Tweet
"Flexible" attorney William Lietzau
From Defense.gov
We learn from Spencer Ackerman this morning that yet another top Bush administration official formerly associated with development of torture policies is to be appointed to a position in the Obama administration. The new deputy assistant secretary for detainee affairs is to be William Lietzau, who "previously served as a special adviser to Jim Haynes, the top Pentagon lawyer during Donald H. Rumsfeld’s tenure, when Rumsfeld and Haynes codified torture and indefinite detention as hallmarks of Bush-era terrorism policy." Ackerman provides an extended discussion on the choice of Lietzau, finding many willing to comment on his energy and abilities as a lawyer, but also notes that there are those who are puzzled that the first architect of the Guantanamo military commissions and a deputy to Haynes, one of the primary developers of torture policy, would be chosen for this important position. I find this passage to be the most important characterization of Lietzau:
Both Guter and Romig, the former senior military JAGs who clashed with Lietzau’s old boss, Haynes, independently described Lietzau as intellectually “flexible” and willing to faithfully implement the policies of his bosses. “The guy is smart, so he can figure out what the Supreme Court has said” about the due process rights to which detainees are entitled, but “it troubles me the guy can go from one end of spectrum to the other, arguably,” Romig said. “It’s very curious they would take somebody to run [policy on] detainees who was in the position he was in seven or eight years ago.”
Lietzau is known to be "intellectually flexible" in implementing the policies of those to whom he reports, but as Romig points out, it’s hard to imagine someone now committing to a course that should be diametrically opposed to his previous work. Romig’s dilemma goes away, however, if Lietzau is being brought into his new position to continue policies with very little difference from those of Bush. Adding Lietzau to the existing lineup of Obama administration officials with roles in the war in Afghanistan, detainee policy or the "war on terrorism", it becomes clear that Obama has chosen to continue the worst of Bush’s policies of detainee abuse.
The commitment starts at the top, with the horribly wrong choice of Stanley McChrystal to command our forces in Afghanistan. The McChrystal decision was preceded by putting John Brennan into a senior position at the National Security Council after his candidacy to head the CIA was ruined by his association with torture.
Note also the shaky denial of continued secret prisons in Afghanistan by McChrystal’s hand-picked head of detainee policy in Afghanistan and the shell game the US is playing with Afghan prisons in advance of increased detentions that will result from the surge.
Taken together, the lineup of personnel who will generate new detainees and the policies under which they will be detained is running our country headlong into the warning from the recent UN special report on secret prisons:
Secret detention at the same time amounts to an enforced disappearance. If resorted to in a widespread or systematic manner secret detention might reach the threshold of a crime against humanity.
Obama’s detainee team is now composed of all-stars from the worst Bush offenses. How are we to expect anything other than continued secret detention and abuse? Where is Dawn Johnsen? What is the real reason for Phil Carter’s (the previous deputy assistant secretary for detainee affairs) resignation?
64 Comments
Obama approved Lietzau in between sets of sit-ups, while checking out his abs in the mirror.
“Lietzau? Yeah, whatever.”
Lietzau is known to be “intellectually flexible” in implementing the policies of those to whom he reports, but as Romig points out, it’s hard to imagine someone now committing to a course that should be diametrically opposed to his previous work.
They will call it “civilian control of the military”.
McChrystal: “As you were.”
Yes, that really sums it up on where we are now (with just a little lip service to “we don’t torture”).
“Intellectually flexible,” huh? I’d call it “morally flexible.” It is not a compliment.
While it may not be a compliment, it appears to be a point in one’s favor when being considered for an Obama administration job.
This diary got a tip of the hat from Glenn Greenwald in his post this morning. Not much higher an accolade in the political blogger world.
As Spencer Ackerman reports today, the administration has now replaced Capt. Carter: with Col. William Lietzau, who — as Ackerman put it — “previously served as a special adviser to Jim Haynes, the top Pentagon lawyer during Donald H. Rumsfeld’s tenure, when Rumsfeld and Haynes codified torture and indefinite detention as hallmarks of Bush-era terrorism policy” (h/t Jim White).
Rich Lowry’s brain
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/09/lowry/index.html
Forgot to mention that he also linked the h/t.
