[Yoo] went on to suggest that President Bush's victory in the 2004 election, along with the relatively mild challenge to Gonzales mounted by the Democrats in Congress, was "roof that the debate is over. . . . The issue is dying out. The public has had its referendum."
-- Nat Hentoff, quoting New Yorker story on "extraordinary renditions"
Much to the disdain of various liberals who cited the fact, Prof. John Yoo (infamous in said circles for his role as Bush legal advisor in the promotion of its free reign philosophy of executive power) had written that the people have spoken -- the re-election of President Bush basically served as a referendum on the administration's policies, including those in the fight against terror. Thus, the people support the administration's views, including its policies respecting treatment of detainees. Sadly, however, there is more than a germ of truth in what he says. And, we should not lie to ourselves and think anything different.
The reply would be to offer proof that some real opposition has been supplied to the administration's policies. We should not ignore such things nor the small successes, including those in the courts, that have occurred. Nonetheless, let us not lull ourselves into a false sense of security.
Cutting through the discussions, a basic principle that the administration still has the right to question suspects without being limited by Geneva or relevant abuse laws holds -- when dealing with CIA led investigations, the administration (and Gonzales) specifically underlined this fact. Legislation that passed the Senate 96-2 to help prevent such abuse was rejected by the White House, including easily confirmed Condi Rice. And, yes, old open-ended torture memoranda have been replaced, but the new memo underlines that legitimate techniques have been used.
Furthermore, where are the true consequences? The people are in some way troubled, but the issue was not of any real relevancy during the campaign or the debates. This alone is telling -- this alone warrants a question if Sen. Kerry really deserved to be President, if he truly was out there telling the people forthrightly why their current leadership had no business having four more years. But, says some, it just wasn't a winning issue. The people would be turned off. Oh? If so, John Yoo is right ... right enough. To the winners go the spoils.
[The fact is that one can forgive the guy if the campaign overall was well done, suggesting the move was a sadly necessary piece of strategy. This is questionable. First, signs of lack of clarity haunted him throughout, and ignoring a major issue offering an alternative voice is troubling on that ground alone. Second, it was not an either/or issue -- there was a middle ground, if he had the guts to offer it. Finally, overall, his campaign was not so good that we can forgive this glaring absence. Those who want to rest on the laurels of being close can if they care to, but certain sports fans can tell you close is of dubious value.]
And, what about Congress? The Congress has the ultimate authority to investigate, including to determine if laws need to be made, and executive or judicial officials need to be targeted in some fashion. [One idiot sneered when I brought up impeachment talk -- what could I be talking about other than blatant partisan smear tactics. Others just see it as a non-starter. Again, re-election is the referendum so that even talk of the minority making some noise about the line crossed is just downright silly.]
Surely, I jest ... not this Republican Congress. This power includes laws respecting international law and rules of war. As one writer noted, congressional power over such matters suggests such matters cannot just be left to the courts. It recognizes a moral obligation of the people themselves and their representatives to face the issue.*
How so? By confirming those who helped (at best through negligence -- by definition, not intentional, but willful neglect -- or at worst, intentionally) promote the abuse to higher office? A special nod of shame to the likes of Sen. Lieberman, who loves to speak about the need of morality in public life, but still was one of the few Democrats who confirmed Alberto Gonzales.
Surely, not by truly investigating to full extent of their powers the abuse and by setting forth regulations that would help our country and other nations regain a shred of respect for our ability to further the rule of law. Let the administration veto -- publicly, not hold it back behind the scenes without a veto necessary as was the case with the 96-2 vote -- and show the country and world their true colors shining so bright.
But, this did not happen. We are now talking about Social Security ... Iraq had their elections, and we can move on -- after Congress gives the President more money with few strings attached to it. After all, if Congress will not fulfill its other responsibilities, why be jealous of its power of the purse? How apt Mt 27:24-25 seems, though with a twist. Bush as Pilate, proclaiming his innocence, but the people not proclaiming their guilt -- the blood is on our hands, all the same.
----
* The article addressed a little known case from last term that suggested the federal courts had jurisdiction in a limited number of cases arising from violation of international law, though not in the case at issue. The writer felt the obscure law used to reach this result is better read quite narrowly, leaving Congress the role to spell out what violates "the rules of nations." The defendant's previous trip to the Supreme Court is also relevant, since it earlier rejected (6-3) his claim that the United States' illegitimately paid bounty hunters to seize him from Mexico without the nation's consent.
Ironically, his trial was dismissed for lack of evidence, and the second go around respected tort claims arising from the whole affair. This too is a telling aspect, especially given some of the claims of mistaken extraordinary rendition that are currently being discussed in the press. One last tidbit: the seizure took place in part because of evidence the Mexican government was involved in the original crime: a heinous torture/murder of a drug source.
Nonetheless, the main guilty parties could not be reached, so the U.S. targeted in this case a small fry -- a doctor allegedly involved in drugging the victim to assist questioning. The regularization of abuse and extraordinary methods so results: activities used in rare or less troubling cases in the past are applied more and more until the cost/benefit analysis definitely starts to become quite troubling.