The Moustache of Justice?
Chris Hayes has an observation:
– (1) Yesterday, AG designee Eric Holder said, without hesitation that water-boarding is torture.
– (2) Dick Cheney has admitted authorizing water-boarding.
– (3) Torture is a felony under US law punishable by up to 20 years of prison.
Again, this raises the question of how, exactly, the Obama administration can possibly move forward with a “let bygones by bygones” approach to Bush-era violations of the laws of war. Prosecutors have a lot of discretion, so I believe AG Holder would be within his rights to simply decline to investigate the former Vice President of the United States public admission that he’s committed what Holder claims to believe are serious crimes. But surely Holder should be asked about this and expected to give some kind of reasons for turning a blind eye.
56 Responses to “The Moustache of Justice?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 16th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Assuming that Bush is going to Pardon the crap out of everybody involved right before he leaves office, that should give the Obama administration plenty of room to not do anything.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Does anyone else think Cheney bears a striking resemblence to Ned Beatty in Deliverance?
January 16th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
If The President Does It, It Isn’t Illegal.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Or that’s what I remember some guy saying.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Part of me is convinced that the Obama team simply won’t dedicate themselves to prosecution until after Jan. 20th. In other words, hold their cards close to their chest and see what the landscape looks like on Jan. 20th.
If they openly declare that they will prosecute, that will only push Bush to issue even more pardons, or at least more specific ones.
So the Obama folks are probably doing what I would do. Say “no one is above the law” but pretend like you won’t really prosecute. If Bush buys into this bluff, maybe he won’t pardon everyone. If Bush is determined to pardon everyone anyway, it all becomes a mute point.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
For Obama to declare now that he is going to prosecute would be out of character for him, U.S. precedent, and international precedent. Matt keeps displaying this “Gee whiz!” kind of astonishment that Obama is being so circumspect about this. Matt is either being disingenuous, or he is incredibly stupid about U.S. politics and how other countries have grappled with similar situations.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
There is zero chance that Team Obama will pursue the very serious crimes of the Cheney Administration. Can I get odds ono this, by the way?
January 16th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I don’t see what’s to be gained by pressing Holder to say anything about it while Bush is still in office, except to make it infinitesimally more likely that Bush will pull a Fletcher and issue blanket pardons.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
I like Holder’s mustache. It reminds me of the mustaches that more gentlemanly movie stars (e.g., Frederic March) wore from about 1930-1960. It shows he’s too mature to care that mustaches are currently out of fashion. He’s got his look and he’s sticking to it.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
I suspect that’s one hell of a bonfire they’re building up at Camp David this weekend — and it ain’t for smores.
“Operation Weinie Roast”
–as in “Keep our wienies from being roasted”
You can’t do stuff like that on the White HOuse Lawn –people would notice.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_s_last_days_1
January 16th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Right now I’m more concerned with whether Holder really believes that we’ve been at war since the ’90s (without knowing it, for most of the time). That’s distressingly wingnutty.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Though I suppose we should be thankful he didn’t push it back to the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
If Bush actually pardons war crimes, then it almost automatically compels foreign governments to try him and his goons for war crimes.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Bush the Junior won’t issue pardons. That’s an admission of guilt. They’re double dawg daring Team Obama to prosecute. And it ain’t gonna happen. It’ll be an opportunity for Obama to boldly stand up to the Unserious Moonbat Shrill Wing Liberal Wing of the Democrat Party. And there will be much rejoicing amongst the loathsome David Broders, Davie Brooks, and Chris Matthewses of the world.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
There must be tens of thousands of crimes prosecutors choose not to prosecute every year for whatever reason. Its called prosecutorial discretion (I think). But if a Senator wants to know the reason why Holder might not prosecute here, sure they should ask him. His answer will most likely be a big waste of time to listen to.
At the end of the day, if not prosecuting Cheney bothers you that much, you can vote against Obama in four years. I don’t think the statute of limitations would have lapsed by then, although maybe somebody can tell us what the exact statute of limitations is (if any).
Personally I say Obama should prosecute, then pardon.
On another note, can the president pardon somebody before they have even been charged? That doesn’t seem to make sense. For someone to accept the pardon, wouldn’t they have to enter a guilty plea first?
January 16th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Personally I say Obama should prosecute, then pardon.
