SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
A few weeks ago, I testified before the Judiciary Committee in connection with their examination of crimes committed among contractors in Iraq. This was a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. The crimes described, and well documented, notably the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, were horrendous. She had been gang-raped, brutally assaulted, and then imprisoned for fear that she would tell her story to the outside world. In the end, Ms. Jones said she was barely able to escape Baghdad with her life. And where was the Justice Department in all of this? As I noted, it has adopted an attitude of official indifference—thousands of cases of violent crime, zero prosecutions. The Jones case was no different. They responded to inquiry after inquiry with the same line: gang rape? Assault? False imprisonment? Don’t bother us. We have more important things to deal with. And why? Such is the arrogance of this Justice Department, that they sent the Judiciary Committee a brush-off letter announcing they couldn’t find a warm body to sit in the chair to represent them for the hearing. “It was an absolute disgrace,” said Chairman Conyers, as members from both parties nodded in agreement.
Moving forward now three weeks, the Bush Administration was asked to make up for its default at the hearings by providing some explanations for its inaction. The deadline provided was year’s end. And, typically, the deadline came and went, and the Bush Administration could not find the time or energy even to have a low-level clerk write a letter.
So what, you may wonder, is the ultra-important business that precludes the Justice Department from responding to Congressional inquiries into its failure to discharge its principal mission, which is—or at least used to be—law enforcement?
Well, here’s an example. At just this time, out in Michigan, in a criminal case we have chronicled previously in which the Justice Department seeks to protect the nation from that horrendous scourge—trial lawyers raising money for Democratic candidates—a young Justice apparatchik was busily issuing criminal subpoenas to a media company named Sussman Sikes. The subpoenas require the company to produce all materials related to a television advertisement that the company had prepared for the Fieger law firm.
And what had prompted this? The PR company had done an advertisement which showed President George W. Bush speaking disparagingly about the Fieger law firm, and it sought to turn this around to the law firm’s benefit. The ad is actually quite clever. Take a gander:
So to defend the dignity of his commander-in-chief (I use this term advisedly, since it’s clear that this man is, contrary to his oath of office, not taking direction from the laws or the Constitution), the young assistant U.S. attorney has launched out to harass and intimidate the PR firm that made the commercial. Next no doubt he will be sending FBI agents into TV stations to serve subpoenas and seize copies of the advertisement.
You may have thought that you enjoyed freedom of speech and that the Department of Justice existed to protect your rights. That might even have been true of prior embodiments of the Department of Justice. But it’s not true for the Bush Department of Justice, which is intent on simultaneously demonstrating its arrogant abuse of power and its contempt for the nation’s Constitution and laws.
And as for priorities, the record couldn’t be clearer: deal with a brutal gang rape? No, we don’t have any resources for that. Or deal with a commercial that portrays the commander-in-chief in a negative light (i.e., by showing his natural self)–now that gets lavish attention and resources. Far more, in fact, than would have been needed to comply with Congress’s demand for a report and explanation.
If you’re not outraged by these disgraceful antics, you’re not paying attention.
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”