Attorney General
Holder and Craig Supported Releasing DOJ Interrogation Memos
Posted Apr 24, 2009 7:24 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
As administration officials debated whether to release Justice Department memos authorizing harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects, two lawyers argued for their disclosure: Attorney General Eric Holder and White House counsel Gregory Craig.
The debate is detailed in a Washington Post story. Craig had warned that a federal court case seeking release of the memos could force disclosure. An April 2 federal court deadline was looming in the suit by the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations.
Justice Department lawyers had told Craig they were prepared to defend keeping all or part of the memos secret in the ACLU case, but the argument was weak in part because much of the information was leaked in a report on detainee mistreatment by the Red Cross, the Post story says.
A press release by Holder on the day the memos were released said they were being disclosed “consistent with our commitment to the rule of law."
Since the release of the documents, "debate is swirling in Washington not only about the merits of the techniques but also about the wisdom of Obama's decision to exercise his unique authority to instantly transform the 'top secret' documents into public ones," the story says.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Apr 24, 2009 7:50 AM CST
I do not see how anyone can fault the President’s decision. Certainly Al Qaida knows, from the world media, the International Red Cross and released detainees, exactly what techniques our interrogators were using. The only purpose served by the secrecy of these memos was to keep the American public as uninformed as possible. We have some real and serious weaknesses in our alleged “intelligence” service, which urgently need to be addressed. The bureaucrats at the CIA have been devoting their time covering up their incompetence rather than doing their jobs, and the country can no longer afford them.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Apr 24, 2009 8:05 AM CST
Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Americans believe the Obama administration’s recent release of CIA memos endangers the national security of the United States. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 28% believe the release of the memos helps America’s image abroad.
Forty-six percent (46%) of voters disagree with Obama’s decision to close Gitmo, while only 36% agree with the president’s action.
Obama is well aware that he’s shaping up to be a one-termer.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Apr 24, 2009 8:28 AM CST
Actually, these are some encouraging numbers. The 58% statistic means fully 42% of Americans understand the CIA is lying to them. This reflects that we are nearing the point where the smokescreen obscuring CIA incompetence will be completely dissipated, leaving the agency exposed to public demands for reform and replacement. The Gitmo numbers reflect that 54% of Americans don’t disagree with the President’s decision to close the prison. When you combine these with Obama’s approval ratings on economic issues, the odds at this point would seem to suggest he will be reelected.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Apr 24, 2009 8:40 AM CST
Uh, no McLeod. You’re drawing unsupported conclusions. You’re also forgetting the percentage who responded “I don’t know/No opinion.” That’s about 14% of the survey pool.
Two other interesting polls: Only 28% of U.S. voters think the Obama administration should do any further investigating of how the Bush administration treated terrorism suspects.
And, 53% of U.S. voters say it is at least somewhat likely that the next occupant of the White House will be a Republican.
Obama is potentially ushering in decades of Republican wins.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Apr 24, 2009 9:19 AM CST
This is all a political calculation for the democrats. The party has illustrated numerous times that they will seek reelection at all costs, even if it endangers American lives and basic freedoms. They foolishly believe that if they can make the Bush Administration look bad enough, perhaps the public will vote Democrat in the next election.
All of this is predicated on the Left’s basic belief that the American public is stupid and gullible.
But the Dems miscalculate. This is only making Obama look bad and it’s making Americans concerned about their safety. The Left has already begun destroying itself.
Flag this comment
Paul the Magyar
Apr 24, 2009 11:45 AM CST
“Obama is potentially ushering in decades of Republican wins.”
So stop sniping and celebrate! Then, you can have all the torture you want. After all, not a story goes by that you do not celebrate sadism and inhumanity.
Here is a good question to comment on: What constitutes too much or too heinous treatment that even a neo-con would eschew?
Flag this comment
J.D.
Apr 24, 2009 12:02 PM CST
Answer: torture would constitute too much.
Fortunately, our interrogation techniques are less harsh than your average fraternity rush.
But that’s not stopping the Left from using it to trash the United States.
Flag this comment
Paul the Magyar
Apr 24, 2009 12:04 PM CST
I also remember the good old days when conservatives believed that if we went by pure democracy, it might turn into “mobocracy” and minorities of citizens would be bullied by the great unwashed. Now that neo-cons are identifying with the majority of uninformed citizens, and able to sway the masses, they no longer see the need for protection against secret and unrestrained government. Unless it is in the hands of a liberal or a Democrat. Then, government is something to be feared and attacked!
The hypocrisy and moral vacuity is nauseating.
Flag this comment
Paul the Magyar
Apr 24, 2009 12:08 PM CST
Gee, when I rushed, I was not given involuntary CHINESE WATER TORTURE. Now that we use it, we renamed it something more innocuous: “waterboarding”—imaking it sound something like surfboarding or windsurfing.
I did not know of any pledges who died—as at Abu Ghraib—or committed suicde—as at Gitmo.
What school did you attend and what cult—er, frat—di d you rush?