You hear that? That’s the sound of me banging my head against my desk.
Are you fucking serious?
January 16th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Speaking of waterboarding and torture — this just in from Matthew:
“Just RSVPed for Monday’s Third Way “Policy Luncheon” — should be fun ”
ha ha ha That Jennifer has a MEAN streak, doesn’t she?
January 16th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
And there will be much rejoicing amongst the loathsome David Broders, Davie Brooks, and Chris Matthewses of the world.
I don’t know why Chris Matthews is always grouped by some people with the worse of the worse pundits. Sure, the guy is rather sexist, and a lot of what he does is just fluff. But he was opposed to the Iraq War from the start, and said so. Very few famous TV hosts can say the same.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
It’ll be an opportunity for Obama to boldly stand up to the Unserious Moonbat Shrill Wing Liberal Wing of the Democrat Party.
So, why hasn’t he?
The issue is all over the press. Scarborough, Hardball, Olberman, Maddow, CNN…
So, if it’s unpossible that President Obama or AG Holder will pursue these investigations or prosecute, and such good politics to boot, why haven’t they made an “off the table” statement like Pelosi did about impeachment back in aught-six?
January 16th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
But he was opposed to the Iraq War from the start, and said so.
link, please
Maybe this will refresh your memory:
Plenty more here.
So enough with the concern trolling, m-kay?
January 16th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
The best outcome would be for Bush to issue pre-emptive pardons for himself and his administration, thereby all but admitting guilt in the eyes of the public. Other nations and international courts, upon the announcement that the U.S. will not be prosecuting our own war criminals, would then take up the case themselves and convict in absentia. Justice is served, and the incoming administration gets none of the “blame.”
January 16th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
So, if it’s unpossible that President Obama or AG Holder will pursue these investigations or prosecute, and such good politics to boot, why haven’t they made an “off the table” statement like Pelosi did about impeachment back in aught-six?
Because then Bush has zero pressure to issue pardons. It’s a game of chicken. We’ll see who blinks.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
link, please
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/09/01/IN133269.DTL
“The only reason to be in politics is to be out there all alone and then be proven right.”
Sure, he joined the rest of them when the war actually started. But he was against it, and it matters.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Sure, he joined the rest of them when the war actually started. But he was against it, and it matters.
You’re absolutely correct on both counts. Credit where it’s due. Thanks for following up.
I still say that on balance Matthews is a supreme dildo and that he would line up with Team Broder should things play out as I fear they will.
January 16th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Matthews says so many random things that you can paint him as having practically any political position. He’s salivated over Obama, McCain, Bush, Romney, and Fred Thompson. He’s been on both sides of multiple issues. Does he actually have any beliefs, or does he just say whatever pops into his head at the moment?
January 16th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
First off, I think in all likelihood, there will not be any prosecutions for torture. Going after a former VP takes a lot of balls, and opens up future prosecutions of Obama Administration officials – wow, that feels good to write.
At the same time, IF Holder or Obama, or both are thinking about going after the Bush Admin for torture, they’re doing it the right way. Clearly the Bushies don’t think there will be prosecutions and they’re opening up about the whole thing. Holder now has hours of interview confessions to use at a trial. Plus, Bush isn’t going to pardon anyone if he thinks there aren’t going to be prosecutions.
January 16th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Um, where exactly in the interview does Cheney admit that *he* has authorized waterboarding?
Here’s one that does. That link good enough for you?
Monsters.
Really pussy anonymous chickenhawk troll, you’re not earning your shill money today. I can’t help but wonder if U.S. soldiers in Iraq make more than this wanker does to troll blogs. I doubt it. How truly sad.
January 16th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I can’t see prosecuting these guys, when we can just whisk them off to a secret prison somewhere and pull their fingernails out. It would only be fair, and how else are we ever going to find out why they did the strange things that they did? Torture _can_ work, never doubt it.
Still there are difficulties. For one, I don’t believe that Cheney’s ticker would stand up to waterboarding. We need to find better ways of making them talk, ways that work even on diseased Sith lords.
More research is needed.
January 16th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
More research is needed.
Personally, I’ve found that a hammer to the finger tips or a moderate punch to the nasolabial folds works wonders in focusing one’s attention.
