Saturday, April 25, 2009
More Andy McCarthy on Interrogation
Former terrorist prosecutor Andy McCarthy summarizes nicely the quandry that President Obama finds himself in as a result of his decision to release the OLC memoranda regarding interrogations:
"At issue here is a matter of policy, not evidence: In the United States of America, should the victor in a presidential election use the enormous powers of his office to investigate and prosecute his political adversaries, and thereby begin a cycle of retribution in which policy disputes will henceforth be criminalized?Even if you believe that the decisions of the Bush administration with regard to coercive interrogation were wrong and indeed criminal, it seems to me that: a) not many, even on the far left, want to prosecute those who actually conducted the interrogations, notwithstanding the diminished status of a "Nuremberg defense" (unless they actually went beyond the meets and bounds of the guidelines provided from above); b) going after the lawyers who provided advice will be difficult, unless the advice was along the lines of "oh, yup, it's OK to decapitate your wife if she changes the channel with 2 minutes left in the game and the score tied -- see Highlander v. Kurgan," that is, outrageous advice that is clearly well beyond the bright lines of legal conduct as set forth by ABA rules; c) you are left with going after the former president and vice president. I think Cheney would welcome the debate, which might have unforeseen negative political consequences for the Democrats (even if convicted, Cheney gets a pardon from President Obama -- you heard it here first -- just so he can demonstrate his munificence, and it likely would not cost him votes on the left).
"That is exactly what the Left wants. We, on the contrary, believe it would tear the country asunder, in addition to re-establishing the ethos of risk-aversion that invited 9/11. President Obama could have let sleeping dogs lie. Instead, he stirred both sides to battle stations. Now he will have to decide, and bear the consequences."
Perhaps Democrats could conduct an internal poll on those party members 53 years old and up (who were of voting age when Ford pardoned Nixon in 1974) and ask then if, given the benefit of hindsight, it was the right thing for the country to turn the page at that time, or whether it would have been preferable to have Nixon go on trial. I am not trying to equate anything Nixon actually did with alleged criminal acts by Bush -- the focus here is purely on the concept of moving forward, which I believe President Obama wants to do.
CWCID: NRO
7 Comments:
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Sat Apr 25, 03:23:00 PM:
"moving forward, which I believe President Obama wants to do."
If that were true, he would not have backtracked on his vow to the CIA (who he apparently took the trouble to lie to in person) to protect them, nor would he not take every possible chance to blame the Bush administration for everything he doesn't want exclusive ownership of.
Ignore the words, watch the actions.
By Kinuachdrach, at
Sat Apr 25, 04:31:00 PM:
Got to agree with Dawnfire. There is no objective evidence for Obama's alleged wanting to move forward.
The problem with assessing Obama's actions are that, in most cases, they can be equally explained by (1) incompetence, or (2) devious pursuit of an unstated agenda. Time will tell.
If I had to bet, though, I would bet that the plan for Democrat show trials gets buried by events. Russia re-invades Georgia? Iran tests a nuclear device? Pakistan implodes? China stops buying US bonds?
By Escort81, at
Sat Apr 25, 06:22:00 PM:
I admit that it's a guess on my part. But President Obama's political calculation has to be that it's not as if the left is going to run a candidate against him in 2012 as was the case in 1980 with Kennedy against Carter -- he doesn't have a need to nail down his base. He wants to keep the focus on his agenda. What does he gain politically by letting this go forward? It would be 10x more partisan than Clinton/Lewsinky, not so good for a candidate who campaigned on post-partisanship and won many Independents that way. It would also motivate what remains of the Republican base. I don't think he wants to be the first sitting U.S. president that oversees (or allows to happen) the bringing of criminal charges against his predecessor.
What would happen, God forbid, if there were a significant attack on the U.S. during the height of the hearings (say, along the lines of what Se. Leahy wants to do)? Wouldn't the sentiment of a good chunk of the pro-investigation crowd switch pretty quickly?
The base of the Democratic Party might really want as many Bush administration people in jail as there are jail cells, but it is hard for me to believe that a large majority of Americans would favor such a set of investigations or trials. In a way, I think that the Dems face the same tide of public opinion against them as the Republicans did in the Clinton impeachment hearings and trial.
I think President Obama could shut this down. Here's an idea -- pre-emptive blanket pardons for everybody connected with interrogations! It implies that there actually was wrongdoing, with the Republicans being solely to blame, but stops the notion that there can be any trials. Perhaps then all sides could have a less heated discussion about what the appropriate policies should be, and what constitutes the bright line between coercive interrogation and torture.
By Whiskey, at
Sat Apr 25, 11:25:00 PM:
Obama WANTS an attack. He's not a conventional politician. The only White people he can stand are Weathermen radicals who blow stuff up. He's Jeremiah Wright with a better rant.
A guy born and raised a Muslim, who went on Jihad to Pakistan during that Summer trip (between junior/senior years at Columbia).
Of COURSE he wants show trials. He's betting he can get the media which worships him as a Living God to simply forget about all the Dems: Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, etc. who were informed in every detail about what was being done.
HE figures any attack will just allow him to suspend great parts of the Constitution, institute Sharia Lite, a PC-Multiculti dictatorship ala the UK, targeting the White Working/Middle class which his SWPL Yuppie backers, Women, Gays, Blacks, and Hispanics hate as much as he and his Saudi Money backers and George Soros do.
If the attacks were along the lines of Madrid or London, then yes, he'd be right, and could institute for example felonies for insulting Islam, legalized polygamy, suppression of Christianity, and other SWPL/Female/Gay/Hispanic/Black friendly things that punish the White Middle/Working class.
However, he's likely to get a nuclear attack or THREE, or constant non-stop attacks along the lines of Bombay, or both. Which makes people into survival mode, and a quick coup for national survival (you can't sustain power when your President encourages city after city to be nuked, and attack after attack like Bombay to take place).
Obama has already gutted the CIA, which won't do squat to stop an attack now, not trusting him or Dems at all. Same with the FBI, or any other agency. Obama knows this, he's not stupid. He wants an attack and has probably made a "bargain" through intermediaries to encourage one for reasons above.
One problem: it's likely to broken as folks like Osama go for the big one to generate their own exile Army.
I'll say this for Obama: he hates America so much that even as President he can't keep from groveling before Saudi kings or jumped up Latin American dictators. He and his backers are likely to pay a heavy price as SWPL/Female policies are proven to get US cities nuked.
By 
, at
Sun Apr 26, 01:46:00 AM:
Obama has already gutted the CIA, which won't do squat to stop an attack now, not trusting him or Dems at all.This is an amusing irony, considering how aggressive the CIA was at undermining Bush.
By davod, at
Sun Apr 26, 02:52:00 PM:
I arrived late to the party but I agree with the other two posters.
I see nothing in Obama's past to suggest he ever wanted to move to the middle.
Pelosi and Obama are playing tag team with the conservatives.
By , at
Sun Apr 26, 02:55:00 PM:
What would happen, God forbid, if there were a significant attack on the U.S. during the height of the hearings (say, along the lines of what Se. Leahy wants to do)? Wouldn't the sentiment of a good chunk of the pro-investigation crowd switch pretty quickly?Sentiment be damned. They will be held accountable for their crimes. Or at least risk being held accountable for whatever any follow-on Administration chooses to consider as being criminal.
