Holder to investigate Bush administration’s interrogation techniques (finally)

Good news out of the Justice Department.

In a just released Newsweek article by Daniel Klaidman, four knowledgeable sources presumably close to the Attorney General have confirmed that  prosecutor could be appointed within a matter of weeks to investigate brutal CIA interrogation techniques undertaken under the previous administration.

From the article:

Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration’s brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama’s domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. “I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president’s agenda,” he says. “But that can’t be a part of my decision.”

While we’ve certainly had some major issues with Holder over the fumbled release of the DOMA legal brief last month, I’m glad that he seems to be bucking the White House and acting independently on this one. The Bush interrogation techniques were perhaps the most controversial elements of perhaps the most non-independent DoJ in US history. To not investigate these techniques while the evidence is still raw would be a travesty to history.

My hunch (and hope) here is that this move could open the floodgates for more independent prosecutor appointments to investigate the multitude other questionable techniques of the Bush, et al. Klainan definitely seems to focus heavily on Holder’s seemingly wrenching process of deciding to go against the White House’s agenda of “moving forward”.

We’ll just have to wait and see.

Oh yeah — the military doesn’t give a c**p either.

Faithful (and brilliant) co-admin scrahan posted this comment in response to my article on the DADT-foot dragging.  It’s a very good point, and one I failed to address yesterday. 

Tomate, I think I can make a stab at the (presumably rhetorical) question you posed at the end of this, “Why drag feet on DADT, when the majority of American’s accept the idea of openly gay servicemen and women?” In this case, it’s not whether the majority of American’s are comfortable with it; the question is, are the majority of military, or likely military personnel comfortable.

 I don’t have those numbers, but the conventional thinking (trans. pulling this from my ass and/or heard some homeless guy ranting about it on the sidewalk) is that those are the people who feel strongly about this issue, and would be offended to serve with openly gay servicemen. Is it a good argument? No, soldiers didn’t like blacks or women serving, and both are now integral (if not always, in the case of women, well-integrated. The DOD’s recent study on rape in the military is a pretty harrowing read) members of the military.

 But at least it is an argument, one I would love to see you shred to pieces. At your convenience, my good sir.

Gladly, my good sir.  Gladly.

The Albatross of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Lt. Dan Choi has been in the news for a few weeks, and yet he still manages to serve as a human face for the thousands of servicemen and women discharged under DADT since said policy’s inception.  Why might this be?  Is it possible that progressives of all stripes, rather than LGBT Americans exclusively, are beginning to wonder whether gay rights issues aren’t just on the back burner, but have been stuffed in the pantry behind a dusty can of sardines and a six-pack of Tab?  And, moreover, actually care?  Boring statistics below the fold, Choi’s latest conversation with NPR here.