Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Stephen Colbert on Chuck Todd and Torture Investigations
Amazingly, reports that Eric Holder is considering commencing an investigation into Bush-era torure crimes has created extreme consternation in multiple Beltway circles despite how narrow and limited those investigations would be. As I wrote last week, numerous reports indicate that Holder wants to replicate the Abu Ghraib travesty by investigating only low-level interrogators who exceeded the torture limits approved by John Yoo and George Bush, and not investigate the high-level policy makers who instituted the criminal torture regime or the DOJ lawyers who authorized it.
Since then, the Newsweek reporter who first printed what DOJ officials told him about Holder's intentions, Daniel Klaidman, confirmed in an interview on The Young Turks that Holder intends to confine any investigations only to "rogue" interrogators who exceeded John Yoo's torture permission slips while shielding high-level Bush officials who acted in accordance with Yoo's decrees. Proving yet again that there is nothing more difficult than satirizing our rotted political culture, here is what I wrote about Holder's intentions last week:
Holder's plan, at least at the moment, is -- from the start -- to confine the prosecutors' authority to investigate to CIA agents who went beyond what John Yoo and George Bush decreed could be done ("he used more water than Yoo said he could"; "he tied him up for longer than Yoo authorized"; "the room was colder and the freezing water icier than Yoo allowed"). At least if these reports are accurate (and, for several reasons, that's unclear), anyone who "merely" did what John Yoo said was legal -- meaning everyone who matters -- will be shielded and immunized.
Here is what The New York Times' David Johnston writes today about Holder's intentions:
Mr. Holder has told associates he is weighing a narrow investigation, focusing only on C.I.A. interrogators and contract employees who clearly crossed the line and violated the Bush administration's guidelines and engaged in flagrantly abusive acts.
But in taking that route, Mr. Holder would run two risks. One is the political fallout if only a handful of low-level agents are prosecuted for what many critics see as a pattern of excess condoned at the top of the government. . . . .
The limited inquiry, at least initially, would review more than 20 abuse cases, including some involving prisoner deaths, which were referred to federal prosecutors in Virginia but did not result in prosecutions.
In addition, an inquiry would probably examine whether the C.I.A. operatives who questioned high-level Qaeda detainees at secret prisons exceeded the Justice Department's legal guidance. A footnote in a recently released 2005 Justice Department legal memorandum said that the C.I.A. inspector general had found in the 2004 report that interrogators used waterboarding with greater frequency and a larger volume of water than seemed to be approved by the Justice Department.
If low-level CIA interrogators -- and only them -- end up as the targets of investigations because they used m0re water than John Yoo allowed, or turned the thermostat lower than the hypothermic levels which the DOJ permitted, or waterboarded with more frequency than Jay Bybee approved, I wouldn't blame the CIA for being furious. It was the regime itself, implemented at the highest levels of our government, that was criminal. Prosecuting only low-level interrogators who followed the torturing spirit of those policies but transgressed some bureaucratic guidelines would be a travesty on par with what happened with the Abu Ghraib "investigations." Though there is the potential benefit that a prosecutor could follow the trail to high-level officials notwithstanding Holder's attempts to limit the investigation (a result I think is quite unlikely), there is a strong argument to make -- as I made here -- that prosecuting only low-level "rogue" interrogators would be worse than no prosecutions at all, as that would only serve to further bolster our two-tiered system of justice.
Despite how limited the investigation is to be -- despite the full-scale immunity from the law which our highest political officials will continue to enjoy -- the media consensus is still that any criminal investigations of Bush's torture regime would be a horrible and distracting act of unfairness, even if the intention is to prosecute acts of homicide by interrogation. Last night, Stephen Colbert built a segment around my interview on this topic with NBC's Chuck Todd -- entitling his commentary "A Perfect World," after Todd's repeated answers to me about when high-level political officials should be held accountable under the law (only "in a Perfect World") -- in order to mock the prevailing media sentiment in opposition to the rule of law:
| The Word - A Perfect World | ||
| www.colbertnation.com | ||
|
|
||
There are few instances where the establishment media reveals more transparently what they are and what they do than when they demand that high-level Bush officials be endowed with immunity from the consequences of their crimes.
- Posted in
23 Comments so far
Show AllThank you Glenn for keeping the heat on the criminals, and on the morons like Chuck Todd.
And for inspiring Colbert....
They always work backwards.
The decision was made, long ago, that there'd be no investigations of the torture-writing lawyers or administration officials.
So all that was left to do was devise a clever PR strategy to misinform and muddy the issue.
Holder would appoint a special prosecutor. Brilliant! That'll fool 75% of the public as most people only read the headline!
Then include the words "broke the law" in the subheading. Brilliant again! 95% of the people never get past the subhead.
Then disseminate the carefully crafted story to their assets at all the major propaganda organs. Rinse and repeat for at least 4-6 weeks.
By then most Americans will have forgotten the issue or vaguely remember being told that Holder is hot on the case.
For the remaning 5% who actually remember and care about the law the disinformers know that as the months go on they too will lose track becoming more concerned with their job, paying bills and family stresses.
And if any of the above contingencies fail they have at least a half-dozen celebrity scandal stories lined up and ready to go at a moment's notice.
And the hoped for common understanding, among the general population, in the years to come with regard to the issue would be that "There was some sort of investigation, maybe politically motivated, and they didn't find that Bush or Cheney or any other high officials or their lawyers did anything wrong. It was just a problem with lower-level people."
