Obama transition advisor: Obama's advisers feared "revolt" if he prosecuted Bush-era war crimes

Looks like the State knows how to stand up for itself, even against an incoming president (my emphasis everywhere):

President-Elect Obama’s advisers feared in 2008 that authorities [sic] would “revolt” and that Republicans would block his policy agenda if he prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to [UC Berkeley Law School Dean Christopher Edley, Jr.,] who served as one of Obama’s top transition advisers.

There's a old joke that goes like this:

The new president gives his inauguration speech to wild applause, then retires with his transition team to the Oval Office to begin work. Soon one of the top career CIA officials, a man who has been in office for decades, comes to his side and whispers: "Mr. President, may I have a minute? There's something I'd like to show you."

He leads the president to a small room off the main hallway, where a DVD player and television are set up.

"Have a seat, sir," he says. "This will just take a moment."

The president sits and the CIA official starts the DVD. The president watches as the Kennedy assassination is played — shot from an angle never seen in public. It's over in minutes, and the TV screen goes black.

"Any questions, sir?" asks the CIA man.

The president returns to his office to prepare for his first day of administration.

Of course that's a joke; it's been around since Clinton days. Now back to the real world, and Naked Capitalism.

This story has a lot of angles, since Edley is dean of the faculty which includes John Yoo, Bush II's notorious torture-justifying lawyer. Another angle is — hey, this story is old; the exchange reported occurred in September 2011. Where's the press coverage? So please, go read.

I'll give you just one more snippet, about the aspect covered in the headline. Keep in mind, this information came out only because an activist asked the right question during a Q&A at a 9/11 presentation at which Dean Edley spoke. The article's author says:

The story arose because Susan Harman, a California resident opposed to torture, asked Edley a question Sept. 2 at his forum and mailed his comments to me, among others. ...

Here’s Harman’s account of her actions at the Boalt Hall forum, which focused on such goals as human rights and the rule of law:

I said I was overwhelmed by the surreality of Yoo being on the law faculty . . . when he was single-handedly responsible for the three worst policies of the Bush Administration. They all burbled about academic freedom and the McCarthy era, and said it isn’t their job to prosecute him.

Duh.

Dean Chris Edley volunteered that he’d been party to very high level discussions during Obama’s transition about prosecuting the criminals. He said they decided against it. I asked why. Two reasons: 1) it was thought that the CIA, NSA, and military would revolt, and 2) it was thought the Repugnants [sic; Harman speaking] would retaliate by blocking every piece of legislation they tried to move (which, of course, they’ve done anyhow).

Harman says that she approached Edley privately after the forum closed and said she appreciated that Obama might have been in danger but felt that he “bent over backwards” to protect lawbreakers within the Bush administration. She recalled, “He shrugged and said they will never be prosecuted, and that sometimes politics trumps rule of law.”

Thus we are where we are today. Rule of Law — We of the 99% have more than our share, and the 0.01% seem to have lost theirs.

It's important to note that this "fear of revolt" is not attributed to Obama himself, but to his transition team:

Edley confirmed to me in an exclusive email interview Harman’s quotations, and provided additional information about the transition team’s concerns. Among his important points is that transition officials, not Obama, agreed that he faced the possibility of a revolt.

There you have it. Just the messenger, folks — though it does suggest that the State has its own momentum, doesn't it?

(For longer pieces on the same subject by the same author, go here or here.)

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
 

Maddow: Bush-era torture "probably a war crime," Obama "legally obligated to prosecute"

The good folks at The Political Carnival have brought this to our attention — Rachel Maddow discussing the fact that Bush-era torture was illegal, "probably a war crime," and our government has a responsibility to prosecute it.

Let that sink in. (1) It is a fact. (2) Maddow really said what I attributed to her. On the always O-friendly, forward-leaning MSNBC, no less.

If I'm going to give out an Eleven-Dimensional Chess award, it goes to Maddow. This one is up there with her non-outing outing of Rick Perry.

She cleverly works this information into a segment about the nature of today's Republican party.

