Elana Kagan (Jay Mallin/ZUMApress.com)

So Solicitor General Elena Kagan will be President Obama’s second Supreme Court nominee. The emerging conventional wisdom is that Kagan, a rare nominee for the high court who hasn’t been a judge, is a very smart blank slate. On at least one category of issues that Kagan will face — the intersection of national security and law during a time of war — that conventional wisdom looks correct. But there’s a proxy for that set of issues, however inexact, that offers a few clues in advance of her confirmation hearings: Kagan’s deference to executive power.

[Security1] No one has chronicled Kagan’s embrace of the executive more assiduously than Glenn Greenwald, who’s appalled that Obama would pick someone with such a record. Given her relatively thin paper trail, one of the primary pieces of evidence for her perspective is her 2009 nomination hearing for the solicitor generalship, in which she expressed eagerness to bless Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) perspective that the president possesses broad wartime authorities to detain enemy combatants. (“No daylight” was how The New York Times assessed the exchange between the two.)

That assent appears to flow from a broader perspective. Charlie Savage of the Times found this weekend that Kagan, the dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009, was the tardiest and least forceful of Obama’s Supreme Court shortlist to criticize the Bush administration’s expansive assertions of executive wartime powers. Savage explored a 2001 law review article she penned defending the Clinton administration’s executive unilateralism:

In the article, Ms. Kagan argued that even if Congress has given the authority to make a regulatory decision to an agency, the president has the power to control that decision unless a statute explicitly forbids him from interfering. She wrote that it was “ironic” that “self-professed conservatives” were associated with calling for stronger executive power in recent decades because a more robust presidency could achieve “progressive goals.”

Still, her defenders note that she also wrote, “If Congress, in a particular statute, has stated its intent with respect to presidential involvement, then that is the end of the matter.” And in 2007, she gave a speech celebrating the actions of Bush lawyers who battled the White House over the legality of the warrantless surveillance program.

It’s worth noting that she hired the most prominent of them: Jack Goldsmith, the former chief of the Office of Legal Counsel, who gained prestige by attempting to roll back Bush’s excesses on torture and surveillance. Then again, it’s also worth noting that Goldsmith advocates creating a permanent national security court to entrench a “a system of non-criminal military detention for enemy terrorists who for many reasons are difficult to prosecute and convict by trial.”

It would be foolish to assume that Kagan and Goldsmith believe the same thing in this regard, absent an explicit statement on a national security court from the nominee. But “non-criminal military detention for enemy terrorists” will very likely be among the first things that Kagan would confront on the high court. Graham and Attorney General Eric Holder pledged last month to work on a system of indefinite detention without trial for a cohort of current and future terrorism detainees. Just yesterday, Holder went further, vowing to expand the Miranda warning’s “emergency” exemption clause. Beyond that, the military commissions that the administration and Congress revised last year are still untested for terrorism prosecutions, plagued by belated rules of procedure and in the midst of a potentially defining challenge about the admissibility of coerced evidence. Two senior administration officials responsible for the new scope of the commissions expressed concern last year that the process rights allowed by the commissions may not withstand judicial scrutiny.

More generally, the Obama administration may not be claiming inherent executive authority for its expansive national security agenda, as its predecessor did– it prefers to locate that power within a brief and rushed post-9/11 statement of congressional intent — but among its claims are that American citizens whom it declares are terrorist operatives can be killed without any form of due process.

In fairness, lots of judges and legal scholars, even on the left, believe that presidential authority is at its greatest during wartime. But as Greenwald has pointed out most vigorously, the most important dissenter from that perspective is the justice Kagan may replace: John Paul Stevens, who led the charge to roll back the expansive detention authority the Bush administration asserted.

