Congressman Jerrold Nadler was just interviewed on the Ed Show, and gave an outstanding and concise explanation of the broad parameters the the Special Prosecutor should have in investigating torture.
He used important legal terminology and evicerates the Holder limitations as ridiculously narrow.
I've tried to get as much down as possible, as Nadler's outstanding critique made clear the two real problems with the Holder authorization.
Q & A with Congressman Gerald Nadler, interviewed on the Ed Show 6:05 pm August 25, 2009 is below the fold
The "first" problem identified by Nadler, in the authorization document signed by the Attorney General is that it
is silent with regard to whether they will investigate the people who, as far as I am concerned, deliberately mis-stated the law – Mr. Yoo, Mr. Bibey, Mr Addington – in order to conspire to get the torture done
Nadler continues with the logical conclusion that "there should be an investigation of them"
[I could not agree more wholeheartedly - it is clear in my view as well, from the missing case law conveniently left out of these memos, case law that contradicted the conclusions reached by the three lawyers nadler mentioned, that these lawyers - as far as I too am concerned - did deliberately misstate the law]
Nadler goes on
and of all other people up the chain of command, including perhaps the Vice President
Then the Congressman moves on to his next point, also well put:
and secondly, it specifically excludes from any inquiry CIA agents who ‘relied on those memos in good faith’ and the point is the law would say that following orders is no excuse, and they [CIA agents] ought to at least be looked at to see whether they reasonably relied on those memos
Nadler's point is concise - the FBI refused, and for good reason, and it comes up in Ed's next Question:
Ed: "Is there a political down side, in your opinion, for the Obama administration with the appearance that they may be going too far, that this is a witch hunt ... and if it turns out they did stop attacks..."
Nadler: We don’t think they have, but, first of all - the FBI refused to participate in these tortures, because they said it was against American law, and they said it was ineffective, and all the evidence we’ve seen in my committee is that it was ineffective – but the real question is was the law violated and that seems clear - and the Question is, Who did it?
Next came the point Nadler makes - that this has nothing to do with Obama
Ed: But are you concerned that , maybe the Obama White House is not aggressive enough
Nadler:
I am concerned that we are not being aggressive enough – I don’t think it’s up to the WH. We criticized the Bush White House for making prosecutorial decisions on a political basis. It’s up to the Atty General not the WH.
And yes they ought not to be limiting the investigation as they are limiting it. As I said before, it ought to be looking at the higher ups too, and it ought to look at everybody.
Ed: What about the push back from the right, almost instantly – Dick Cheney saying this stopped massive attacks, I’d like to see some detail on that, and I think Americans would
But also Peter King – he even throws out "you wonder whose side they’re on" and "this is a war against the CIA’
Nadler:
Well I think t hat’s ridiculous, and it shouldn’t be a war against the CIS nor is it. This is a quest to vindicate American law, and all the AG is doing is following the law, the law says he must do this. If he didn’t do it he’d be breaking the law.
Then the part that made me laugh out loud:
Ed: Are you concerned that CIA director Leon Panetta [..not there at the time...] He’s said, if there are prosecutions he’d resign...
Nadler: First, We don’t know if there will be prosecutions... [or if there should be] this is a preliminary inquiry. Second - If the facts say that there should be prosecutions, then there should, and if he chooses to resign then too bad. The fact is the law must be obeyed because this is a nation of laws – and no one may be above them
Finally, Congressman Nadler gets to the heart of why these must be more muscular prosecutions:
We are well into territory already - where because of the pardon of Nixon after Watergate - and the people around him , and because of the pardons after Iran Contra – where we are getting into territory where it becomes taken for granted that high officials can violate the law and get away with it.
If high officials violate the law here - if Cheney did, if Rice did, etc they’ve got to be prosecuted, to show that no one is above the law
The rest of the interview is interesting - I recommend you take a listen if the Ed show is repeated in your time zone...
Go Jerrold Nadler!!!