▪ She starts with four-minute intro about how these Republicans aren't even in sync with their 2008 incarnation.

▪ Then she talks about the Zelikow memo (a high-level Bush-administration opinion that raised objections to white-washing torture as legal), and how the recent release of that memo places responsibility for prosecuting Bush-torture on the U.S. government (the current executive branch, whoever is running it).

▪ She closes with a question, again about Republicans — now that Obama is vulnerable to the same charge as Bush (not prosecuting torturers), are Republicans too far gone to pass up this golden attack opportunity?

See how clever? I've trimmed off the introduction in order to highlight what she clearly says about Obama and his administration. Watch; I'll add a few comments afterward.



So the Bush administration tried to destroy all copies of Zelikow's memo to "disappear" evidence they were told internally that torture was illegal (2:32 in my clip).

The Obama part of the discussion starts at 3:32. The "war crime" comment comes at 3:50, followed by Obama being "obligated to prosecute." Notice, though — she cleverly says "we" are obligated ... meaning the government ... meaning the sitting president ... meaning Obama (but not by name, exactly). See how that works?

This is not disappearing the facts; this is telling the truth while keeping your high profile job. Maddow is a very clever woman, an Alekhine come to judgement.

For more, go to the Political Carnival post where I saw this clip. They have further information and a great many torture links, including and especially the continuing abuse of Gitmo prisoner Fayiz al-Kandari, an educated charity worker sold by Afghan bounty hunters to the Americans — who paid them. Fayiz is a prisoner to this day, under very harsh conditions.

Why didn't Obama pursue Bush-era torture prosecutions? Perhaps this is the reason (h/t my Twitter friend Les Zuazo). Makes one pause, does it not?

This stuff really does have to stop. Someone really will end up in The Hague. Even Obama could find himself on a No-Fly-Abroad list.

If you wish to follow on Twitter and send links, I'm more than happy to have them. Just click here: @Gaius_Publius. Thanks.

GP

What's at stake if SCOTUS cuts back the Commerce Clause?

Via Sam Seder and the Majority Report, we're pointed to this excellent commentary by Chris Hayes on his new Up With Chris show.

It's short, tight, and puts this momentous decision in good historical context. Watch:



Ah yes, the social contract; something we've been on about as well.

Seder also points us to this comment by Jeffrey Toobin in the New Yorker. Very smart. According to Toobin, there's 70 years of settled law at stake (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

Consider, then, this question, posed to Verrilli by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy:

“Assume for the moment that this”—the mandate—“is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce. If that is so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?”

Every premise of that question was a misperception. The involvement of the federal government in the health-care market is not unprecedented; it dates back nearly fifty years, to the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. ...

Kennedy’s last point, about the “heavy burden” on the government to defend the law, was correct—in 1935. That was when the Supreme Court, in deciding Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States—a case involving the regulation of the sale of sick chickens—struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act [which established the NRA], a principal domestic priority of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, on the ground that it violated the Commerce Clause.

Two years later, however, the Court executed its famous “switch in time that saved the Nine” and began upholding the reforms of the New Deal. The Justices came to recognize that national economic problems require national solutions, and they deferred to Congress, usually unanimously, to provide those solutions, under the Commerce Clause.

This isn't just about the ACA or getting a second crack at the Public Option; it's about settled law and the Commerce Clause. Untimately it's about the New Deal government that we've all been living under and benefiting from — the one we assume is bullet-proof, here forever.

Not so, says Toobin (and Hayes in the clip above). Toobin again:

In the more than seven decades since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has avoided this sort of line-by-line parsing[.] ... Now, instead, the Supreme Court acts as a sort of supra-legislature, dismissing laws that conflict with its own political agenda.

It's own "political agenda"? Would that be one more voice saying this? He continues:

[This] decision is a great deal more important than its immediate political aftermath. It’s about what the government can do, not just who runs it. If the Court acts in line with the sentiments expressed by the conservatives last week, it could curtail the policymaking options of Congress for a generation. ... It is simply not the Supreme Court’s business to be making these kinds of judgments.

