Sunday, July 12, 2009

Should Holder Push Forth With Torture Probe?



The White House has said that it does not wish to pursue a criminal investigation into enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the Bush administration. But the Associated Press is reporting that it has learned from sources that Attorney General Eric Holder is contemplating moving forward with a probe nevertheless.

The overriding question is, of course, should he?

There are those who would argue that violations of the law, no matter the perceived good intent, should not be tolerated in an administration. Others might argue, however, that in order to protect American lives, administrations should be doing what they must - extrajudicial or not.

Another, related, story that broke yesterday underscores this dichotomy. The New York Times reported that then-Vice President Cheney ordered the CIA to keep from the congressional intelligence community information about some super secret counterterrorism operation - one that current CIA Director Leon Panetta ordered dismantled after he learned about its existence last month. The comments to my posting of that story ranged from: the New York Times has a history of leaking sensitive information as does Congress so what Cheney allegedly did was right, to: there's no excuse for an administration to break the law (the CIA is required to inform the congressional intel agencies of its actions).

I'm suspecting that the response to this Holder story will follow similar lines.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Would this amount to a Government in power being so cautious about its actions that it does not necessarily act at all, when really it should?
It's a balancing act. I suppose accountability should dictate that people are held accountable for their actions....... but woiuldn't you have to indicte all of Congress and all of the Senate too?

Anonymous said...

There is absolutely no question--at least in my mind--that Holder should move forward with a probe. To hell with The White House. We pay them to do other things. We pay Holder as our Attorney General, our lawyer. If he isn't going to represent us as such than what the fuck are we paying him for? This comment may read naive. Maybe it is. But only because for too long the public expectation for employee performance in the Beltway has diminished, melted away to the point that shitwit Connecticut cowboys & the massive apparatus of supposed 'public servants' who we clothe, feed, and house from our collective coffers to act in our best interests instead abuse our future like a beanpole cokewhore in our nation's frat house on the Potomac.

Will Holder do his job? Maybe. Will he still get a paycheck if he doesn't? Yep. Signed, We the People...

Pablo Manriquez

Anonymous said...

Of course he "should" but whether he "will" is another story.

Kevin Lee