Senior Obama aides have said they seek to create a “sustainable approach” on questions like terrorism detention authority that can claim a consensus within Congress and the courts that can last beyond the Obama administration’s term in office. That’s why the administration has disappointed civil libertarians on the issue so greatly. By nominating Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, Obama stands a better chance of winning judicial affirmation to whatever system he’s building with Graham. If Kagan doesn’t look like a new Stevens, it may be that the second coming of John Paul Stevens would stand sharply in the way of Obama’s desired “sustainable approach” to the intersection of national security and the law.

The Journal and Buchanan somehow overlook the five different wars — or five fronts in the “Terror War” — that Glenn Greenwald aptly points out today. We are, after all, engaged in consistent deadly bombings and raids aimed at terrorists and their sympathizers in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq.

Still, The Journal’s editors are wringing their hands over the administration’s decision to “treat terrorists like routine criminal suspects” with a right to a lawyer and a defense, rather than classifying Abdulmutallab as a “illegal enemy combatant who should be interrogated first with the goal of preventing future attacks and learning more about terror networks rather than gaining a single conviction.”

Here we have another version of former Vice President Dick Cheney’s “torture works” argument — notwithstanding all the evidence to the contrary.  The Journal and Buchanan apparently believe that the U.S. government ought to have grabbed Abdulmutallab and whisked him away to a secret prison where we could interrogate him under torture, what Cheney and The Journal’s editorial board would call “enhanced interrogation techniques” — even though the FBI, which conducts lots of interrogations, has argued in memos that such tactics are unlikely to yield useful information and make prosecution of actual terrorists impossible. U.S. military leaders and at least one Republican senator have also agreed they may aid terrorist recruitment to boot.

It’s worth noting that the Bush administration treated Richard Reid, the so-called “shoe bomber” who similarly attempted to blow up a plane shortly before Christmas in 2001, as a criminal. Reid was convicted in federal court and is now serving a life sentence in a federal prison.

In contrast, most of the suspects — including 520 Guantanamo Bay detainees — that the Bush administration treated as “enemy combatants” ended up being transferred or released. The Bush administration failed to collect any usable evidence against them, and as a result could neither try them nor continue to hold them without charge. As Republicans are quick to point out, some of those people have since joined terrorist groups back home. Indeed, reports are emerging that some may have been behind last week’s bombing attempt.

Actually, The Journal is right that, as I noted yesterday, the Obama administration’s handling of Abdulmutallab is inconsistent with the treatment of some other alleged terrorists, whom the administration has insisted it will try in military commissions rather than ordinary civilian courts. But rather than highlight the need to interrogate Abdulmutallab under torture, it underscores just how wrongheaded the warrior approach has actually been.

As Greenwald points out, our five-front war is “constantly delivering death to the Muslim world,” leading many Muslims to believe, not surprisingly, that we’re at war with Muslims, not just with terrorists.

However, prosecuting terror suspects as ordinary criminals — who, just like suspects in drug gangs and other organized crime often provide valuable information and rat out their criminal colleagues — shows Muslims and others that unlike the terrorists, we do believe in and adhere to the rule of law.

I know this isn’t a new idea, but it’s one that the Obama administration keeps getting attacked for trying to address. At a recent rally in New York against Attorney Eric Holder’s decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his suspected Sept. 11 co-conspirators in federal court, for example, anti-Obama protesters denounced the administration’s decision to accord the defendants the rights that come with a federal court trial, all the while vigorously waving the American flag and citing “our freedoms” protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Street protesters riled up by conservatives with a political agenda may be forgiven for forgetting what’s actually in the Constitution or what the flag is supposed to stand for. But The Wall Street Journal — and even Pat Buchanan — surely know better.

Glenn Greenwald has pointed out the irony of Republicans now raising fears of another terror attack simply because the president has decided to prosecute terror suspects in a way that’s consistent with American values.

