Investigating Torture: An Interview With Former Federal Prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega

(9 am. – promoted by ek hornbeck)

Photobucket The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega has recently made news urging that we don’t rush into appointing a special prosecutor to investigate crimes of torture during George W. Bush’s presidency. In a provocative April 20th post entitled “Of Black Holes and Radio Silence,” Ms. de la Vega wrote:

“There is no doubt that sometime in 2002 – if not before – Bush administration officials and their lawyers began orchestrating a torture campaign, which they calculatedly attempted to justify through specious legal memos. They continued to abuse prisoners, and to conceal that mistreatment from Congress and the public, through at least 2008. In all of this conduct, they have committed grave crimes for which they must be held accountable. I believe this to be a national imperative of the highest order.”

However, she also argues that,

“First, the bottom line: From the perspective of anyone who wants Bush and Cheney and their top aides to be held accountable for their crimes, the designation of some sort of independent prosecutor right now would be the worst possible eventuality. It’s a move that has so many downsides – and holds so few real benefits – that I would be more inclined to question President Obama’s motives if he appointed a special prosecutor than if he did not. There is a reason why former prosecutor Arlen Specter – a Republican senator from Pennsylvania – has voiced support for a special prosecutor, while former prosecutors Patrick Leahy and Sheldon Whitehouse – Democratic senators from Vermont and Rhode Island, respectively – would prefer a public inquiry.”

Please note that Ms. de la Vega’s post was written prior to Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter becoming a Democrat.

Overall, Ms. de la Vega contends that appointing a special prosecutor now would undermine the cause of truth and accountability. It is her contention that transparent and public hearings would facilitate more popular support for prosecuting wrong doers than currently exists. As she wrote on April 20th:

“What we continue to need, in sum, are unwavering spotlights, even more civic education, and, most importantly, an irrefutable and cohesive factual narrative – comprised of direct and circumstantial evidence – that links the highest-level officials and advisers of the Bush administration, ineluctably, to specific instances and victims of torture. What we will surely have, however, if a special prosecutor is named, will be precisely the opposite: The initiation of a federal grand jury investigation right now would be roughly the equivalent of ceremoniously dumping the entire issue of torture into a black hole. There will be nothing to see and we will be listening intently to radio silence, trying to make sense of intermittent static in the form of the occasional unreliable leak. For years. There may never be any charges and we will almost certainly never have the unimpeachable historical narrative that we need.”

On May 10th, she posted a followed up piece entitled “Prosecuting Torture: Is Time Really running Out?”and argued that the statutory clock in section 2340A, otherwise known as the “torture statute” didn’t start ticking until Bush’s presidency ended on January 20, 2009 – when President Obama reversed our policies. Her May 10th post was in response to those who are clamoring for the immediate appointment of a special prosecutor because they claim the statute of limitations for torture crimes that began in 2002 were scheduled to expire in 2010.

Ms. de la Vega’s position stems from her longtime experience as a federal prosecutor. She served as a Justice Department Attorney under Presidents Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. She is the winner of numerous Attorney General’s and community awards, including the prestigious Director’s Award for Superior Performance. For over twenty-years, Ms. de la Vega targeted violent gangsters and sophisticated white-collar criminals in Minneapolis where she served as an Assisted United States Attorney and San Jose, where she was Branch Chief and a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force.

Since retiring from government service in 2004, Ms. de la Vega has been among the most vocal in pushing for accountability on a broad range of crimes allegedly committed during the Bush administration. In 2006, her book, the United States vs. George W. Bush, et al was a New York Times best seller. A year ago, Ms. de la Vega wrote an incisive piece supporting Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s thirty-five articles of impeachment against President Bush.

She has also contributed to numerous print and online publications, including the Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor, Nation magazine, Chicago Sun-Times, Mother Jones, Common Dreams, TomDispatch, Truthout and Alternet.

Ms. de la Vega agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about her views with respect to investigating torture and support for public transparency. Special thanks to Vern Radul, known in the blogosphere as Edger where he manages for persuading Ms. de la Vega for doing the interview. Our conversation was just under twenty-minutes as I posed numerous devil’s advocate questions. Please refer to the flash media player below.

This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes store by searching for either “Robert Ellman” or the “Intrepid Liberal Journal.”  


Skip to comment form

  1. able to take the time to listen.  

    • Edger on May 19, 2009 at 05:52
  2. Overall, Ms. de la Vega contends that appointing a special prosecutor now would undermine the cause of truth and accountability. It is her contention that transparent and public hearings would facilitate more popular support for prosecuting wrong doers than currently exists.

    me likey that idea alot!

  3. Who conceived and coordinated the real criminal acts? Investigators need to focus their energies on Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and F. Scott Jennings. Strategic policy guidance on some key issues (torture, warrantless wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus, indefinite detentions without trial, outing Valerie Plame) likely came as well from David Addington, Scooter Libby, and, of course, ultimately from VP Dick Cheney himself.

    In identifying the origins of the bogus claims that served as pretenses for invading and occupying Iraq, investigators need to pay particular attention to the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), which crafted the propaganda campaign to sell the invasion to the MSM and to the public. Andrew Card, Condoleezza Rice, and Stephen Hadley deserve scrutiny for their roles in the WHIG, but remember who chaired the WHIG?

    You guessed it. It was Karl Rove.

    And now we have several smoking guns revealing VP Cheney’s pressure on interrogators/torturers to produce “evidence” of an operational link between al Qaeda and Iraq in order to justify the Administration’s preexisting intention to invade Iraq.

    At Nuremberg U.S. prosecutors forcefully argued that the launching of a war of unprovoked aggression constituted the most serious of all war crimes. Is it not time for U.S. prosecutors to make the same argument again?

  4. And as a consequence, I don’t understand the ins and outs of the law. I have read, here at dd and at antemedius, much of the argument that Ms. de la Vega makes. However, the interview done here presents the information in a more accessible format, with additional emphasis on some important points, specifically the statute of limitations and the start date of said statutes.

    Much appreciated, many thanks to Intrepid Liberal Journal and Edger.

Comments have been disabled.