Two more links on the NY trial and Repug game plan to attack Obama and the Dems to succeed in the November elections:
GOP dusts off Bush playbook: The fear-mongering that worked so well for Republicans in the early part of last decade is back with a vengeance
http://www.salon.com/news/guantanamo/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/02/09/holder_guantanamo_mohammed
The Trial: Eric Holder and the battle over Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. By Jane Mayer
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/02/15/100215fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=1
Thanks for those links. The Mayer article is especially good.
Here’s Greenwald’s characterization of Lietzau’s appointment:
Indeed.
Look forward.
I can understand Obama’s pick of William Lietzau (Not that I agree with it.)
Being smart and flexible he will bend the law any way needed to please his client, which any good lawyer would do, without ideology getting in the way.
Corp, God, Country, has to take a back seat where he is concerned as his client comes first, which is Obama.
Instead of “good lawyers” we need “strong ethics” leading the way.
You know, as a lawyer you do take very opposing positions at different times, for different clients, etc. What this crew is doing isn’t so much taking different legal positions on the facts, they are misrepresenting and skewing the facts to support their legal positions. Those are very different things (and go to the heart of what I think should have been investigated on the Exec branch legal front – more so than good and bad advice).
One is dishonest and unprofessional and immoral. I’ll leave hanging which. In the end, though, the same persons rise to the top under Obama as did under Bush. Compassionate conservative – Conservative compassionate. One just put the Con first.
The good thing for the Obama admin is that now that have all this nifty data mining programs and can search for lawyers with the right qualifications to meet their needs.
Yes, absolutely, the flexibility on the moral position and using legal arguments to authorize abuse is the real problem here.
[Note to readers: don't miss Mary's links; they really drive home her points.]
It was obvious that Obama intended to follow in Bush’s path when he decided to continue the military commission trials of Omar Khadr which began years ago under Bush, delayed for various legal reasons.
Khadr was raised by his father, an associate of Bin Ladden to whom he introduced his children including Omar at age 10, and during the summer of the year he was fifteen, in 2002, Khadr did what his father expected of him, like most of the other men he grew up with. His father sent him away with a friend and the journey ended in a battle with US forces during which a soldier was killed, possibly by Khadr but he was an accessory in any case. He is also charged with placing land mines where the military were expected to travel, receiving training, and spying, reporting on the numbers and types of military vehicles in certain locations.
As a result Khadr is charged with “war crimes” based on the “laws of war”. The Defence said that wasn’t fair because Bush rewrote the laws of war afterwards. But I doubt if Omar read the laws of war even as they existed that summer, or was schooled in them by his trainers, or his father.
Many of us began to worry about Obama when he went back on his promise to filibuster retroactive immunity and started endorsing Bush policies even before the primary season was over.
Jim, what do you think the odds are of Dawn Johnsen being one of the recess appointments that Obama is “supposedly” threatening the GOP with?
They probably all are threat only, but Johnsen especially will be left to twist in the wind until she finally withdraws in disgust. She stands so diametrically opposite to the views of the Bush All-Stars that Obama has put into place that there is no chance he will ever let her take the reins of OLC. She would find much of what is going on to be illegal and would take steps to revoke the legal authority, and Obama doesn’t want that to happen to his artfully constructed deceit.
Right on, sister, as we used to say. This news reaffirms the idea that the MIC engineered a coup and now runs the country with Obama’s blessings. Since he’s not an ideologue, he can say “Yes, Master. Thank you, Master,” as he accepts his paychecks without a trace of regret or irony.
Wow, what a courageous, inspirational, and great president!
We are so incredibly lucky.
“Don’t Bogart that joint, damnit!”
Since Obama hates ideology and loves pragmatism, this seems like the natural choice for him. And entirely consistent across the board.
Cut the deal, do the deed, get it done. Ideology and principle is for fuckin retards.
Now you’ve done it. Gonna have Palin coming down on us for your accurate observation.
You betcha.
He was a child and should not have been charged with any war crime. He should not have been shot in the back and should not have been tortured in Bagram. Omar should not still be caged in Guantanamo. Here’s Omar.
