She was the best of nominees. He was the worst of nominees. The fates of Dawn Johnsen and John Brennan after the first attempts to put them into high levels of the Obama Administration tells us everything we need to know about Obama’s commitment to the rule of law.
The nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice represented, in my opinion, the best possible candidate for a crucial position. During the Bush-Cheney years, OLC memos of incredibly shoddy workmanship were churned out in abundance in a blatant attempt to provide legal cover for torture and other lawbreaking by the Bush Administration. Here is Johnsen at the American Constitution Society in October, 2007, where she states that "OLC and the Attorney General have to be prepared to tell the President ‘no’; that’s what the law requires" in describing how OLC needs to be independent above all else in providing legal advice to the Administration:
Johnsen’s selection as head of OLC was announced by Obama on January 5, 2009. Her nomination has languished, with a hold placed by John Cornyn, and Obama has done nothing to move things along.
John Brennan served as Barack Obama’s primary advisor on intelligence policy during the campaign and very shortly after the election, his name was at the top of most lists to serve as either Director of National Intelligence or Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Fortunately, because Glenn Greenwald and others pointed out how much Brennan had supported torture and illegal surveillance, Brennan withdrew his name about a week after a barrage of information about Brennan’s views was made public. For example, Greenwald provided this quotation from Brennan to CBS News where Brennan is indistinguishable from Cheney:
SMITH: You know, this all becomes such a giant issue because the president has gone on record so many times saying the United States does not torture. If we acknowledge that this kind of activity [waterboarding] goes on, you know, what does that mean, exactly, I guess?
Mr. BRENNAN: Well, the CIA has acknowledged that it has detained about 100 terrorists since 9/11, and about a third of them have been subjected to what the CIA refers to as enhanced interrogation tactics, and only a small proportion of those have in fact been subjected to the most serious types of enhanced procedures.
SMITH: Right. And you say some of this has born fruit.
Mr. BRENNAN: There have been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has in fact used against the real hard-core terrorists. It has saved lives. And let’s not forget, these are hardened terrorists who have been responsible for 9/11, who have shown no remorse at all for the deaths of 3,000 innocents.[Emphasis from Greenwald]
Despite removing his name from consideration as DNI or DCI, Brennan remained at a high advisory level to Obama within the National Security Council but at a position not requiring Senate confirmation. Last week, it was announced that Obama would form a new "interrogation team" that would take over the job of interrogation of high level detainees. Here is Andrea Mitchell reporting on the team:
Senior White House and Justice Department officials briefing reporters on a conference call just now insisted that the White House would not be involved in tactical decisions about the interrogation of detainees under new procedures approved by the president. Officials said the National Security Council interagency role would be "policy guidance" — only.
The new unit will be headquartered at the FBI and overseen by the NSC’s counter terror chief, John Brennan, who used to run the counter terror center at the CIA.
The briefers said they would also create a unit to do scientific studies of "best practices" of interrogation to find out what works.
They pledged that the U.S. would no longer "render" suspects to countries that torture prisoners and that renditions would be overseen by the State Department.
Given Brennan’s previous comments about rendition {Example from the Greenwald link:I think it allows us to have the option to move a person who is involved in terrorism or terrorism-related activities to a country where they can be effectively questioned or prosecuted.), I would think that we will have to watch carefully to see which countries are involved in this "new, improved" program.
"Civil liberties extreminsts" felt they had reason to celebrate when Barack Obama was elected President. We felt that the eight year nightmare of rampant lawlessness by our government would come to an end and that those who broke the law would be held to account. The nomination of Dawn Johnsen was particularly symbolic, as she would root out the corruption in the Office of Legal Counsel and set a tone for legal advice to the new Administration that falls squarely within the law. The sad facts that she has not yet been confirmed and that Obama is doing nothing of substance to get her confirmed while John Brennan has survived one derailed nomination attempt only to reappear in a position to continue his favored versions of lawlessness tell us that the nightmare continues.
If Obama truly cared about civil liberties and the rule of law, he would dismiss John Brennan from government service and make a recess appointment of Dawn Johnsen to head OLC. I’m not going to hold my breath on that happening.



57 Comments




Good update on this Jim. Has anyone asked Cornyn why he’ put this hold on? This is pro forma, he’d likely make something up, but it would be worthwhile to get him on record about it.
During the campaign, the Obama rhetoric was just that–a bone thrown to Dodd and civil libertarians. Yes, some executive orders have been issued, but nothing has been done structurally that will undo the Bush years. I think your claim that Obama simply doesn’t put any priority on this issue must be correct, judging by what Obama does, rather than says.
After a bit of Googling, it looks like there isn’t a formal hold on Johnsen, but Cornyn has led the charge against her, claiming she lacks the “seriousness” for the position. I think the embedded video debunks that. The current thinking seems to be that the Republicans will insist on 60 votes to confirm her, and the vote counters don’t think 60 votes are there.
