But Officer, Acting Outside the Law Has Been Very, Very Good to Me and Mine
By Mona
.
Greenwald (in updates) notes that some of the Villagers are outraged that President Obama made public four Bush-era Office of Legal Counsel memos justifying and authorizing torture. But, this could be the best gift to the criminal defense bar –Â if only we can get the “extra-legal” doctrine really entrenched throughout the justice system, rather than applied only to elites who break the law act extra-legally (emphasis in original):
Time’s Joe Klein purports to list all the dangers for Obama in alienating the CIA as he has: morale will drop; they’ll all retire at the time he needs them most for Afghanistan and Pakistan; Obama is sparking a “potential rebellion in the clandestine service.”  Klein then unleashes this deeply Orwellian observation (h/t CRust1):  ”This is an extremely serious claim in the intelligence culture, where some operators are asked to behave extra-legally for the greater good of the nation.”.That’s what government crimes are called in the eyes of our press corps:  they’re just acting “extra-legally” — and not just “extra-legally,” but “for the greater good of the nation.” You should try that at home.  Go rob a bank and when the police try to arrest you, just tell them:  ”I was just making an extra-legal withdrawal; what’s the problem”?[...]the next time you’re pulled over by a police officer for speeding, quote Barack Obama:  ”This is a time for reflection, not retribution.”  See if that works. If not, move to:  ”It’s time to focus on the future, not look to the past.” Criminal defense attorneys should try that on juries and judges, too.
Next time the jackbooted thugs raid a medical marijuana dispensary, let’s see how the “but we are acting extra-legally for the greater good of those with glaucoma, cancer and various painful diseases” defense works with U.S. Attorneys and federal judges.pfffft.
« « These Shambling Corpses Aren’t Going to Unearth Themselves! | Main | Power Line Explains Tea-bagging; It’s an Inside the Gay Subculture Thing » »
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 17, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
â€This is a time for reflection, not retribution.†See if that works.
â€It’s time to focus on the future, not look to the past.â€
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that he phrased all of those statements like that.
Obama’s a crafty bastard.
Comment by Fraud Guy —
April 17, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
Or, just get a lawyer to affirm that he has given you advice that your course of action was legal, based on the small subset of circumstances that affected you at that given moment of time.
Oh, your lawyer told you it was ok, run along.
Comment by A Squirrel —
April 17, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
Joe,
You seem like a nice enough guy, but you are one credulous mofo. Analyzing politics isn’t lit-crit.
Unless you’re kidding, in which case I apologize.
Comment by Mona —
April 17, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
A Squirrel: I certainly read Joe as thinking the Obama mewlings were all horse sh!t. Not sure why you did not.
Comment by Kolohe —
April 17, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
Not sure why you did not.
Because he has argued here and elsewhere that Obama is very specific and precise with his language, and certain criticisms are off base and are the result of not understanding of what he (Obama) is trying to say and do?
Occasionally, joe is even correct in this line of argument.
Comment by Mona —
April 17, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
Kolohe: Fair enough. I just read Joe as agreeing Obama’s stmts, at least in this case, were crap on stilts; I’m not all that familiar with whatever other defenses of The One he has made.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 18, 2009 @ 12:28 am
Analyzing politics isn’t lit-crit.
Of course not. Politicians don’t choose their words carefully; nor do they discuss things in anything but a forthright manner.
How gullible of me.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 18, 2009 @ 12:29 am
No, Mona, you’re confused.
Comment by Mona —
April 18, 2009 @ 12:53 am
Joe, Ok, I’m confused, and Kolohe is right about your comment. Didn’t know.
Comment by Timothy —
April 18, 2009 @ 2:55 am
Mona – Just remember that joe’s a pretty easy guy to understand. TEAM BLUE GOOD! TEAM RED BAD!
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
April 18, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
oh, joe is simultaneously credulous and cynical enough to believe Chocolate Jesus really meant “I’m just saying hold your horses on the prosecutions…we’ll get to it!”
that’s adorable. really.
Comment by dhex —
April 18, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
returning to the greenwald piece, the criticism from some that the memo release was “giving al qaeda our playbook” (sports bar diplomacy writ large, in blood) is very odd. as if aq-related ops don’t know “if you get picked up and handed over to an intelligence agency, they’re going to completely fuck with you in terrible ways” is a surprising bit of information. i understand they’re just playing games for the sake of their team and all, but one would expect it to be done with a bit more finesse.
it also presumes that tactics won’t change, which – if an honest objection – is probably quite naive.
