A "truth commission" run by Sen. Leahy?

[eisely]

Sen. Leahy (D-Vermont) has proposed in a recent speech a "truth commission" to hound former members of the Bush administration. I find it hard to imagine a more divisive thing for the Democrat controlled congress to do. So much for bi partisanship.

 

To me Leahy comes across as one of those politicians who will put his personal gain above the good of the nation.

 

The "truth commissions" set up in the post apartheid era in South Africa came out of a totally different political situation and served a valuable purpose. All we have done in the US is a routine change in which party has the executive branch. This is a very dangerous idea. To his credit, Pres. Obama has not endorsed this idea, but he has not repudiated it either.

 

_______________________________________

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is proposing a "truth commission" to investigate abuses of detainees, politically inspired moves at the Justice Department, and whole range of decisions made during the Bush administration.

 

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the primary goal of the commission would be to learn the truth rather than prosecute former officials, but said the inquiry should reach far beyond misdeeds at the Justice Department under Bush to include matters of Iraq prewar intelligence and the Defense Department.

 

Leahy outlined his suggestion for a "truth and reconciliation" commission during a speech at Georgetown University Monday.

 

"I'm doing this not to humiliate people or punish people but to get the truth out," he said.

 

The panel he envisions would be modeled after one that investigated the apartheid regime in South Africa. It would have subpoena power but would not bring criminal charges, he said.

 

Among the matters Leahy wants investigated by such a commission are: the firings of U.S. attorneys, treatment and torture of terror suspect detainees, and the authorization of warrantless wiretapping.

 

"Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened" during the Bush administration, Leahy said.

 

Some Democrats have called for criminal investigations of those who authorized certain controversial tactics in the war on terror. Republicans have countered that such decisions made in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks should not be second-guessed.

 

"We need to be able to read the page before we turn the page," Leahy said. "We need to come to a shared understanding of the failures of the recent past."

 

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the government created a 9/11 commission to examine failures within government anti-terror efforts.

 

Leahy said that commission was hampered by a lack of cooperation from the administration, and would like a new commission to have access to everything they needed.

 

He said he was offering the idea to see how much support it had.

 

"We need to see whether the American people are ready to take this path," he said, adding that he did not have anyone in particular in mind to lead the commission, but wanted "people with real credibility."

 

 

[GernBlansten]

If crimes were committed, the perps should be prosecuted. If no crimes were committed, then what do they have to worry about? If we don't prosecute the perps, what's to keep this administration from doing the same thing?

[vol_scouter]

Gern,

 

In principle, I whole heartedly agree with you. In reality, it always boils down to politics. The party in power will make a show for political gain. That does not help the system either. As time goes on, I see the two current parties as injurious to our country rather than a solution.

[eisely]

GernBlansten,

 

One of the problems is that Leahy assumes that crimes have been committed. The legislature has no business investigating alleged crimes. That is what we have a Justice Dept for. This is merely political grandstanding to the detriment of the country as a whole. I am sure that Eric Holder is quite capable of pursuing politically motivated prosecutions without the good Senator's assistance.

[GernBlansten]

That is the brilliance of Leahy. He knows he cannot investigate the crimes, but he can expose them. Public outcry should force Holders hand to prosecute.

Who cares if its politically motivated? Its correct and overdue. Let the hearings begin. I'll make popcorn.

[eisely]

Well at least you are honest in your motivation.

 

Legislators have no business stirring up passions, which is the sole purpose of the proposed exercise. Holder should exercise proper prosecutorial discretion in pursuing investigations and possible charges without political pressure from a rabid partisan legislative witch hunt.

 

It would help if you could provide a list of those things done that you consider to be crimes, so we can better inform Sen. Leahy what he should be looking at.

[GernBlansten]

Torture, federal prosecutor firings, rendition, warrantless wiretaps, who ordered the outing of a CIA agent for a start.

After that, lets find out if Dick Cheney was really drunk when he shot that lawyer.

 

Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!

[vol_scouter]

We will investigate Clinton for firing ALL of the federal prosecutors then won't we?

[BrentAllen]

I think good ol' Leaky Leahy is still due a prosecution or two. The fact that he continues to be elected is an absolute embarassment to his state, and to our country.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

vol_scouter writes:

We will investigate Clinton for firing ALL of the federal prosecutors then won't we?