************
http://freedetainees.org/7329
You think Palin could actually read these comment? She’d have to get past your eloquent post first. ;~)
Why do we continue to refer to these people as “detainees?” They’re prisoners. If the military and most of the establishment had their way these prisoners would either be executed or locked up for the rest of their lives. The presence of an offense that would warrant those actions (I’m anti-death penalty, period) doesn’t really seem to be a factor in the thinking.
Torture?
Yes we can…
Good point on the terminology.
“The U.S. doesn’t torture.” W and O.
I can’t wait for 2012 to get here to get obamarahma and LIEberman out. At this point it is hard for me to care who replaces him. I know that everyone can marshall all sorts of arguments of how I am so wrong, but I feel that the republicants are running things anyway, and on most questions there is no change from w’s policies.
I think you’ve answered your own Q.
I understand why the PTB refer to them as detainees. That doesn’t mean we have to. Innocent or guilty, lock somebody in a cage they’re a prisoner.
One is sincere. The other is irony.
Harry Truman who served in the U.S.Army during WW1 had a better pov regarding where the buck came to rest.
Barack Obama can weasel all he wants about his pick up of Bush/Cheney warmaking in Asia but he owns these wars now and is a war criminal for not dealing with the torturers,not dealing with the war prison legacies Bush/Cheney left behind.
Barack Obama is a war criminal.To deny or ignore this does not change it.
The American military,CIA and the mercs they pay off are a disgrace.
Barack Obama is at the top. Connect the dots and take the buck home.
So what if he’s a war criminal. Powerful people who don’t lose wars are never prosecuted for war crimes.
Fixed it for ya
Because there is a whole body of law and a whole set of provisions within the Geneva conventions that each would apply – whether you go with civilian or military precepts – if you call someone a prsioner.
This devolution of language was what happened with what I think was one of the most important memos – the Jan 2002 Memo from Gonzales as WH counsel to Bush. In that memo, Gonzales pretty much admits that they have “prisoners” then what they have done, are doing and are planning to do will be war crimes under the War Crimes Act. BUT – if they just make up a different name for them, then they can pretend no law applies to them and as a result, nothing done to them can be or will be a crime.
He didn’t flat out go into a modified Dalek “Assassinate, Assassinate” chant like the Obama admin has now done, but something similiar.
I’m working on the economy of language for what I’m trying to say. Yours works. Also thinking about “powerful people who don’t lose wars to powerful countries are never prosecuted for war crimes.”
Not familiar with Geneva Conventions, but vaguely recall that someone in the past several days posted a comment with provisions that applied to what U.S. calls “detainees” or “unlawful combatants” or some such thing. The point was that it is awfully hard to squirm out of those quaint GC. Easier just to disregard them.
Congrats, Jim on being promoted to the mothership…! ;-)
Excellent post…! It is the veritable Fox guarding the hen house…! 8-(
I would like at least the people who are opposed to these practices call a spade a spade. Every time I use “detainee” instead of prisoner I am validating the use of the term. I will not.
Last night the PBS program “The American Experience” called “The Bombing of Germany” explored terrorism in WWII:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/
It explored the major differences between Britain’s nighttime bombing of German cities and the American version of daylight precision bombing to avoid civilian casualties. It became a big bone of contention, and the program candidly shows how the US had to finally go along with the Brits which the US generals called terrorism.
It set the stage for Dresden, Tokyo and beyond, living even (especially?) to this day.
Also, I am reading a book called “The Imperial Cruise” bu James Bradly, where he explores a 1905 diplomatic mission under TR which set the stage for WWII, Korea, Vietnam and apparently is still affecting relations with the Orient. Just the first chapter is jaw dropping!
This stuff isn’t new.
You bet.
Thanks. Yes, it’s hard to imagine a more inappropriate candidate for the position. Be sure to read the Glenn Greenwald post on the resignation of his predecessor, Phil Carter, who had been an appropriate choice. Quite a trade we made there.
Well, well, well, the semi-MSM is finally delving into the Allies bombing of WWII. About time. It was all about revenge, even though U.K. started bombing German held civilian territory before the Germans bombed London. And the U.S., of course, never had to go along. The U.S. did it too because of the same revenge motive that the Brits had. (Besides the U.S. bombing of “military” targets was so imprecise that it was only a pretense that they were bombing military targets. U.S. finally, though gradually, gave up the pretense.) The best of two books I’ve read on the subject is A.C. Grayling, Among the Dead Cities.