You must have worked at some major media outlet at some time, because you nailed exactly how they go about the business of empire maintenance. They know how many people care about any of the issues, beyond misleading headlines and manipulative photo-ops, and they're masters of manufacturing consent for authority. That's why this whole charade is a cooperative effort between Dems, Repugs and corporate media. Blow the lid off the Bush-Cheney crime syndicate and we risk losing our foothold in the Middle East, no matter how badly we've botched it or blindly we stumble toward ultimate self-destruction. Now it's Obama's turn to obfuscate, cover up, and lie his way from one crime to the next. A crumbling empire demands nothing less.
It's a tribute to how right-biased our power structure is. If a Democratic administration had done these things, the prosecutions would have begun immediately.
But don't worry. Republicans do not share the Demoicrats' reluctance to prosecute. I'm sure the Jeb Bush Administration will hold members of the Obama Administration responsible for their crimes to the fullest extent of the law, and then some.
To Holder - sure, let's investigate only low-level "extremists." Like the John Yoo torture was okay, but some of these guys went too far. And let's let the architects off scottfree. What a joke.
To the MSM - The President, Vice-President and other high officials in the executive really are above the law.
I am so sick of the argument that hearings/investigations would be so political, that they would be too hard on the American people. The only one that makes it political is the MSM (as Chuck Todd admitted). If our values and ideals as a nation are strong, we can withstand the political BS, let justice be served, and move on stronger than ever.
Chuck Todd is the newest model, and the perfect embodiment of corporate earnestness, designed to appear reasonable, while never forgetting his employer's agenda.
This is currently sold as serious journalism.
. . . there is nothing more difficult than satirizing our rotted political culture . . .
You said it!
The kicker is in Holden's intent to appoint a "criminal investigator" from the Department instead of an "independent investigator" from the outside.
In the case of an in-house criminal investigator Holden can narrowly define the crimes that he wants investigated. He cannot do that with an independent investigator.
"They do it with mirrors" (Agatha Christie).
Got it?
This is nothing new. The good news is at least Colbert and Stewart (and others) have a wide audience and they haven't yet been forced to choose between drinking hemlock or accepting exile, so I guess that shows progress.
As much as it disturbs me that members of the media are calling for self censorship and extolling the virtues of looking the other way the direction of public education is even more bothersome. The increased regulation and codification in the the name of standardization is disturbing. As we standardize curriculum so it can be "objectively" tested all we are doing is creating a system that discourages critical and creative thinking. People will not only (further) lose the ability to question but also the desire to do so.
As long as Greenwald can guarantee that the debate won't go on TV??! Yeah, that would be so far worse than Chuck Todd being on TV?
But I thought that we were discussing an investigation, not a debate.
I have lost all respect for Stephen Colbert following his widely publicized USO tour of Iraq (though he's still a talented comedian). I'm surprised there were no articles written about it. I used to really like Colbert.
I would like to add my support to your opinion of Colbert. Used to be funny but I see no humor in war, slaughter, destruction and misery in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan or Israel. He is obviously a Democratic Party operative. He got lots of laughs from that miserable, vicious fool Bush but doesn't have much to say about the current miserable, vicious fool. I've stopped watching him completely. Stewart has also become unbearably obnoxious with his baby talk and bleeped naughty words.
Thanks for the link.
hopedup
Ditto - Colbert was a total disgrace in his fawning over the Military brass and our "HERO's" representing their country.
FuckHead Colbert got a taste of what the "Rich & Famous" livestyle is all about, andhe appears to LOVE IT!
I figured it would only be a matter of time before he sold out those who helped make him rich&famous... and he certainly did NOT disappoint.
I believe the police term for the "extreme consternation" found "in multiple Beltway circles" is "consciousness of guilt."
I'm glad to see Holder's plan move forward, at least to more prominent publicity, chicken-livered as it is.
There's no way this torture business can be kept stable. This is always the way these government investigations look. The Watergate investigation took years and never really completed. It was partial and chicken-livered: they didn't deal with COINTELPRO, a far more violent set of actions. The Iran-Contra investigations were largely unsuccessful, yet produced information that we have used in the decades since and that likely contributed to domestic resistance to the American invasion in '03.
These are not only particularly nasty crimes but particularly lurid, particularly dramatic, particularly susceptible to publicity. They are also quite central to American policy at least since the 1940's.
Complicity within the beltway is huge, largely undiscovered, where discovered largely unpublished, where published largely unpublicized by broadcast and commercial forms.
Look at the difference here when someone as popular as Colbert, whatever his mincing around, can foreground this in a major broadcast venue.
Here's to Greenwald and the rest who keep swinging and keep finding new twists until we see prosecution.
Yeah, darn, if only the attorneys could work in private, instead of being exposed to all of that unbiased journalism.
"a larger volume of water than seemed to be approved by the Justice Department."
This overspill would not happen if only bottled water was used.
And think of the possible health benefits to the detainee.
If you go to Glenn's website at Salon he has this nugget as an update to the above entry:
On an unrelated note: last month, the Obama White House adopted the Bush/Cheney view of White House secrecy to insist on its right to conceal the identity of coal executives visiting the White House to discuss clean air policies. The Washington Post's Greg Sargent today notes that the Obama White House is now doing something similar but worse: namely, refusing to disclose the list of health care industry executives with whom White House officials have been meeting to discuss health care policy -- even as Obama's vows of "White House transparency" remain on the White House website.
I believe, literally, that I never heard a single Democrat or progressive defend Dick Cheney's refusal to disclose the names of the energy executives with whom he met in the White House to formulate energy policy. Given that both the rationale and actions of the Obama White House here are identical, is there any possible justification for what Obama is doing?
"is there any possible justification for what Obama is doing?"
National Security.
I suggest that all this is tolerated because of national insecurity.