Investigating Torture: An Interview With Former Federal Prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal. Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega has recently made news urging that we don’t rush into appointing a special prosecutor to investigate crimes of torture during George W. Bush’s presidency. In a provocative April 20th post entitled “Of Black Holes and Radio Silence,” Ms. de la Vega wrote: “There is no doubt that sometime in 2002 - if not before - Bush administration officials and their lawyers began orchestrating a torture campaign, which they calculatedly attempted to justify through specious legal memos. They continued to abuse prisoners, and to conceal that mistreatment from Congress and the public, through at least 2008. In all of this conduct, they have committed grave crimes for which they must be held accountable. I believe this to be a national imperative of the highest order.” However, she also argues that, “First, the bottom line: From the perspective of anyone who wants Bush and Cheney and their top aides to be held accountable for their crimes, the designation of some sort of independent prosecutor right now would be the worst possible eventuality. It's a move that has so many downsides - and holds so few real benefits - that I would be more inclined to question President Obama's motives if he appointed a special prosecutor than if he did not. There is a reason why former prosecutor Arlen Specter - a Republican senator from Pennsylvania - has voiced support for a special prosecutor, while former prosecutors Patrick Leahy and Sheldon Whitehouse - Democratic senators from Vermont and Rhode Island, respectively - would prefer a public inquiry.” Please note that Ms. de la Vega’s post was written prior to Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter becoming a Democrat. Overall, Ms. de la Vega contends that appointing a special prosecutor now would undermine the cause of truth and accountability. It is her contention that transparent and public hearings would facilitate more popular support for prosecuting wrong doers than currently exists. As she wrote on April 20th: “What we continue to need, in sum, are unwavering spotlights, even more civic education, and, most importantly, an irrefutable and cohesive factual narrative - comprised of direct and circumstantial evidence - that links the highest-level officials and advisers of the Bush administration, ineluctably, to specific instances and victims of torture. What we will surely have, however, if a special prosecutor is named, will be precisely the opposite: The initiation of a federal grand jury investigation right now would be roughly the equivalent of ceremoniously dumping the entire issue of torture into a black hole. There will be nothing to see and we will be listening intently to radio silence, trying to make sense of intermittent static in the form of the occasional unreliable leak. For years. There may never be any charges and we will almost certainly never have the unimpeachable historical narrative that we need.” On May 10th, she posted a followed up piece entitled “Prosecuting Torture: Is Time Really running Out?”and argued that the statutory clock in section 2340A, otherwise known as the “torture statute” didn’t start ticking until Bush’s presidency ended on January 20, 2009 – when President Obama reversed our policies. Her May 10th post was in response to those who are clamoring for the immediate appointment of a special prosecutor because they claim the statute of limitations for torture crimes that began in 2002 were scheduled to expire in 2010. Ms. de la Vega’s position stems from her longtime experience as a federal prosecutor. She served as a Justice Department Attorney under Presidents Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. She is the winner of numerous Attorney General's and community awards, including the prestigious Director's Award for Superior Performance. For over twenty-years, Ms. de la Vega targeted violent gangsters and sophisticated white-collar criminals in Minneapolis where she served as an Assisted United States Attorney and San Jose, where she was Branch Chief and a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force. Since retiring from government service in 2004, Ms. de la Vega has been among the most vocal in pushing for accountability on a broad range of crimes allegedly committed during the Bush administration. In 2006, her book, the United States vs. George W. Bush, et al was a New York Times best seller. A year ago, Ms. de la Vega wrote an incisive piece supporting Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s thirty-five articles of impeachment against President Bush. She has also contributed to numerous print and online publications, including the Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor, Nation magazine, Chicago Sun-Times, Mother Jones, Common Dreams, TomDispatch, Truthout and Alternet. Ms. de la Vega agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about her views with respect to investigating torture and support for public transparency. Special thanks to Vern Radul, known in the blogosphere as Edger where he manages Antemedius.com for persuading Ms. de la Vega for doing the interview. Our conversation was just under twenty-minutes as I posed numerous devil’s advocate questions. Please refer to the flash media player below. This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes store by searching for either “Robert Ellman” or the “Intrepid Liberal Journal.”