January 16th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
If the Vice President participated in planning felonies, and didn’t advise against them, or failing that report the suspected felonies to the appropriate authorities, he may himself be guilty as an accessory to the acts.
January 16th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
@ed
“Supreme dildo” implies being capable of giving pleasure to some women. Matthews isn’t in that category.
January 16th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
As I mentioned, Cheney doesn’t have the authority to approve anything. Whether he “signed off” was irrelevant. I can “sign off” on waterboarding too, but you can’t prosecute me for it.
I completely agree with Al that Bush, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft should be the primary suspects in any war crimes trial!
January 16th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
If the Vice President participated in planning felonies, and didn’t advise against them, or failing that report the suspected felonies to the appropriate authorities, he may himself be guilty as an accessory to the acts.
Word. Plus he actively collaborated in the decision. You’d have to be some sort of pathetic paid troll to willfully believe that Cheney isn’t as guilty as the rest of the monsters.
January 16th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
He just says whatever pops into his head at the moment.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple quetions.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
As I mentioned, Cheney doesn’t have the authority to approve anything. Whether he “signed off” was irrelevant. I can “sign off” on waterboarding too, but you can’t prosecute me for it.
Oh noes! I guess he’ll just have to be a material witness. Either way, it’s for The Hague to decide, puss-boy.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
I thought the vice president was only a legislative branch officer. So Cheney, what, authorized the Senate Sergeant at Arms and the Chief of the Capitol Police to waterboard Khalid Sheik Mohammed?
January 16th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Keep in mind that if Holder prosecutes, one way or another the case is going to wind up before the Supremes – and then we have Scalia and Co. etching torture AND the concept of the president above the all else in stone for years to come. There’s no way that vote is going to be won by the good guys …
January 16th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
It may be a different court, DTM, but the odds that any of the Bush supporters on it will be gone are small. The justices likely to be replaced are the ones who will vote against torture, as will their replacements. Obama isn’t going to be moving the court left but keeping it from moving further right.
January 17th, 2009 at 12:45 am
You’re probably right on that time scale, but I wasn’t assuming it would take six years to get to the Supreme Court or that Obama would necessarily be reelected. I’ve done some very basic calculations from actuarial tables suggesting about a 63% chance that the five most conservative justices will all survive to the end of Obama’s first term (of course that’s taking into account only sex and age, and ignoring the possibility of retirement). For the end of two terms, the chance is 32%.
I should probably blog it.
January 17th, 2009 at 2:18 am
As I mentioned, Cheney doesn’t have the authority to approve anything.
No one under American law has any authority to approve torture, so this point is irrelevant. This is as nonsensical as saying “Cheney doesn’t have the authority to approve of the murder of his political opponents, so you can’t punish him for doing so.”
Whether he “signed off” was irrelevant. I can “sign off” on waterboarding too, but you can’t prosecute me for it.
Sure you can. If you “sign off” on the commission of a felony, not only are you guilty of conspiracy, you’re also guilty of materially aiding and abetting and, if you continue to participate in the cover-up, of being an accessory after the fact. You can be prosecuted for signing off on torture the same as you can be prosecuted for signing off on rape, kidnapping, child molestation, or any other heinous crime.
January 17th, 2009 at 2:19 am
Stupid lack of preview function…..let’s try that again:
As I mentioned, Cheney doesn’t have the authority to approve anything.
No one under American law has any authority to approve torture, so this point is irrelevant. This is as nonsensical as saying “Cheney doesn’t have the authority to approve of the murder of his political opponents, so you can’t punish him for doing so.”
Whether he “signed off” was irrelevant. I can “sign off” on waterboarding too, but you can’t prosecute me for it.
Sure you can. If you “sign off” on the commission of a felony, not only are you guilty of conspiracy, you’re also guilty of materially aiding and abetting and, if you continue to participate in the cover-up, of being an accessory after the fact. You can be prosecuted for signing off on torture the same as you can be prosecuted for signing off on rape, kidnapping, child molestation, or any other heinous crime.
January 17th, 2009 at 8:40 am
By the way, what ever happened to fucktard Mixner who used to deny that waterboarding was torture?
January 18th, 2009 at 3:34 am
It’s just all one big RICO.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:44 pm
cialis
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:28 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:20 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:16 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra