Tweet
No torture prosecutions. Eli Lake at the Washington Times has the exclusive:
President Obama’s choice to run the Justice Department has assured senior Republican senators that he won’t prosecute CIA officers or political appointees who were involved in the Bush administration’s policy of "enhanced interrogations."
Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, a Republican from Missouri and the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in an interview with The Washington Times that he will support Eric H. Holder Jr.‘s nomination for Attorney General because Mr. Holder assured him privately that Mr. Obama’s Justice Department will not prosecute former Bush officials involved in the interrogations program.
So much for all that. But to cheer you up: pretty fresh Wayne track. ("You won’t see the Mourning like Alonzo…") Though as someone who grew up in the 70th NYPD district, I don’t approve of the line "ass out like Diallo," and I’m guessing the Young Money rapper who spat it meant Abner Louima.
Update: Marcy thinks Bond is talking out his ass.
Update Update: At this point, either Bond is lying or Holder is.
5 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
There still ought to be a full accounting.
But a whole bunch of junior- and mid-level national security drones will sigh in relief at this, because they are the ones who would have born the brunt of prosecutorial attention, Lynndie England/Charles Graner-style.
It’s a lie (whether Bond’s or Holder’s, I’m not sure), and Holder will be forced to walk it back. You heard it here first.
Well, as much as I would like to see a righteous top-down reckoning, if the Obama administration is going to compromise it’s principles at all, I’d much prefer to see the leadership (cheney, rumsfeld, gonzales, yoo etc.) get hammered and the foot soldiers walk then vice versa. At least that would tell future political leaders that there’s a cost associated with lawbreaking…
mikey
Spencer,
After thinking this over, I come down on the side of Bond lying. It would have been insane for Holder to have done it. First, Holder didn’t need Bond’s vote; he was going to get every Dem vote on the committee plus Spector. Second, if Holder made that promise to Bond, he would have to deny it publicly after the fact. It would have violated a principle that is important to rational, informed people (a group that includes some Republicans, but apparently none on the SJC). Holder needs the support of rational people.
So, if right-wing nut job Bond tells a newspaper that Holder made that promise, the most likely (as in 99.999% likely) explanation is that Bond is performing a service for pro-torture faction to sow confusion and dissension among the anti-torture faction.
And since ‘rational people’ presumably includes a majority of ABA members in good standing, I’d go with Holder’s carefully parsed version.
As predicted at EW’s the past couple months, it’s the DoJ nominee that the BushCheney crowd most fear, and therefore will do the utmost to screw.
Game. On.