The Abyss

Moran:" How so, when it comes to cruel, inhuman-- What's the president's prerogative in the cruel treatment of prisoners? " Cheney: "There's a definition that's based on prior Supreme Court decisions and prior arguments, and it has to do with the Fourth, Thirteenth, and -- three specific amendments to the Constitution. And the rule is whether or not it shocks the conscience. If it's something that shocks the conscience, the court has agreed that crosses over the line. Now, you can get into a debate about what shocks the conscience and what is cruel and inhuman. And to some extent, I suppose, that's in the eye of the beholder. But I believe, and we think it's important to remember, that we are in a war against a group of individuals and terrorist organizations that did, in fact, slaughter 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11, that it's important for us to be able to have effective interrogation of these people when we capture them. And the debate is over the extent to which we are going to have legislation that restricts or limits that capability. Now, as I say, we've reached a compromise. The president signed on with the McCain amendment. We never had any problem with the McCain amendment. We had problems with trying to extend it as far as he did. But ultimately, as I say, a compromise was arrived at, and I support the compromise." Moran: "Should American interrogators be staging mock executions [and] waterboarding prisoners? Is that cruel? " Cheney: "I am not going to get into specifics here. You're getting into questions about sources and methods, and I don't talk about that, Terry." Moran: "As vice president of the U.S., you can't tell the American people whether… " Cheney: "I don't talk about-- " Moran: …or not we would interrogate… " Cheney: "I can say that we, in fact, are consistent with the commitments of the United States that we don't engage in torture. And we don't. " Moran: "Are you troubled at all that more than 100 people in U.S. custody have died -- 26 of them now being investigated as criminal homicides -- people beaten to death, suffocated to death, died of hypothermia in U.S. custody? " Cheney: "No. I won't accept your numbers, Terry. But I guess one of the things I'm concerned about is that as we get farther and farther away from 9/11, and there have been no further attacks against the U.S., there seems to be less and less concern about doing what's necessary in order to defend the country. " Mein Gott, doesn't that sound familiar? The day the United States lost the war in Iraq was the day American soldiers tortured prisoners to death to save Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, a monstrous tyrant who tortured prisoners to death. Either way, it doesn't work, it's barbaric, and it kills people. Civilization is left behind when sadists are given ugly toys to play with and the unspoken permission to use them. Those smiling faces we saw in Abu Ghraib were the same smiling faces saw in Nazi Germany, Burma, Somalia, Soviet Russia, and Latin America. As Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, "When you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." Not only did America lose the moral high ground, it jumped willingly into the abyss, and it's a long way down.

I Don't Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

"A black person voting Republican," said the father of African-American congressman J.C. Watts (R), "is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders." It's a hard truth that takes away a lot of options for African-American voters. What it means is that the Democratic party can take our support for granted because they know and we know that the alternative is so much worse. It's the difference between a bad sunburn and skin cancer. However, it doesn't stop some misguided "house negroes" from trying. Take the example of "Cowboy Troy" Coleman, an African-American "Hick-Hop" singer who performed the national anthem at the GOP convention in Minneapolis. Strangely enough, Coleman was one of the few chocolate chips to be found in the Republican's big white bowl of cookie dough. I wonder why. Anyway, Coleman was enthused about the opportunity. "This is the biggest thing that has ever happened to me," he said. "With my social beliefs, namely being pro-choice, this party is the one for me. My skin is secondary to the fact that I want my politicians to make laws that positively affect my life and the lives of my friends." When I read that, I thought about the scene in The Princess Bride where Andre The Giant says to Wallace Shawn, "You keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means." If you ask me, "pro-life" is a word that doesn't belong in the mouth of a Republican because it's a lie that's no different than the other overworked phrase they like to use: "compassionate consevatism". They don't know what it means. In spite of their noisy propaganda, the Republicans aren't "pro-life". What the Republicans do really, really well is kill people. Republicans launched the war in Iraq. Republicans want abortion to be illegal and dangerous. Republicans ignore global warming. Republicans oppose stem-cell research. Republicans don't want national health care. Republicans torture. Republicans watched New Orleans drown. Laws don't kill people, Republicans make the laws that kill people. Think of their ideology as "kinder and gentler" genocide. And Republicans believe that "pro-life" translates as "Imaginary babies are cute, but once you get a birth certificate, you're on your own". Now, maybe "Cowboy Troy" Coleman is simply naive or a cynical opportunist, but other African-Americans know better. For us, voting Democrat isn't a philosophical abstract; it's self-defense. Damned if I know why poor and middle-class white Americans who religiously vote Republican haven't figured it out. It's one of those perplexing "What's The Matter With Kansas?" questions, I guess. But, for their sake, I hope they figure it out soon because they're not safe either. None of us are.

Barbaric Torture

Back in January 27, 2005, Bush, in an interview with the Times, assured the world that “torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture.” Well it looks like the Bush administration has allowed many of our soldiers to become (and/or continue) to be, uncivilized, brutal, cruel, and barbaric towards the people of Iraq. WaPo reports many soldiers support torture, U.S. Troops Lacking in Ethics with many soldiers supporting torture and other forms of abuse against Iraqi civilians. An Army report also indicates our troops face higher rates of mental illness due to longer deployments. I guess the United States under the Bush administration has no problem having our soldiers torture and kill non-combatants as a strategy in war. One has to wonder if the "mass killing" and "civilian victimizations" attributed to insurgents is American driven? Your thoughts?