Maybe. On the other hand though, if you totally love power, and totally can't be removed by any agency on earth — why not just use it?

After all, it's not like you haven't had practice swinging some pipe; you totally gave us this guy:

Nearly a century of settled law won't repeal itself, you know, and time's totally wasting.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
 

SCOTUS loss of legitimacy—"Conservative justices are happy to take radical action for political aims"

The "loss of legitimacy" part of the title is mine. The rest is Rachel Maddow:

"[In Bush v Gore, Conservative justices] were pretty happy to take radical legal action, as long as it achieved a political aim that they wanted." [7:54]

"If you go by what people tell pollsters — we think the majority of the Court is a partisan body that will do anything in their power to help politicians who are on their side, and to hurt politicians who are on the other side." [10:57]

Needless to say, this is another excellent segment from Team Maddow. It's about the mess that the Supreme Court has become (clearly by design).

The segment is in two parts:

� She begins with the decision in Bush v Gore, which Bruce Ackerman calls "a constitutional coup". (Does that phrase sound familiar?)

Then she pivots to voter suppression, which is why the Florida election was stealable in the first place.

If you listen to just the first half of the segment (seven minutes or so), you might think the take-away is — Voters in Florida don't care that voter registration is a crime, so they deserve what they get.

A perfect half-segment, and she could have stopped there, with the mess in Florida. But there's more.

� She then pivots back to the Supreme Court (7:30). First, back to Bush v Gore, then to Citizens United, and finally to this week's oral arguments on the ACA (at 9:20).

Watch:



Don't miss the chart at 10:32. And don't miss the comments (at 11:10) connecting the Koch Bros–funded AFP demonstration outside the Court with the MoveCon–"funded" Clarence Thomas & family.

It's a brave new world; glad it's being called out.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
 

Komen update: Morale "in the toilet" and CEO Brinker in "meltdown" — but won't resign

I've said publicly that Komen may have skated, and allowing that was a mistake. The problem wasn't the Georgia GOP hack that the CEO hired; it's (1) the CEO that hired her, and (2) that Komen itself is only half a charity — and half an agent of Movement Conservativism.

Yet, after that week or so of terrible publicity, only the hack had resigned. Nancy Brinker, the CEO and loyal Bushie, remained, as did the organization in its current form. (Note: I don't advocate killing Komen; just cleaning its house, thoroughly, of MoveCon dirt and dustballs. That includes, especially, its CEO.)

Now it seems the organization is still teetering. Some data-bits from the Huffington Post (h/t Kalli Joy Gray; my emphasis and reparagraphing):

Komen has been struggling to repair its reputation since the public backlash over its decision, at the beginning of February, to pull cancer screening grants from Planned Parenthood because some of its clinics perform abortions.

Komen ultimately decided to restore Planned Parenthood's eligibility for grants, but the public had already soured on the charity for focusing on abortion politics rather than detecting and treating breast cancer.

Susan G. Komen Greater New York City recently decided to postpone its annual fundraising gala because executives "were not certain about our ability to fundraise in the near term," spokesperson Vern Calhoun said in a statement.

And:

A Komen insider told HuffPost that "employee morale is in the toilet" since Komen leadership made the controversial decision to defund Planned Parenthood[.]

And about that CEO:

"[CEO Nancy] Brinker [is] in complete meltdown," the source wrote to HuffPost. "People want her to resign but she won't." Brinker did not respond to a request for comment.

Let me be clear. Inside this organization there are a lot of people pushing Brinker to get out.

Can't we help them?

Seriously. An organized push now — ideally cored by a small cadre of activist women and supported by the rest of us — could restart the campaign and topple the teetering Brinker. She's ripe for a fall, according to this report.

By the way, there's a danger that Limbaugh will skate as well, and for the same reason. As soon as the news cycle chases the next missing blonde (as it were), he thinks we will let up. Just like with Komen.

Wouldn't it be nice to prove these people wrong for a change? It would, at least in my humble opinion.

Humbly yours,

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)