A recess appointment would get around that issue and she could continue after the 2010 elections by being confirmed then.
Recommended. Thanks for the critical info and video, Jim.
IMO, Cornyn is Cheney Junior and totally a tool of the Texas political machine (and that ain’t no compliment!!). Does he have Carl Levin fooled?
Would a letter signed by many of us to Sen. Levin blast that hold loose?
Had Dawn Johnson been appointed AG, we might have had a chance to get our country back.
I see. And Obama won’t do a recess appointment because he’s no doubt criticized Bush for doing the same thing. He simply won’t cross the senators for so “small” an issue.
I’m guessing/speculating that’s the hangup.
Jim,
O/T question for you–are you on twitter, and if not, is there an email address for you, for purpose of outside communication.
That’s an interesting idea about Johnsen as AG. I’d love it, but the argument that she’s well-qualified fits much better for OLC because of her previous service there.
As for the letter, note that it appears on further analysis that there isn’t a formal hold, so I don’t think a letter will do much good. I think our only hope is to keep trying to shame the Senate and Obama for slowing down the confirmation of someone just because she advocates adhering to the law, especially since someone with a blatant disregard for the law is being given more responsibility at the same time.
My Twitter and my Yahoo mail are both jimwhitegnv.
JW:
A new team comprised of whom and from which agencies or departments? Rumsfeld succeeded in wresting much power in regard to interrogations from the CIA and vesting it in a new “team” under DoD control. The military does not have the same reporting requirements as the CIA. Seymour Hersh wrote a lot about this in 2001-2004. See: The Grey Zone-How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib, 5/24/04 http://www.newyorker.com/archi…..524fa_fact
Andrea Mitchell:
Bush-and-the-Cheney-Gang had a team at NSC for “policy guidance”, too:
Were these “tactical decisions” or “policy guidance”?
Also nothing new:
Sources at: http://www.webdsi.com/jebbie/tline.html
Jim,
Cornyn held out against Sotomayor for the same false “reason”. He is a good ole boy who believes in controlling women (I’m an old Texas woman). He’s a bigotted, male chaufinist pig! Regardless of how many politically correct phrases he wraps it in, that is why he blocked Dawn Johnson. Bullies like him and the Bush clones are so insecure in their own manhood that the thing they fear most is an intelligent woman exceptionally qualified in their own profession. “judge” Cornyn indeed!
Thanks, harpie. Your links really drive home the fact that Obama is changing virtually nothing but the outside packaging for these abhorrent practices.
It isn’t just civil liberties extremists that are getting pissed off, Jim. Some subcontractors at my job site summed it up this way yesterday, “We’re still waiting.”
I suspect that Joke Line or the Great Broder would tell you that anyone who is pissed off about this automatically becomes a civil liberties extremist.
Recommended, Jim!
I wonder how… short of a full-page ad in several major newspapers… it would even be possible to shame Obama and the senate into confirming Johnsen. Shame does not seem to be on the menu for them.
Oh! THANKyou, acquarius74! As soon as I saw the words “not serious” I knew what we were dealing with, here. It’s good to get corroboration, though!:-)
And thanks for staying on top of this, Jim.
harpie, Both Alberto Gonzales and John Cornyn were judges on the Texas Supreme Court — give you an idea how they’re chosen in Texas? [hint: it ain’t on excellence in the law - or anything else - except being a good puppet for Big Oil’s Geppito.]
I’m sorry, Jim, I have to disagree with the recess appointment idea. I think the proper way to do this is to bring the whole discussion out in the open and counter John Cornyn, and take the case to the constituents of those holding up the debate. We were promised as much back when your solution was a hold, remember?
U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, May 22, 2009 at 8:00 am on FireDogLake, in response to a question by bamage on behalf of Jim White about a hold on Gen. McChrystal’s appointment.
It’s high time Democrats and other Americans fought for that for which they have promised to fight.
I’d like to think Whitehouse will actually do that and would prefer that course of action, but I don’t see him following through, just as I know there is zero chance Obama would actually do the recess appointment. I fully expect Johnsen’s nomination to twist in the wind until next January, when she will quietly withdraw and Obama will nominate someone more amenable to manipulation by folks like Emmanuel and Brennan.
I agree with Ondelette except that I don’t have much confidence that enough Democrats if any will put up an honest to goodness fight. All they really have to do is sell Dawn Johnsen to the public with the credentials that she clearly has that the faux cowboy “Big John” Cornyn claims, with no evidence, that she doesn’t have.
Video of “Big John” Cornyn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt05KC3Add8
Oh! That is a riot Kitt!…well it was pretty funny until I realized it wasn’t satire. OY!
