I was driving home tonight and listening to NPR, where I heard the commentator quote our former Attorney General as having stated "I see no criminal prosecution for me, nor for anyone that I am aware of, because [......] people acted in good faith." According to the commentator, the "good faith" argument was in response to potential criminal prosecution for his role in authorizing enhanced interrogation techniques, such as water boarding.
The interview is listed here and the salient passage is at 19:15 and on. Whether or not you agree with the legality of water boarding or have an opinion on its necessity as an interrogation technique is not my point here. I find the legal argument that the former AG presents very interesting and possibly revolutionary. In essence, AG Gonzales claims that as long as you are truthful and do not act in your own self interest or for political interests, you are not criminally liable. And that is particularly true if you are acting “in the best interest of the United States, as [you] saw it.” So to take that argument to one conclusion, Robin Hood was never criminally liable. He acted in the interests of others, he did it in the best interest of the country as he saw those interests and he was not concealing the fact he was stealing money. Ergo, he was above the law as it was written at the time.
It probably was that type of reasoning that enabled the Bush administration to expand the power of the Executive Branch to levels not perceived possible, even by the Nixon administration. I don’t know if the quote from the movie “Nixon” is accurate, but it is telling: “if the President orders it, it is NOT illegal.” I thought, and I’m just spit-ballin here, that the laws as enacted by the legislature applied to everyone, subject to interpretation and adjudication by the judiciary…..I’m sure I read that somewhere…..History may judge the AG as a hero, but for now, it seems he acted like an outlaw. And Mr. AG, I just like to say: "we can handle the truth."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I am calling in reinforcements, but in the interim, I am not sympathetic with former AG Alberto Gonzales. And, I had had such great hope for him. Then I just read where he left the Air Force Academy before becoming a Second Classman so he could go to a civilian college (and miss the commitment to the Air Force). That doesn't look good. In fact, it looks questionable to me. An integrity sort of thing. But, then, maybe Wikipedia is wrong.
As for the other point, about laws applying to all, I think that in the past the US Congress exempted itself from the laws it passed for the rest of us. It was Newt Gingrich who changed that. I wonder if Speaker Pelosi has reversed that approach.
And, President Richard Nixon was wrong.
But, back to Alberto Gonzales, if he violated the laws he should be tried. And, I am thinking "right intentions" might work with the Jesuits, but it shouldn't work with our judicial system.
But, there may be a tricky two-step here. Is water-boarding torture? Is it torture if we do it to our own troops as part of resistance training? If it isn’t torture if we do it to our own folks, why is it torture if we do it to our enemies?
That said, there are things that are clearly torture and are clearly wrong and should never be done. (This is not even considering the fact that torture is not an effective interrogation technique—if the real experts are to be believed.) People who torture should face the law—and even more so should those who approved torture as an interrogation technique. My example would be François Mitterrand—shouldn’t he have been tried for his actions as Interior Minister for approving torture in Algerian Provinces?
Regards -- Cliff
Here is an update on international prosecution, sent to me by someone. It is from the Volokh Conspiracy and it is by Eric Posner. It suggests that Bush Administration officials are probably safe traveling overseas, but offers no guarantees.
Regards -- Cliff
Post a Comment