But some important points are being drowned out by the hysteria. Retired Adm. John Hutson, now the dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center, yesterday observed that “there’s no particular reason to believe that if terrorists are going to take vengeance on the US for prosecuting these people, that that’s going to happen at the location or at a hard target.” A federal supermax prison or high-security New York City jail is actually “the least likely place for vengeance to be taken,” given the obstacles presented by all the security, he said on a conference call organized by Human Rights First. “The logical consequence of that stream of logic is that we not prosecute them at all to avoid some form of retribution.”

The other point largely overlooked is that while Attorney General Eric Holder announced plans to try the alleged 9/11 plotters in federal court, he also announced that the suspected USS Cole bomber, among others who’ve attacked U.S. soldiers or military targets, would be tried in the newly reconstituted military commissions. So are they getting a lesser trial?

“Despite the changes enacted by Congress this year, that untested system does not have the track record of fairness and justice that our criminal justice system has,” said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) yesterday, after praising the decision to try KSM and his alleged co-conspirators in federal court.

Col. Morris Davis, the former chief military prosecutor for the commissions, made this important point Sunday in The Wall Street Journal: having two different justice systems “establish[es] a dangerous legal double standard that gives some detainees superior rights and protections, and relegates others to the inferior rights and protections of military commissions. This will only perpetuate the perception that Guantanamo and justice are mutually exclusive.”

Another former military prosecutor, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, who resigned his post in protest last September, echoed that yesterday. “To say that you’ve achieved the gold standard for certain defendants by holding their trials in federal courts, and the rest can go to Gtmo, doesn’t necessarily resurrect the image of Gtmo or the military commissions as beacons of fairness. And if one of the stated goals in closing Gtmo is to restore America’s moral position in the world, the decision taken today won’t get us closer to accomplishing that.”

Holder’s justification for trying the Cole bomber and others by military commission is that in each case, their targets were a U.S. soldier or military installation. But isn’t that what we use our regularly constituted military courts for? Isn’t that why Major Nidal Malik Hassan, who last week apparently shot up 13 soldiers at the Fort Hood military base, is being tried by court martial? The only difference would appear to be that the suspects headed for military commissions are not American citizens. So that’s why they get an inferior justice system?

That decision combined with the implicit acknowledgment in Holder’s  announcement yesterday that U.S. federal courts a superior form of justice to the military commissions just highlights a question that’s becoming increasingly difficult to answer:  Just what is the purpose of those new military commissions?

What’s particularly interesting about the assertion this time, though, is that it doesn’t appear to be simply covering up Bush-era government misconduct. The case, Shubert v. Bush, suggests an ongoing illegal government data-mining program that intercepts and listens in on a huge range of communications by U.S. citizens. The complaint (PDF), filed by ordinary U.S. citizens living in Brooklyn, N.Y., who communicate with people in different countries, is a fascinating read that charges the government is engaged in a bizarrely vast surveillance dragnet. On the one hand, it sounds completely paranoid; on the other hand, it could be true.

We may never know, however, because if Attorney General Eric Holder has his way, the case will be dismissed before the lawyers even get a chance to investigate. That’s because the government has “to protect against a disclosure of highly sensitive, classified information that would irrevocably harm the national security of this country,” as Holder said in a statement released late on Friday. Holder has once again invoked the so-called “state secrets privilege,” this time reluctantly, he says, because “there is no way for this case to move forward without jeopardizing ongoing intelligence activities that we rely upon to protect the safety of the American people.”

In fact, federal courts handle classified and sensitive information all the time without disclosing it publicly, by filing records under seal and requiring the lawyers involved in the case to obtain security clearance. It’s unclear why that wouldn’t work in this case. But one implication of Holder’s statement is that the spying and data-mining program is ongoing, so to reveal it would harm national security.

Another equally disturbing implication of Holder’s statement is that even if the government were engaged in blatantly illegal conduct that violates the U.S. Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Wiretap Act and other federal laws, there would be no way for any U.S. citizen targeted by the government’s illegal conduct to find out, let alone to hold anyone accountable.

