it?

Even our soldiers, as I understand it, are not supposed to follow immoral orders, orders that would require them to do things that obviously are not humanly correct. At least, growing up, I was taught that our soldiers are allowed to follow their consciences to a certain extent. But then, I grew up at a time when the Holocaust was a fresh memory.

[Demeter]

2. "Policy Differences" Better Not Mean Treaty and Constitution Violations

[Wizard777]

14. I'm thinking Holder means legitimate policy. I think what's confusing everyone that has been -

paying attention for the last 8 years. Bush pretty much had a policy of violating the law when and where ever he damned well pleased. Violations of law are not a legitimate part of policy.

[msanthrope]

19. Bingo. n/t

[Mithreal]

33. And falsely reassuring to some Republicans. nt

[defendandprotect]

30. Rep. David Obey also went that route . . . "politization" was the keyword . ..

Same B.S. they ran after Iran-Contra . . . GOP labelled it all a difference of

political opinion!!!!

Presumably our Founders understood that even impeachment could be called "political" ---


There's even discussion of conspiracy between President and VP in which case they

called for the SUSPENSION of the president and vp!!! Just look at how widespread this

conspiracy of TORTURE was .... lawyers heavily involved in pleasing their masters!

"Politics" my ass -- !!!

[liberalmuse]

4. I think some sort of censure is in order for those who carried out the torture.

At the very least. If Hitler were alive today, I shudder to think what he and those who carried out his agenda would get away with. 'Policy'. I don't think so. No one on this planet can honestly believe that because one carries out torture with the cover of 'policy' or 'legal' memos, that one isn't dead fucking wrong. I was in the military. TORTURE IS AGAINST THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS, I.E.; "INTERNATIONAL LAW" AND THOSE WHO CARRY IT OUT CAN BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE UCMJ. I sincerely hope contractors aren't immune from prosecution.

[mr11]

18. Agree with you Jody

:applause:

[Downwinder]

23. Better to get it over with now than have it strung out for 50 yrs like WWII abuses. n/t

[jody]

5. I believe nothing any politician says, only what they do. n/t

[pleah]

6. Same here. n/t

[aquart]

7. Yep. The constitution means nothing if it is not enforced by action.

Right now, it's pretty much Republican toilet paper.

[Wizard777]

9. The Constitution also gives Congress the ability to punish offense against the law of nations.

Article I, Section 8.

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

[McCamy Taylor]

13. So, if Cheney got a lawyer to say it was ok, is Cheney off the hook? Sounds fishy to me.

[DS1]

21. No

They go after the lawyer, and make him contradict himself and catch him lying based on the testimony given from the people under him, then they go after Cheney and Gonzales and finally Bush.

[katandmoon]

15. Weasel talk

[DS1]

22. Please elaborate

[katandmoon]

27. The "non-criminalization of policy differences" net will be cast far and wide and high.

And used to let everybody off the hook. Holder's boss just wants to look forward, not back, doncha know.

[DS1]

28. Pure conjecture

Who said anything about letting everyone off the hook? They've already said not everyone is going to get away with this.

[Az_lefty]

16. yes, go after the top rung. That's where the problem was.

When the pres and his justice dept. say's torture is ok, don't worry about it, the problem is clearly with shrub and his inner circle. These sorry bastards have set America back hundreds of years.

[krispos42]

17. Well, duh.

What, are we going to prosecute Bush for putting a hold on stem-cell research or mandating abstinance-only education in a foreign aid package?

:eyes:

You prosecute crimes. If Bush's "policy" was to break the law, you go after him for breaking the law, not for making a policy. If the policy winds up breaking a lot of laws, you put a stack of indictments (using a forklift, in needed) on a judge's desk and ask for consecutive sentences, however many centuries it may take.

[Downwinder]

24. From where I sit, Bush's stem cell position is life threatening. n/t

[krispos42]

25. And conservative economics increases the suicide rate

:shrug:

It's too diffuse to properly be called a crime in the judicial sense.


Lying to Congress and torture, those are definately crimes if you have more than two brain cells to rub together.

[Kablooie]

26. His brain stem cell is life threatening too.

[Chuckleberry]

31. Paul Krugman's column addresses torture prosecutions today

link here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/opinion/24krugman.html

[grahamhgreen]

32. Thank god water boarding is simply a crime and has nothing to do with policy.

[w4rma]

34. Perfect. (nt)

[Doctor_J]

37. What about war crimes?

Can we criminalize those???

:mad:

[grasswire]

38. Holder is using their FRAMING, dammit

This is the phrasing that Bushies have been using the last few days, hammering it into the public conversation: "criminalizing policy differences, criminalizing policy differences, criminalizing policy differences"!!!

The juxtaposition of upholding the law vs. breaking the law is not POLICY DIFFERENCES.

Cheney used that framing to diminish culpability -- to reduce it to a distinction without a difference.

Don't let them get away with this, Mr. AG. Stop being part of their whitewash!!

[ShortnFiery]

39. We are going to have to demand it. Write your legislator and DEMAND.

Hey, you want my vote in your next primary challenge? Go after this! :thumbsup:

[grasswire]

40. send a postcard -- it's worth a hundred e-mails

....and it doesn't take much longer. E-mails get discarded. Paper letters get irradiated for anthrax and take a long time. But postcards make an immediate impact.