Civil Liberties Activists Embrace 'Law & Order' Season Premiere (Gag & Ack)

ABCNews.com/Political Punch ^ | 09/26/09 | Jake Tapper

[OldDeckHand]

As we all know, in the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders.

Last night's episode of television's longest running drama -- NBC's "Law & Order" -- featured District Attorney Jack McCoy prosecuting a John Yoo-esque Bush administration Justice Department attorney for writing a legal memo authorizing the torture of detainees.

"Jack, you want to prosecute a member of the Bush administration for assaulting suspected terrorists?" McCoy is asked in the season premiere episode, titled "Memo from the Dark Side."

"The word is 'torturing,'" says McCoy, played by Sam Waterston. "And yes -- it's about time somebody did."

The episode has been embraced by some of the most vocal advocates for prosecuting actual Bush administration officials for torture.

Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote on the Huffington Post that "[w]hat McCoy understands is that in America, the rule of law applies to everyone. No one is above the law, not even (and some might say especially) the most powerful. ... In real life, there has yet to be an investigation into the high-level authorization of torture, a crime that has stained the reputation of our nation at home and abroad."

[Terpfen]

My concern is that the conservative position in general appears to be that none of these three groups can be held responsible for violation of law.

The conservative position is not that it is impossible for the scenario described to constitute a violation of the law, but that no such violation occurred, because none of the known conditions and methods of our interrogation processes constitute torture.

Putting underwear on someone's head is not a violation of criminal or military law, civil rights, or anything else besides the detainee's dignity--and he's already of the mindset that he's got no dignity because he was captured without killing infidels.

[Sherman Logan]

I disagree. What you are saying is that a President can direct his minions to break the law in any way imaginable, but this criminality can only be addressed by means of impeachment, something obviously impossible if his party controls Congress.

Then even if the people revolt and hand control of Congress and the Presidency back to the other party, nobody in the previous administration can be held responsible for criminal acts.

I agree with your characterization of this investigation as politically motivated, I just am worried by the idea that all members of an administration acquire a get out of jail free card on leaving office.

My personal opinion is that the Constitution says nothing about government officials being above the law and not liable to indictment, conviction and punishment for criminal acts.

[OldDeckHand]

"What you are saying is that a President can direct his minions to break the law in any way imaginable, but this criminality can only be addressed by means of impeachment, something obviously impossible if his party controls Congress."

What you continue to fail to realize or acknowledge is that this WAS investigated. Prosecutorial discretion was exercised, and it was decided that indictments would not be sought. Who has oversight authority of the Department of Justice? The Legislative branch. The Democrats had control of congress in 2006, almost 9 months after a decision was made not to prosecute. Did they press the issue then, did they hold hearings? Nope.

In a nutshell, the executive branch upheld their obligations to enforce US law, and the legislative branch, in their oversight capacity, decided that there wasn't any "there there" with respect to criminality by either the people who authored the relevant legal opinions, or the people who executed the policies based on those opinions.

Now, we have a change of administration, and this new administration wants a second bite of the prosecutorial apple. It's completely counter to every principle of American jurisprudence in which I'm familiar. It may be the most blatant politicization of policy decisions by a prior administration. It's a chilling precedent, not just on our contemporary national defense and security, but it's also a game changer for political prosecution in future administrations. It's horrible.

[JMS]

Sorry, I can’t entirely agree with you on this one because by definition a “domestic” terrorist would come under civil law especially if that person is a citizen of the United States being held or tried for acts committed on US Territory. Enemy combatants are not covered under the Constitution especially if they are caught on foreign soil and they are not covered under the Geneva Convention except as they fit under the category spy and/or sabateure.

[Old Professer]

Just another minor distraction to keep the focus on the Obama administration’s long struggle with the inheritance of the previous one.

It’s not like anybody’s going to be fired or anything.

[Brad from Tennessee]

I generally liked Waterson based of the roles he played. I look to TV entertainment and movies for escapism. Sometimes it’s hard to escape when I associate the faces on the screen with anti-American radicalism. Acting talent, like athletic talent, doesn’t equal a superior political viewpoint or even an above average intelligence.

[liberty or death]

I'm with you there. In fact Sam has always been one of my favorites as well along with many flaming libs. Just one of lifes many conundrums.