As Ilann Maazel, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs who filed the case, told the National Law Journal earlier today, “In the Justice Department’s view, the government is free to violate any law” based on the assertion that national security is involved. “What the government is doing is avoiding any inquiry into the program.”

Judge Vaughn Walker in the Northern District of California, where the case is pending, has previously greeted the government’s assertion of the state secrets privilege with skepticism, and, in at least one case against an Islamic charity that claimed it was wiretapped, allowed the case to proceed.

We’ll be following closely to see what he does with this one.

Scarborough made a sort of out-of-character attack.

There aren’t a lot of polls that ask for public opinion of both Nancy Pelosi  and Dick Cheney, as the former vice president is a has-been who only makes news when launching dishonest attacks about foreign policy. But the June NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll — in other words, the poll produced by the company Scarborough works for — found that only 26 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of Cheney, while 48 percent had a negative opinion of him. The same poll found that 27 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of Pelosi, while 44 percent viewed her negatively.

So: Cheney’s net negative rating is -22, while Pelosi’s is -17. The answer to Scarborough’s question is “Cheney.”

Americans’ surprise at the announcement may be best explained by a quick look at Obama’s domestic policies when it comes to the international war on terror — so let’s take a glance at Glenn Greenwald’s page today at Salon. Just below his discussion of Obama’s Nobel prize is a lengthy analysis of how the president, now with the help of Congress, has repeatedly suppressed evidence of war crimes committed by the previous administration.

From trying to exempt abuse photos from the Freedom of Information Act to dismissing torture cases on “state secrets” grounds, encouraging Congress to limit civil liberties protections against broad-based FBI snooping and refusing even to investigate cases where the Defense Department appears to have tortured detainees in its custody (let alone investigating the policymakers who approved of the abuse), the Obama administration has so far amassed a disappointing record on “peace”-related activities at home.

The Nobel Committee was obviously looking at different things when it made its award, and emphasized Obama’s ability to “capture the world’s attention” and offer people hope for the future. That’s a good start, and hopeful rhetoric is important and a welcome change for the so-called “leader of the free world.” But true diplomacy and progress and “peace” can’t come from hiding the brutality of the past.

So far, just as he’s promised a new diplomacy, the President has made lots of hopeful promises about a new transparency and accountability in government. He has yet to follow up on them.

But then he went on to say, as Glenn Greenwald tweeted yesterday, that “I think the interrogations were in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture that we ratified under President Reagan.”

Now, once you acknowledge that the CIA, at the direction of senior cabinet officials, violated international humanitarian law that requires the United States to prosecute the perpetrators, the only way to justify not investigating is to say that the executive branch of government is above the law — or, put more pragmatically, that it’s politically too messy to investigate senior leaders in the U.S. government.

Republicans didn’t hesitate to investigate when it involved Democratic President Bill Clinton, however, or to bring charges against him for lying about a personal matter. And Congress didn’t turn its backs on the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration, which led to 14 senior officials charged with crimes, and 11 convictions. And of course the Watergate affair led to the indictment and conviction of senior Nixon administration officials, and impeachment charges against the president. Congressional investigations of sitting and past administrations are far from unprecedented.

So how does McCain explain why we ought to forget the whole torture problem — which led to the deaths of a still-unknown number of detainees in custody, some of whom the CIA still can’t account for — even as he acknowledges that it violated international treaties that legally obligate us to prosecute?

“I think these interrogations helped al-Qaeda recruit,” McCain said yesterday, adding: “the damage that it did to America’s reputation in the world we’re still on the way to repairing.”

Even setting aside the legal requirements, as a practical matter, a public acknowledgment and investigation would seem to be the only way to repair that damages.

As McCain put it: “This is an ideological struggle as well as a physical one.”

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

That may be true, but there’s an aspect of one of Brennan’s recent speeches that, if actually implemented, would have the opposite effect.

