Dare We Ask Him To Follow His Links?

Jiminy - Marc Ambinder is doubling down when he should have tossed his cards.

He started us off with a post hinting at war crimes prosecutions, with this attention-grabbing lead:

War Crimes

A provocative headline, I know, perhaps needlessly so, but it remains one of those hidden secrets in Washington that a Democratic Justice Department is going to be very interested in figuring out whether there's a case to be made that senior Bush Administration officials were guilty of war crimes.

I mocked the notion and linked to a couple of prominent chaps who had heard nary a whisper, but the post did get some play.

Now Ambinder has a follow-up post explaining that "one of those hidden secrets in Washington" does *not* mean  that people are whispering to him off the record; instead, it means that the secret is hidden inside his active imagination and Ambinder is guessing out loud.  Catcalls ensue.

Well, I can meow too - as part of his rationalization, Ambinder links to a TPM article and tells us this about the CIA:

Indeed, the director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, shares my conjecture [about war crimes].  He recently agreed to purchase, at $300 a pop, legal liability insurance for about two thirds of his agency's workforce, including virtually all of the National Clandestine Service, precisely to protect against any future administration's attempt to hold officers legally accountable for their actions.

The TPM headline is:

CIA Increases Legal Liability Insurance

By Paul Kiel - March 17, 2008,  1:44PM

Preparations begin for the end of the Bush administration.

But can we ask Ambinder to read the portion excerpted by Mr. Kiel, if not the AP story itself?  Here we go, with emphasis:

[The policy] covers legal expenses associated only with those activities undertaken after liability insurance is taken. 

Get it?  The coverage is not retroactive, which means it is analogous to health insurance that excludes pre-existing conditions.

So, can former waterboarders buy this insurance?  Of course they can - but if they first buy coverage today it won't cover them for waterboarding undertaken in 2003.  And as of 2008, waterboarding is not on the authorized list of interrogation techniques, so if they are doing it they won't be covered.

Can wiretappers who worked with the telcos buy this? Sure they can, and here there may even be a bit of logic in their doing so - a new policy won't cover wiretapping from 2002 to the present, but since the eavesdropping programs are ongoing, it would provide coverage for future activities.

But unless I miss my guess, the "war crimes" crowd is focusing on "torture", and a newly purchased policy will not provide retroactive coverage.   Nor does it need to - this is  from the Times
last January:

A new possible source of reimbursement for legal fees was created in 2006 by the Military Commissions Act, which requires the government to pay lawyers for C.I.A. and military officers facing lawsuits or criminal investigations for “authorized” actions involving detention of suspected terrorists.

The WaPo covered this in 2006 and noted that CIA employees are worried about "shifting winds":

Several former intelligence officials who said CIA officers do not need insurance because they can rely on the government to defend their lawful actions depicted the growing number of policies as a barometer of the uncertainty officers have of the legality of their work.

A recently retired CIA officer who said he had not bought insurance contended that "if an individual does get sued in the course of their official duties, then you get the biggest law firm in the world to step in" -- the Justice Department. Justice regulations allow defending federal workers if the conduct is within the scope of an employee's job and doing so is in the government's "interest."

...Robert M. McNamara Jr., the CIA's general counsel from 1997 to November 2001, said he advised station chiefs to buy the insurance. "The problem is that we are the victims of shifting winds here," McNamara said he told the officers. "I can't sit here and tell you in all cases that I will be able to defend you."

I think they CIA employees have good reason to be worried about wiretapping suits.  But war crimes?  Jack Balkin is clearly interpreting "war crimes" in the context of torture, not wiretapping.  I can't make the connection between this insurance and past war crimes.  Are  people alleging that the war crimes are ongoing?  As of this writing the secret prisons are closed and waterboarding is not authorized.  But thanks for playing.

PROFILES IN "KEEP IT ON THE QT"  Josh Patashnik of TNR is apparently working on his five minutes:

Update: Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that Democrats make "prosecute Bush's war crimes" a campaign issue (that would be suicidal), and even as a matter of law I'm suspicious of the idea. But the fact remains that the administration has engaged in conduct of rather dubious legality and a Democratic president should probably do something to distance him/herself from that conduct and make sure that it doesn't set a precedent for future administrations.