“Intellectually flexible” is a non-libelous euphemism for having no ethics when it comes to agreeing with one’s boss.
The description of Lietzau fits a classic type of wormy bureaucrat whom David Addington and Jim Haynes would admire. The kind of guy that’s faster and smarter than Alberto Gonzales. The guy who is better than Karl Rove at finding and quick liming the figurative bodies politicos figuratively leave in their wake. A guy who can agree with a boss faster than his or her boss can change their mind, without leaving a trail that any other opinion or position had ever existed or even been thought of. (No could have imagined….)
That Gates and his staff recommended him, that he passed routine White House vetting for such a high-profile task, and that Obama appointed Lietzau to this office should dispel any rumors that our constitutional lawyer president remembers anything about the Constitution from law school. Or that in this respect, he is at all different from Dick Cheney.
Obama is still busy burying past crimes, while telling everyone looking at him with dirty shovel in hand that he’s looking only ahead, not behind.
Scott Horton agrees with you Jim. See, here.
I’m no longer waiting for Rahm Emanuel to stop sitting on Dawn Johnsen’s nomination. I’m waiting for her scathing and public refusal to serve an administration so tied to burying, repeating and institutionalizing the crimes of George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Thanks, I hadn’t seen that yet.
I’m expecting that, too.
that would be delicious.
The program made no bones about the fact that Britain bombed first, so far as UK being bombed. But Germany did civilian attacks, starting almost immediately with Warsaw which preceded the UK attack on Berlin.
War is a fucking nasty business.
A continuation of the policies of the last 8 1/2 years. We’re almost a third of the way into another 10,000 day war, the main difference being we’ll be there for all 10,000 days this time.
Guernica, 26 Apr 1937. Divebombing Stukas with sirens to frighten people.
Those were supposed “practice” attacks for the Germans.
I started to watch it again. I couldn’t finish. Sickening seen up close on a large computer monitor.
The problem with “practice” attacks is that the people gettin’ blown up ain’t practicin’.
Considering how successful Repubs have been at infiltrating the Democratic party as DINOs, perhaps it’s time we infiltrated theirs, not necessarily as candidates, but as voters?
Excellent point, SD! I’m going to stop using the term detainee, too.
Sorry to sound redundant…”Change we can believe in!” I’ve heard it a million times before. This first year has been a disgrace.
Whom better to appoint than someone who already knows where the bodies are hidden – perhaps literally? Someone outside of the Bush administration might have ethical concerns about what they discover.
It’s one thing to say we should be looking forward, but it takes a special sort of genius to have the cleverness to appoint the right people to the right positions, ensuring the desired outcome.
He’s shovel-ready.
What a fraud Obama is.
I can’t imagine Obama doing anything else, at this point. He’s gone way beyond the pale.
Yes, either a fraud or a president not truly in control of his own administration. Equally troubling prospects.
But when I look at the Military I see an institution which has been under assault ever since Bush/Cheney came to power. In the Bush/Cheney years the assault came in the barrage of what we’d probably consider illegal orders and misplaced power(alternate chains of command). The situation isn’t pretty and we aren’t going to fix it quickly.
To thier credit, some in the military have been more than willing to fall on thier own swords to prevent some of the disasters that Bush/Cheney were trying to perpetrate. Admiral Fallon balking at plans for a war with Iran comes to mind.
I think the best way we can help heal our military is to continue our asault on neocons in our civilian government. Giving Senator Joseph Lieberman the boot would be a great step in the correct direction.
Absolutely.
How many quiet heroes that thwarted W. and Cheney’s efforts we’ll never know.
Also worth researching is the food blockade against Germany which the British continued for 7 months after the WWI armistice. That was credited with killing over 750,000 Germans.
Hoover, who was then in charge of relief efforts for Belgium, had great difficulty getting food thru the blockade for neutral Belgium. The British were afraid that feeding the citizens of Belgium would interfer with thier plans to starve the already surrendered Germans because some food might leak thru Belgium and into Germany.