Yes, the only part about it that is right is the “bad” part about John, but he’s not bad in the sense they think he is…
Obama has managed to disappoint even my extremely low expectations in this area. That’s quite an accomplishment, but not one of which he should be proud.
Very Nice Post Jim!
excellent post.
Is not Dawn Johnson a personal acquaintance of the President? I think this all speaks to the lack of personal integrity in the President. This among other things. He plays a game of political expediency.
Leaving Johnson dangling in the wind is shameful.
Sadly, Jim, you are oh so correct in your assessment. Quite frankly I’m sick of all of the excuses given by Obama and his administration for why they keep following in Bush’s footsteps. At this point they’ve lost my vote and they will have to do a lot more than blow smoke to earn it back.
Sad to say I’m feeling much the same. I don’t see leadership and the “change” mantra is a fraud.
What about the rest of the Democratic caucus? The White House is certainly failing here, and Cornyn is being obstructionist, but I would think if all the Democrats announced their support things would be in better shape. But if I remember correctly, some of the conservadems also opposed the nomination (or at least concern trolled it).
You guys need to grow up. We all wish things could be as we want them to be, but they are not. If you want to go back to the Bush era by all means continue to bitch about Obama, rather than trying to figure out a way to push things along with a positive attitude and outlook. The sad truth is she may never be confirmed, and that would suck. But it’s reality. The other sad truth is Obama is first and foremost a politician. But I’d still rather have him than McCain any day of the week.
The only reason to take prisoners the gubmint thinks maybe, might, could possibly, somehow be related to terrorism or a terrorist, or kinda maybe know something about someone who is, is that it wants to torture them. Or convince them they or their friends or relatives might be tortured or killed if they don’t cough up whatever they know. Whatever that is. Assuming we believe that whatever they say is what they know.
Obama has bought Bush’s torture regime lock, stock and two smoking barrels. He owns it now.
What’s Mr. Obama really doing with it and why does he think this will all get him re-elected. What, by Republicans? By “centrist” Democrats? Does he think the GOP wouldn’t orchestrate a third-party candidate in 2012 if it thought it would take away ‘Bama votes? Puhleeze.
The GOP won’t play ball with Obama even if it promises to do so. Obama is making sure that his progressive wing – energetic, outspoken and financially generous – won’t support him either. All its money and time will go to progressive House and Senate candidates who will fight Obama’s so-called “agenda” (who the hell knows what that is?) and fight for a progressive one.
Mr. Obama and his pet Rahm are fast becoming caricatures. They are in the process of deconstructing their own party and giving government back to the GOP or to chaos on an insuresters and banksters’ platter.
What a remarkable person! Dawn Johnson that is. What is really frustrating is that she, and other brilliant Americans have not been able to affect national policy, and so we get stuck with the Arne Duncans and the Rahm Emmanuels, and of course, the John Brennans.
I am really trying hard not to give up completely on Obama. It is like trying to reach a port of call in a fog at sea, with the tide running against you. And suddenly the rudder is ripped off by a bluedogrepublisquid (no doubt a mutation from those Eniwetok tests a few years back!) This presidency is becoming classic tragedy, not an absurd tragedy like the former, not the fascist overt sacrificing of all that humans can aspire to, but a quiet under-the-clouds doomed malaise: a tragedy following a prior tragedy and thus a terrible consuming pattern.
Is it time to fall off this wagon? Are we now all expats sitting at home?
The choice is NOT Obama or the GOP. It’s a contest over putting better Dems into Congress and calling out Obama and Rahm on their hypocrisies and misdeeds – and praising them should they ever do the right or smart thing from the public’s perspective.
Obama is indeed a Chicago pol, no more, no less, despite his could-be-Irish charm, smooth delivery, and lovely wife and children. Like Rahm and every other Chicago pol, he’ll stutter nice things. But he will respond only to baseball bat politics. It’s time for progressives to play ball.
Obama is not being pushed or hoodwinked by anyone. He is doing exactly what he wants, as the fates of Dawn Johnsen and John Brennan illustrate.
Couldn’t agree more. This is not Obama vs. McCain – it’s about the future. Obama only responds to squeaky wheels. Progressives in the House have a historic opportunity to put their foot down for the immensely needed reforms in health care, energy, climate.
Left on their own, Obama and Rahm clearly cares more about “success” defined as passing yet another bill. We can and must apply all the grassroots pressure that we want. But the leverage point is with our Congressmen, so put the pressure on your local Representative, and have them hold the line on Health Care. This is a decisive and defining moment.
Hmmm, what is your theory as to why Obama nominated Dawn Johnsen in the first place?
Touche. I made this point some time ago, and I’ll make it again. Leaders of nations don’t become leaders so that they can take orders. They do it so they can give orders. It’s only when they know they can’t do that anymore that they’ll listen to you. Mr. “let’s all be positive adults” may not like that attitude, but that’s how things are. You don’t get to be President by putting others first.