Comment by A Squirrel —
April 18, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
Yeah, heaven forbid AQ discovers our pointless interrogation tactics. I mean maybe from a recruiting standpoint, as opposed to a “now they can withstand our brutality” standpoint – but all of this was basically all known already, and I guess you reap what you sow.
Comment by abb1 —
April 18, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
…completely fuck with you in terrible way…
Why, now they know that the insect in their coffin probably isn’t a deadly tarantula but a harmless caterpillar. Unless someone made an honest mistake.
And also that the guy slamming them against the wall is trying not to intent to cause them an organ failure.
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator —
April 18, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
After Launch, Obama Focuses On Disarmament…
ANKARA, Turkey, April 6 — President Obama arrived in Turkey on Sunday night as global condemnation …
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 18, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
Funny – the people who were certain the memos would come out are certain again. Funny, and predictable.
Is it like the Iraq War supporters? “We were right to be wrong, because we were wrong for the right reasons?”
Because it looks like your oh-so-carefully-cultivate cynicism isn’t serving you very well in understanding what’s gong on.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 18, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
For my part, I’m going to continue to read people who choose their words very carefully as if they choose their words very carefully, and not assume that every single statement about prosecution included a “not at this time” condition – every. single. one. Read the statement – is a coincidence.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 18, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
Actually, dhex, that’s one of the complaints. You can see the author of the Washington Post’s “War World” blog (yes, that’s it’s name) make it here.
But he makes another one, too. “national security professionals will be even more cautious and even more reluctant to act going forward.”
I don’t think the blogger understands that THAT’S THE EFFING POINT! That’s why the memos were released – so that THAT would happen.
Comment by Mona —
April 18, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
Joe: Do you think Obama will pressure Holder for prosecutions or a special prosecutor? This isn’t a “gotcha” question. I really am interested in your opinion.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 18, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
Like everyone else, Mona, I throwing darts in the dark here. Obama doesn’t seem to make a habit of telegraphing his moves beforehand. Nobody had the slightest idea whether or not he’d release these memos until the were released (except, of course, the people who knew he would bury them).
But if I had to guess, I’d say that Obama himself isn’t going to be the impetus for investigations and prosecutions. I could more easily see Holder, or Congress, pressuring Obama than vice-versa. I don’t think Obama is interested in pushing either to squash or to advance prosecutions. The issue is more like something that he will have to deal with as it lands on his desk.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 18, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
Seen this?
Head of the ACLU.
Big Team Blue guy, I guess. Rah rah go team!
Comment by Mona —
April 19, 2009 @ 12:20 am
Yes Joe, I’ve heard the ACLU’s Jaffer interviewed by Greenwald 2x on Salon radio — edited the transcripts, in fact. He’s hopeful, but not confident, that Obama will do the right thing. The 2nd Jaffer interview is here.
Are you at all prepared for the possibility that Obama might not “be all that”?
Comment by josephdietrich —
April 19, 2009 @ 6:07 am
I’m slightly uncomfortable with Glen’s approach here, because I’m sympathetic to the argument that one should ignore the law when doing so is for a greater good (or when the law is senseless, or when it represents an actual evil such as repression). We should not be slaves to “I did it / didn’t do it because the law said I could / couldn’t.” One’s actions should be guided by ethics and good sense (which are helpfully defined in various non-binding declarations of human rights and independence, conventions against torture, etc.). What made what these folks did wrong, and deserving of punishment, is not that what they did was illegal or “extra-legal,” but simply the fact that what this did was ethically and morally wrong and is deserving of punishment.
On the other hand, there is a happy confluence here where U.S. law and ethics coincide on the issue, and that is why I am only slightly uncomfortable. These people did things that are not only ethically and morally wrong but also illegal, so not only do they deserve to be punished but we can and should punish them for it.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 19, 2009 @ 11:30 am
Mona,
Barack Obama was my third choice in the Democratic primary. I’ve never held him out to be “all that.” He certainly has some admirable qualities, and he’s done some terrific things to end torture and illegal detention, but this idea that one cannot make those observations without elevating him to messiah status is a figment of the right-wing imagination.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 19, 2009 @ 11:32 am
I’ve never written anything as favorable about Barack Obama as Thoreau used to write about Chris Dodd, but oddly, it’s never occurred to anyone to accuse Dr. T of thinking Chris Doss was a messiah.
Odd, that, unless you don’t understand the psychological impetus behind the need to minimize the implication of the good things Obama has done. At which point it becomes thoroughly familiar and predictable.