Criminalizing Policy Differences —the Galactic Double Standard [Peter Kirsanow]
Bush administration officials who may find themselves in legal jeopardy because they authorized the use of enhanced interrogation methods must be bewildered by the double standard being applied to them — one even more unbalanced than the media's usual double standard for conservatives and liberals.Whatever one's position on the propriety of the enhanced interrogation methods, there's no evidence that the use of the methods resulted in the death of a single American. On the contrary, several credible sources maintain that the methods kept Americans from being killed. Nonetheless, some partisans assert that those who crafted the enhanced interrogation policy should be imprisoned.Contrast that with the position of those same partisans regarding the governmental officials who crafted the famous pre- 9/11 "Wall" — i.e., the Clinton-era policy that separated criminal investigations from intelligence operations, thereby impeding counter-terrorism investigations.Among other things, the Wall prevented counter-terrorism investigators from accessing the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, days before 9/11. At the time one FBI investigator said, "Someday someone will die — and, wall or not — the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems."The Wall went beyond what was legally necessary and indisputably rendered Americans more vulnerable to terrorist attacks (whether removal of the Wall would've prevented 9/11 can only be a matter of speculation). The Wall was kept in place by government officials who were on notice that terrorists planned to kill Americans. It was kept in place even after terrorists had succeeded — pre 9/11 — in killing Americans. Maintenance of the policy was reckless and inexcusable — some might even argue that it was criminal.Will the partisans who demand the prosecution of those who kept America safe also demand the prosecution of those who endangered America?I'm not holding my breath.
Krauthammer’s Take [NRO Staff]
From last night’s “All-Stars.”
On Nancy Pelosi’s calls for a “truth commission:”
Before you can decide whether to have a prosecutor or a commission, you have to know who the players are. The Democrats want to make this a war on the Bush administration.
But there is one inconvenient fact, and it's stated by none other than Dennis Blair, who's the Director of National Intelligence under Obama, not under Bush. And he said in writing that the leadership of the CIA repeatedly reported their activities to the executive and to members of congress, and received permission to continue to use the techniques.
Now, he's a man who's completely disinterested in this. He does not have a stake in the fight, and that's what he says.
So among these Democrats, of course, among these members of Congress who are saying that we were not told that these techniques were used in the past, past tense.
But what she said in December '07 in a statement in response to a "Washington Post" story which said that she had been in on the hearings and had not objected, had been in on the briefings and not objected, she issued a statement saying that she was briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future.
So the parsing here is positively Clintonian. But even so, it doesn't help her, because if you're in a briefing, and you're a member of Congress, and you're hearing about a technique that you now say you were scandalized and is a war crime and you opposed, what is more important to speak out about? A technique that has been used in the past, in which case the briefing is pointless, or speaking about a technique which is going to be used in the future, in which case your objection is essential, but it never happened either. It never happened, and she never objected.
So I agree with "The Wall Street Journal." If you want to have a commission, start with her. Put her in the dock under oath. Ask what did you know? When did you know it? And if it's a war crime, how could you possibly not have objected?