I try not to guess peoples’ motivations when there are so few clues. If I had to guess, I’d say that Obama’s actions show that he might like to have a better DoJ, or at least get better opinions out of the OLC, but it’s not something he’s interested in enough to fight for it. In any case, he’s shown remarkable motivation for keeping John Brennan around. The combination of all of those things tells me he’d just as soon keep things the way they are.
I really don’t care about motivations of politicians. Their actions are what I care about, and these actions are 180 degrees from being the right ones.
She was announced on January 5, before Obama was even sworn into office. Obama’s performance seems to have been a slow and steady march away from the ideals he flashed occasionally in the campaign. I really doubt he would nominate her today.
Sadly, Brennan’s presence seems to contribute to Obama’s decay. He is responsible for the FISA flip flop and now is in position to run “rendition lite”. With Rahm Emmanuel and John Brennan having Obama’s ear, our country is in great danger.
You really think Emmanuel and Brennan pose a “great danger” to our country?
Seems a bit shrill to me.
They are happily throwing the Constitution and the rule of law out the window. Rahm is doing it for pure politics; he thinks that prosecutions for torture are a losing proposition politically. Brennan is doing it because it is what he does. He has swallowed the neocon explanation that we are in a battle for survival against an evil force and that the rules just don’t apply when we go after someone like that.
When we discard the law and the Constitution over politics or fear, yes, I see that as an actual danger to our country. What do we have if we don’t have the law?
Oh noez Jim! You’re SHRILL!
Fercryingoutloud, Brennan was also the guy in charge of his private company who got the contract to help process passports and was responsible for Passport-gate last year during the general election.
Brennan is incompetent and rightwing security idealogue and by that measure is a danger to the country.
Wow, that puts me in some pretty good company. *g*
I’m also a self-identified civil liberties extremist.
That Obama would even listen to this guy is troubling. He’s been catastrophically wrong whenever it really counted.
Everythng?
Obama doesn’t care about civil liberty or the rule of law?
Say what?
They are doing this happily?
Yes, I consider your language shrill! Certainly, some of your criticisms of the Obama Administration have merit, but your hyperbolic rhetoric does a disservice to your opinions.
You might be surprised to know that I share your position that Obama needs to be more proactive in having Dawn Johnsen confirmed.
SICLE de fin ?
sorry if I mangled it…
Being grown up means taking responsibility and participating in helping to make things be one way or another way. Being grown up is the opposite of what you seem to think that it is. Wishing things would be some way but accepting that they are not and then pretending that that is because we’re only children and the grown ups are in charge, and they’re making the decisions for us.
“I’m not going to hold my breath on that happening.” ;GOOD, this government is responsible for enough deaths already. Great post JW.
What I wonder is what happens when Obama’s unfavorable rating among independents (largest growing segment of registered voters) goes above 60 per cent. And I hope no one reading this equates all independents with a ‘conservative leaning’.
Jim, you might find this interesting.
If we had 99 Democrats in the Senate, they’d be asking the one Republican to lead them through this crisis.
Oh, so you think we should just wring our hands in desperation and cluck, cluck about what should be done? After all, we can’t be shrill in preventing harm to our country, can we?
Here’s Matthew Alexander on the blowback we now get because we torture:
Okay, maybe I should have said that Emmanuel and Brennan “casually” destroy the Constitution rather than “happily”, but I stand by all the points I am making. Obama’s actions in keeping these voices close at hand while doing nothing for Johnsen are an indication of his current priorities. Those are not priorities that are good for our nation or the world.
Do you honestly believe that the Constitution is optional and should only be followed when it is convenient to our objectives? Do you believe we all should sacrifice privacy for security? Do you believe we need to torture to prevent terrorist attacks?
In my mind, the opposite of shrill is criminal complicity.
Recommended.
Thanks Jim.
I like that one, Jim:
“In my mind, the opposite of shrill is criminal complicity.”
For some reason I keep thinking that it might be a good idea to limit the presidency to one 4 [or maybe 6] year term..that’s it, show US your stuff, over and out…do you think that might get their attention?
First, I am pleased to see you agree with me that your language is shrill.
Second, as to your statement that “the opposite of shrill is criminal complicity” – well, there you go again.
Okay then, we just disagree. Have fun living with your conscience as a member of the criminal conspiracy. I will continue to do what I can to call attention to the crimes and those who promote them.
What in the world are you talking about? In what respect am I member of a criminal conspiracy? Because I believe your rhetoric is shrill?
That seems to be an excessively harsh judgment to make on someone you don’t know.
Oh Jim! Can’t you just tone it down a little? ;-)
No, don’t you get it? I’m shrill. And the more I deal with the Cass Sunstein mentality, the more shrill I get. *g*
From the Merriam-Websters dictionary: Shrill: : to utter or emit an acute piercing sound;
Jim, I can’t hear you !!