I suppose if it is all just semantics, then you have a point. But it is not. If we let a neo-con politicized Justice Department redefine torture according to what is expedient for the neo-con politicized Justice Department. If we get to redefine torture, and rewrite the universally adopted standards, we can justify and excuse anything. Except that, next time, someone else will do that to us.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Apr 24, 2009 1:30 PM CST
You’ve convinced me, Magy. We should stop fighting this war against radical islam with a scalpel. From this point forward, we should indiscriminately nuke any country from which a jihadist might originate. That way, we won’t need Gitmo or any interrogation. We’ll solve the problem much more efficiently, and you won’t have anything to worry about. The days of caterpillars in cardboard boxes will be over!
And btw, please stop getting your analysis of the conservative position from the DailyKos. You clearly have never spoken to a conservative.
Flag this comment
Paul the Magyar
Apr 24, 2009 4:42 PM CST
Sorry to disappoint you, J.D., but I was a card-carrying neo-con. I met and shook hands with President Reagan when I was campaigning for him. I worked with Lee Atwater (before he apologized and before he did anything he had to apologize for). I subscribed to—and actually read! – Conservative Digest and Human Events and was a paid-up member of the Conservative Caucus, the American Security Council, Americans Against Union Control of Government and other neo-con orgs.
Back then, the neo-cons were practical and fairly reasonable. They believed in realpolitik and national defense, but they were not slaves to the Religious Right, ignorant of history, or incapable of reasonable compromise.
The neo-cons of today are no longer “neo” and are far to the right of Reagan (Reagan was a leftist compared to the current crop of hardliners.). The neo-cons of today excuse torture and unlimited illegal wiretapping (ignoring the FISA Courts)—that alone should tell you something.
I do not need to read the Daily Kos—I live in the Bible Belt and talk to the dominant conservative culture in daily work. This group will change when they some die out and others realize how today’s neo-cons ignore history and put power before principle. The Southern Strategy is on its way out as the new generations have no knowledge of or drive towards discrimination and recrimination. Young folks do not need someone or group to look down upon. They are not interested in the scapegoating and the demonizing of the opposition. Your alarmist shtick (“liberal America-hating traitors”) is old, tired, silly, unconvincing and irrelevant. I just try to help it out the door.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Apr 25, 2009 1:34 AM CST
I remember Reagan. At first, I did not think he would be good for the country at all. He tended to see the world as a Disney movie. As time went on, though, he (amazingly) convinced much of the world that it was, in fact, a Disney movie. There was a certain teflonicity and good intention about him, even when he was doing things as cynical as the invasion of Grenada.
Had Reagan been President during 9/11, he would not have run in a panic to find a place to hide. He would have gone directly to the sites of the attacks, where he would have made some stirring remarks, and where he would have also announced that we had no indication who was behind it all, and that an investigation would be opened. Prior to landing for these remarks, he would have communicated through channels that no suspicions were to be mentioned in public, and that Bin Laden’s name in particular was to be treated as almost unknown/unrecognized if the media brought it up. That evening, special forces units would have boarded planes, and within thee days, while Bin Laden was still laughing about American ineptness, he would have swiftly and silently vanished away (for the Snark was a Boojim, you see).
Perhaps a few days after that, our “ongoing investigation” would have developed leads pointing to Osama Bin Laden. Of course, quite duly in conformity with international law, Reagan would have also noted that something beyond our ken had apparently happened to Bin Laden, who, seemingly, must have had some powerful enemies. The entire world would have understood, and we would not have needed to attack Afghanistan or anybody else.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Apr 27, 2009 10:55 AM CST
^ I think you’re confused with the Clinton Admin. Bill went to the scene of the attack—the WTC in 1993—and “opened an investigation.” They treated it like a criminal investigation. Osama laughed, went to work planning another attack against the same towers, and was successful yet again.
We’ve tried your plan. It doesn’t work. Three-thousand people died as a result.
Oh, and Clinton lobbed a few bombs around the globe. But he was too distracted having affairs with interns to get overly concerned with al Qaeda.
So, we can fight a war as politically-correctly as possible, or we can nuke entire cities. But the Left doesn’t want either. The Left isn’t anti-war; it’s anti-defense.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Apr 28, 2009 1:11 AM CST
There is an important difference between lobbing a few bombs and getting a few teams in close with .308s for a visually confirmed result. There is another important difference between a diversionary “investigation” and a real one. I suppose somebody has to know something about tactics to understand those differences. That would explain why you don’t. And, I was not sponsoring any plan as “my plan,” only suggesting what I think Reagan would have done (which, in fact, nobody tried). Only a complete moron would suggest that the country must choose between fighting wars “as politically correct as possible” or “nuking entire cities.” If “the Left” doesn’t want either, they are pretty reasonable in that regard.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Apr 28, 2009 8:50 AM CST
Yes. The targets also don’t want the U.S. to do either, and they too find liberals “reasonable.” In fact, they advanced most quickly under Clinton.
Again, jihadists and libs have so much in common.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.