In other words, war crimes prosecutions are a good idea, but not quite good enough for the Dems to actually talk about.  Or if not prosecutions, well, they should "do something".  Maybe a strongly worded memo will suffice?  A colorful brochure with scary, offputting graphics?  Please.

Comments

[windansea]

yeah...please

The Pelosi Doctrine

talk softly and carry a big burkha

[clarice]

Just thinking out loud here, but Washington's abuzz with the notion that the Atlantic and TNR are staffed with idiots.

[SteveMG]

but Washington's abuzz with the notion that the Atlantic and TNR are staffed with idiots.

I suddenly have a similar hunch.

It's all coming to me as I type.....

[SteveMG]

No future president - Republican or Democrat - is going to want to give up any of the powers that Bush leaves him (or her).

And certainly they don't want to start the precedent of prosecuting previous executive branch officials. No way.

Now, international courts.. that's a different ballgame. That is where the left will concentrate their resources.

[Ralph L]

So Bush and Cheney won't be able to travel to Belgium after Jan 09. I'm sure that breaks their hearts.

[Topsecretk9]

Pelosi, Graham and Rockefeller not only approved of the harsh techniques when showed VIDEO of them, but worried they didn't go far enough.

I say we prosecute them for war crimes.

[Topsecretk9]

OT, but Another elected Dem "rising star" indicted- William Jefferson associated‏
---
Indicted Superdelegate Democrat Congressman William Jefferson's brother Moses was recently indicted and now a State Senator supporter of Dollar Bill is indicted:

"Derrick Shepherd, once considered a rising political star who won three elections and basked in the glory of his military service, was indicted Thursday for allegedly helping a woman who orchestrated an illegal scheme to launder $2 million for her construction bond business.

A grand jury returned a 41-count superseding indictment in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana that charged Shepherd, a Democratic state senator from Marrero, alongside convicted bond broker Gwendolyn Joseph Moyo; her accused "straw man," James Zoucha; and two Nevada corporations she used to do business after being prohibited from writing construction bonds.

Shepherd is charged with three criminal counts of mail fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. If convicted on all counts, he faces a maximum of 85 years in prison, but legal observers predicted that he realistically faces closer to six years."

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-10/120789121427440.xml&coll=1

Get's better - Dollar Bill's sister Betty is implicated:

The indictment charging state Sen. Derrick Shepherd with fraud also details alleged money laundering by an unnamed "Public Official B," who sources close to the investigation said is 4th District Assessor Betty Jefferson, sister of indicted U.S. Rep. William Jefferson.

The sprawling indictment, released Thursday, accuses Shepherd and two alleged co-conspirators of mail fraud, wire fraud and money laundering. "Public Official B" is accused of helping to launder "additional criminal proceeds."

Betty Jefferson and her attorney, Ike Spears, did not return calls seeking comment.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-10/120789147927440.xml&coll=1

Also, recall Dolar Bill's OTHER brother Archie (along with Bill's wife and children) is implicated in his indicted...giving new meaning to all in the family

[Topsecretk9]

oh...and but of course Dollar Bill is implicated in this one as well

The indictment says that "Public Official A" -- William Jefferson, sources said -- steered bond broker Gwendolyn Moyo to Shepherd. Moyo, who was charged alongside Shepherd on Thursday, is accused of selling phony construction bonds and pocketing the proceeds.

just another day in Nancy Pelosi's culture of corruption.

[DE]

Where is the video? We need a copy.

[dpo]

It can't be dems approving torture with videos:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/11/national/main4008207.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4008207

[M. Simon]

dpo,

That link doesn't work.

Here is how you make permalinks:

<a href="url">text to display</a>

replace url with:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/
leave the quote marks

replace text to display
with: Power and Control

Power and Control

If you keep a cheat sheet (text file) up of your most commonly used forms it is really easy.

[M. Simon]

Re: dpo's comment.

Harsh Interrogations