The prosecutor is often first presented with a case as a "corpus delicti" — a bullet-riddled body in the street, for instance. That ordinarily is enough to justify investigation. Through investigation, the evidence may prove that there was not in fact a crime (it was a suicide or an accident) or that the fatal acts were privileged or enjoy a legal defense (self-defense or justifiable shooting by an officer of the law). But one begins by investigation.
The judicial branch (which, under Marbury v. Madison, has the ultimate duty to determine "what the law is") has determined that waterboarding is torture (see U.S. v. Lee, decided in 1984 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit). The Bush administration has admitted to waterboarding captives. The corpus delicti of that crime exists. For there to be investigation now is unexceptional.
The only exceptional thing is the parties involved: the former vice president of the United States, his counsel David Addington, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) lawyer John Yoo and their private contractors Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell, psychologists who designed the torture program. But in America, high office does not put one outside the law. Indeed, it borders on unethical for a prosecutor to refuse to investigate the corpus delicti of a crime because of concern as to where the evidence may lead.
With the corpus delicti present, a prosecutor looks to see whether theories of criminal liability can be eliminated by evidence the investigation reveals (a suicide note in the pocket, a police officer's convincing description of a "clean shoot"). But as long as a viable theory of criminal liability remains, the investigation continues.
Hence the question: Looking only at the evidence that has become public so far, is there a viable theory of criminal liability arising out of this corpus delicti, the torture of America's captives?
[Tom] Coburn is a Republican senator from Oklahoma, where 168 people were murdered by right-wing psychopaths who bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995. Their leader, Timothy McVeigh, had the Jefferson quote* on his T-shirt when he committed this act of mass murder. Yet last Sunday, when asked by David Gregory on “Meet the Press” if he was troubled by current threats of “violence against the government,” Coburn blamed not the nuts but the government.“Well, I’m troubled any time when we stop having confidence in our government,” the senator said, “but we’ve earned it."
Rep. Wally Herger (R, CA): "Our democracy has never been threatened as much as it is today" by healthcare reform. At the same town-hall meeting:
Audience member: "I am a proud right-wing terrorist."
Rep. Herger: "Amen, God bless you. There is a great American."
Obama isn't saying the right thing. He should be saying, "Stop lying." Or maybe he should send Biden out to say it. That's probably the best thing.
I'm not basing this on some misguided sense that being aggressive is what's required. Rather, I'm basing it on how the MSM works. They report what politicians say. And they don't fact check them. That's the system -- maybe you don't like it. I don't like it either. But it's not changing any time soon.
This reminds me of an idea I read somewhere a few weeks ago about combating the town hall disruptions by playing the national
anthem over the PA system whenever anybody starts shouting down the speakers -- either the disruptors shut up and stand with their hands on their hearts, thereby losing their momentum, or they continue to shout, which gives the MSM an easily-digested meme: "people disrespecting the national anthem".
Both ideas involve very simple, straightforward actions that (1) need no simplification and (2) provide short, simplistic, reductive soundbites. The MSM eats this sort of stuff up. In contrast, the WH recently unveiled a web site to combat the insanity, which as far as I can tell was designed specifically to be ignored by the MSM. The site looks like an example of the legal tactic I've seen in movies of responding to a request for information from the opposing legal team by shipping them forty-six boxes of documents. The information they want is in there somewhere, and nobody can say you're withholding information.
you know it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims' families? Took me about a year. And I had such compassion for them, and I really wanted to help them, and I was behind, you know, "Let's give them money, let's get this started." All of this stuff. And I really didn't -- of the 3,000 victims' families, I don't hate all of them. Probably about 10 of them. And when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, "Oh shut up!" I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining. And we did our best for them.Democrats are working closely with Chuck Grassley, a fan of this guy. How can anyone believe them to be serious about any sort of reform, or anything? And by Democrats, of course, I include their leader, Barack Obama.