 

All the ones Clinton fired after he appointed them and appeared to fire because they wouldn't play politics with their office, sure. How many would that be?

 

Please note this does not refer to changing all, or nearly all, US attorneys at the start of a new administration, which is normal. They serve at the pleasure of the president, but that doesn't mean the president can e.g. fire them to stop investigations into members of his own party.

[packsaddle]

I'm OK with opening all the books on ALL of them, back to and including Vietnam. Just hand it all over to the news media, make it all available online, and then stand back...unless you want to get in on the action. Short of that, I'll take whatever shreds we can get from politically-motivated muckrakers. Some time in prison would be just fine if they've comitted crimes, may provide a sobering example for others in the future. Pass the popcorn, Gern.

[scoutldr]

Let's reopen the Warren Commission and Project Blue Book, too while we're at it.

[SR540Beaver]

eisley,

 

I think Leahy's notion is silly. Just as silly as the premeditated and concerted 8 year effort by the opposition to unseat Bill Clinton at any and all cost. We reap what we sow and the cycle continues. It is politics as usual and there are dirty hands on both sides.

[eisely]

Let's walk through Gern's list.

 

Torture is an open issue. However, given the recent testimony of the last head of CIA, the two or three water boardings that occurred resulted in disrupting several plots and rolling up other Al Quead cells. I doubt that the American people would agree that the executive branch has gone too far in this area given what has happened and is likely to happen if vigilance is relaxed.

 

As someone else noted, US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the attorney general. I have not heard any serious claims that ongoing investigations of republicans were aborted as a result of the firings that occurred. If a particular US attorney is not pursuing the priorities wanted by the president or attorney general, then the president and/or the AG have a perfect right to send such a person packing. There is no doubt that Gonzales made a hash of all of this, but I doubt very much that any provable criminality took place.

 

Rendition of foreigners to other jurisdictions was a practice initiated under the Clinton administration. If we apprehend someone who is wanted in another jurisdiction, I doubt that it is illegal to transfer that person to that jurisdiction, whether or not we have an extradition treaty with that jurisdiction. I am not an expert on immigration law, but I suspect that the government has a right to terminate a foreign national's visa status and deport them at will if that person is either charged with a crime in the US or suspected of some illegal activity hostile to US interests. If the foreign national is in the US illegally, then deportation would be appropriate anyway. It would be useful to know more about the pertinent law on this, but I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to the government.

 

As far as I know the "warrantless wiretaps" have mostly involved US to foreign communications or foreign to foreign communications that happen to pass through US carriers. The purpose of these wiretaps is to gather intelligence to prevent further terrorist attacks. The 9/11 commission identified several clear intelligence failures, and the Bush administration took several steps to remedy those failures. There is a difference between intelligence gathering and seeking information for criminal prosecutions. As far as I know, whenever these issues have been litigated the courts have consistently sided with the executive branch.

 

The outing of Valerie Plame was done by Richard Armitage on his own volition. He was a deputy secretary of state under Colin Powell at that time. The requirements of the law to prosecute for this action are very particular and most likely were not met. Is there any doubt that a prosecutorial zealot like Fitzgerald would not have prosecuted on this charge if he felt the charges could be made to stick? Fitzgerald knew of Armitage's role shortly after he took over the investigation and such charges were never laid against anybody.

 

Prosecutorial discretion is one of the major factors protecting us from a police state. Let the responsible officials in the justice department decide what investigations they think are meritorious. No useful purpose would be served by Leahy's "truth commission" and a great deal of damage to the larger society and political comity would be done. The fact that Leahy would even seriously suggest such an idea speaks volume about him as a man.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0809a/final.pdf

 

Here are quotes from the wikipedia entry on the firings that cite the above:

A subsequent report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary," "fundamentally flawed," and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions."[24]

In September 2008, the Department of Justice Inspector General's investigation concluded that the dismissals were politically motivated and improper.[24]

In September 2008, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice concluded that some of the dismissals were motivated by the refusal of some of the U.S. Attorneys to prosecute voter fraud cases during the 2006 election cycle.[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy