TomB raises an interesting point by mentioning the 2001 anthrax attacks. In 2002, the FBI was turning the life of Dr. Stephen Hatfill, a ‘person of interest,’ into a living hell. He was subsequently cleared, but not until after being personally and professionally destroyed. Imagine if you will if the Bureau had be able to use on him the methods that were used on Jose Padilla, another American citizen. It’s likely Hatfill would have ‘confessed’ to the anthrax attacks and any number of other crimes as well. And I concur, it makes no sense to prosecute the low-level CIA and military personnel, and not the high officials who authorized these methods.

Hatfill put HIMSELF into the cross-hairs of the FBI with all his lies, boasts, forgeries (letters of reference, Diplomas and a Ph.D. degree Certificate), association with racist regimes (Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa and membership of the neo-Nazi paramilitary wing (Aquila/Brandwag) of the South Afican racist AWB. That has all been revealed in the released Court documents from the case of Hatfill versus the DOJ/Attorney General. However, Simon Cooper exposed the man for what he is way back in 2003 – read the SEED Magazine article at:
http://luigiwarren.blogspot.com/2005/12/just-some-asshole-who-has-too-much-to.html
He destroyed himself……………….

Seriously though, I believe that there are reasons of state that come to bear on when and to what degree you reaction to bad behavior. I think this is especially so when fighting savages.

The left is at its most dangerous when it advances under the banner of virtue. Of course we are all against torture. But I believe that the course of action Holder is following is neither necessary or done from high principle. And it will damage the morale of people who out there on our behalf.

“After the anger over 9/11 cooled, the left was free to apply its ACLU standards….”

You keep saying things like this Thom and maybe I’m missing your point but the only argument I can perceive from same is a kind of reactionary one. Thus and again all I’d say is that merely because the Left believes in gravity doesn’t make it either right or smart to attack Isaac Newton, true?

Fight ‘em when they’re wrong, I say. Or like Twain said about doing right, it’ll not only confound your enemies but astonish your friends.

Cheers,

Firstly let me apologize for mangling your name in my last post. Secondly however and in response to same you wrote:

“That is correct. I would no longer argue the case only from the Rule of Law perspective, but that argument – for investigations – is currently air tight and irrefutable. Torture is alleged to have taken place, torture is illegal, torture allegations mandate investigations – case closed.”

I see from this that while you are now saying that “investigations” are mandated I have apparently persuaded you at least that *prosecutions* almost certainly aren’t and so I guess we’ve narrowed the issue somewhat. And of course Thom Meehan has now noted that some investigations have already been made, even if administrative and not criminal in nature.

I dunno; 9/11 was, however foolishly, a big shock to this country, and in retrospect I guess it was asking too much that we and our elected leaders would respond in a more moderate fashion. That’s not to say there isn’t some validity to your idea that regardless same the law is the law and we ought to just go back and apply it to its limits. But unthinkingly applied the law can be an ass, and mechanically applied it would clearly be an absolute tyranny. (For instance it would surprise me if every single one of the people reading this today didn’t in some way violate some law; making a lane change without signaling, swearing in public, failing to bring in their trash cans yet another day, having an unlicensed pet, and/or etc., etc.)

In addition, there’s also the question here about the wisdom of perhaps establishing a precedent of every new Administration of a changed partisan stripe going back and criminally prosecuting whoever it can from the last, different one.

Accordingly I don’t know that the best result here wouldn’t be a wise special prosecutor coming out and while indeed prosecuting anyone who seemed to go wildly beyond the bounds of reason, otherwise just detailing what happened. And appending to their report the notation that while the shock of 9/11 and the new urgency (if not criticality) of getting information about terrorism and the uncertainty about what constituted torture and etc. formed extenuating circumstances, those circumstances have passed so that our interrogators and etc. should know that a prison jumpsuit will be the reward for going postal on any captives in the future.

Cheers,

That is correct. I would no longer argue the case only from the Rule of Law perspective, but that argument – for investigations – is currently air tight and irrefutable. Torture is alleged to have taken place, torture is illegal, torture allegations mandate investigations – case closed.

“In essence then, as I at least took it, acknowledging that yes, in war today we do some God-awful things, but it’s clear that there’s something about torture that just grabs many people by the guts and so why the hell not just rule this one damned additional God-awful thing out of bounds?”

We already have.

Toddard admits that there have been reviews already. Those carrying out the reviews, (that is, competent authorities) took taken no action beyond the administrative. He also admits that the investigation will not focus on those who brought us to war or wrote the memo’s authorizing what we now admit is torture. He insists that the government has no discretion in the matter despite President Obama’s position to the contrary until a few days ago. Of course one interrogator who killed a detainee was recently found guilty and is on his way to jail. Doesn’t that suggest that there were “competent authorities” out there after all.

It’s hard to see this as anything beyond malicious posturing at the expense of people paid to protect us.

Toddard is one of those Secular Right blog folks who have no source of authority save the letter of the law. So throwing a few low level operatives to the wolves seems to comfort him. But the letter of the law is pretty inflexible, and it’s far more appealing from the sidelines than it is when you have to implementing it.

For instance. When I was sworn in as a peace officer in the Seventy’s. I had to learn the whole criminal code in my home state. I was amused to find a statute outlawing blasphemy, defined as “denying the devinity of our lord Jesus Christ.” Now it so happened that the Chief justice was a fine jurist named Weintraub. Not surprisingly, I and everyone else in the state decided that the that law was better left unenforced. Are you listening Toddard? When the law is an ass, you don’t have to jump up and ride it.

Why not go back over to the American Spectator and make another impassioned plea for more gentle eulogies for Ted Kennedy?