SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
Need to create a login? Want to change your email address or password? Forgot your password?
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!
Last night I discussed the latest reports about the pending appointment of a torture special prosecutor with Keith Olbermann. Here’s the video:
Here’s another question. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Officials said it wasn’t clear that any CIA interrogators were ever informed of the limits laid out in the Justice Department memo. ‘A number of people could say honestly, correctly, “I didn’t know what was in it,”‘ said a former senior U.S. intelligence official.” How would that affect the work of a special prosecutor?
The Times piece builds off accounts furnished by “former senior Justice officials,” close to the torture issue, with apparent knowledge of “investigations.” In all likelihood, we’re talking about Bush Administration political appointees apprehensive about what a special prosecutor might uncover. I would strongly discount the claims that the investigations will never go anywhere because of a lack of witnesses and evidence. That conclusion can’t be justified until a serious investigation has actually been conducted—and it’s clear that the Bush Justice Department did not conduct a serious investigation because they were concerned about where it might lead.
The current focus on the OLC memos is a bit absurd. It’s clear that torture went on before the memos were written, and that the memos were written, and later revised, to match the practices that were actually used. In the end, however, interrogators suspected of “crossing the line” will argue that they were relying on legal interpretations, and they may in fact have valid statutory defenses of reliance on legal advice. But that’s not the case for the memo writers and other policy-level figures at the CIA, Justice, and at the NSC. This points to torture as a joint criminal enterprise, which is how it is generally investigated and charged. Any proper investigator would quickly move his focus from the interrogators–who have plausible legal defenses–to the policy-makers and memo writers, who don’t and who are more culpable legally, if we apply the standards used by prosecutors from Nuremberg to the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals.
If Eric Holder decides that the appointment of a special prosecutor is warranted, then he should focus his energy on picking the best person for the job. He needs a person of unchallenged integrity who has a record of effective prosecution and can be counted on to put the law ahead of politics. Any effort by this highly compromised Justice Department to put a straightjacket on the special prosecutor or to shield certain individuals from scrutiny will delegitimize the process. Indeed, no serious prosecutor would accept an assignment that was subject to such constraints. Holder should have faith in the process to deliver a fair and just result, and he should avoid any efforts to jury-rig it. How he responds to this challenge will reveal if he is a man driven by law enforcement concerns or a politician at the helm of the Justice Department.
More from Scott Horton:
No Comment — March 28, 2014, 12:32 pm
On CIA secrecy, torture, and war-making powers
No Comment — November 4, 2013, 5:17 pm
An expert panel concludes that the Pentagon and the CIA ordered physicians to violate the Hippocratic Oath
No Comment — August 12, 2013, 7:55 am
How will the Obama Administration handle Edward Snowden’s case in the long term?
Many comedians consider stand-up the purest form of comedy; Doug Stanhope considers it the freest. “Once you do stand-up, it spoils you for everything else,” he says. “You’re the director, performer, and producer.” Unlike most of his peers, however, Stanhope has designed his career around exploring that freedom, which means choosing a life on the road. Perhaps this is why, although he is extremely ambitious, prolific, and one of the best stand-ups performing, so many Americans haven’t heard of him. Many comedians approach the road as a means to an end: a way to develop their skills, start booking bigger venues, and, if they’re lucky, get themselves airlifted to Hollywood. But life isn’t happening on a sit-com set or a sketch show — at least not the life that has interested Stanhope. He isn’t waiting to be invited to the party; indeed, he’s been hosting his own party for years.
Because of the present comedy boom, civilians are starting to hear about Doug Stanhope from other comedians like Ricky Gervais, Sarah Silverman, and Louis CK. But Stanhope has been building a devoted fan base for the past two decades, largely by word of mouth. On tour, he prefers the unencumbered arrival and the quick exit: cheap motels where you can pull the van up to the door of the room and park. He’s especially pleased if there’s an on-site bar, which increases the odds of hearing a good story from the sort of person who tends to drink away the afternoon in the depressed cities where he performs. Stanhope’s America isn’t the one still yammering on about its potential or struggling with losing hope. For the most part, hope is gone. On Word of Mouth, his 2002 album, he says, “America may be the best country, but that’s like being the prettiest Denny’s waitress. Just because you’re the best doesn’t make you good.”
Ratio of husbands who say they fell in love with their spouse at first sight to wives who say this:
Mathematicians announced the discovery of the perfect method of cutting a cake.
Indian prime-ministerial contender Narendra Modi, who advertises his bachelorhood as a mark of his incorruptibility, confessed to having a wife.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
Science’s crisis of faith