As Spencer Ackerman reported here earlier, Brennan, in his speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, declared an end to the “war on terror.”

“This is not a ‘war on terror,’” Brennan said. “We cannot let the terror prism guide how we’re going to interact and be involved in different parts of the world.”

Well, if that’s the case, then how is the Obama administration going to justify “preventive detention” of terror suspects under the laws of war?

That power to detain supposedly “dangerous” people who can’t be proven guilty in any sort of court is a power the Bush administration relied on heavily and the Obama administration continues to claim. It’s at the core of President Obama’s claim that there’s a class of people who cannot be tried in criminal court or even by military commission, yet still must be held in prison because they’re “dangerous.”  That’s all been justified legally by saying that we’re at “war,” and terror suspects are warriors in the “war on terror.”

Now that the Brennan has declared an end to that war, is the Obama administration willing to relinquish its right to detain terror suspects picked up anywhere in the world?

So far, Obama has not made clear how he intends to use this “preventive detention” authority he claims that he has, though it’s as broad a detention authority as Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey claimed over a year ago. But if Brennan really has the sway over the administration that Wheeler suggests he does, then maybe Obama will soon have to concede that the “war on terror” is over — and so is his corresponding power to seize and imprison its supposed “warriors” anywhere in the world.

If, as the latest reports indicate, Attorney General Eric Holder is serious about prosecuting the worst torture and abuse of “war on terror” prisoners that occurred during the Bush administration, then there’s some key evidence he’s going to want to take a look at:  photographs. Although Bush Justice Department prosecutors claimed they didn’t have the facts to support prosecuting anyone for the mysterious deaths and disappearances of detainees hauled out of Bagram and Abu Ghraib in body bags, the photographs – which two courts have now ordered the Obama administration to turn over – would seem likely to provide some of the missing evidence.

The photos I’m talking about are the same ones that, back in April, President Obama promised to release to the public by May. Then, after consulting with Defense Department and CIA leaders, he changed his mind. After the American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to obtain them, the photographs were ordered released by  a federal district court in New York in 2005 and then the court of appeals in 2008; both courts agreed that the photos are critical to the public debate over torture and the U.S. government’s counterterrorism tactics, and don’t fall under any exemption to the freedom of information law. Still, the Obama administration isn’t budging.

While the case was on appeal, lawyers from the same Washington law firm that Holder was then working at, Covington & Burling, wrote a powerful brief on behalf of 22 legal experts on the laws of war arguing for the photos’ release. These sorts of images are in part responsible for the regime of international humanitarian law that we have today, they argued.

The cornerstone of modern international humanitarian law — the Geneva Conventions of 1949 — was adopted after the release of vivid images of Nazi concentration camp survivors. And it was the United States and General Dwight D. Eisenhower himself who insisted on distributing huge volumes of these photos to the media. The images of corpses, prisoner remains and emaciated survivors helped persuade nations around the world to develop and adopt new universal humanitarian norms.

It’s because images can be so powerful and can motivate action that the Obama administration now wants to suppress them.

On Friday, the Justice Department filed a petition with the Supreme Court arguing that releasing the photos of detainee abuse would so inflame public opinion against the United States abroad that it would endanger the lives of U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(Initially, the government refused to turn them over on the grounds that they would violate the privacy rights of the detainees. After the ACLU and the court agreed to have the photos redacted to conceal identifying information and protect personal privacy, the government came up with this second reason to object.)

On its face, the argument sounds pretty reasonable. I have to admit that when the administration first announced its change of heart, though Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan and many others were immediately outraged, I was somewhat sympathetic. After all, the Freedom of Information Act does include an exception to releasing information if it would reasonably be expected to “endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.” The photos of abuse at Abu Ghraib were certainly alarming. And who would want to endanger the lives of U.S. troops?

Meanwhile, the Justice Department had collected sworn statements from top military generals — including General Richard Myers, then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Nation’s highest ranking military officer — saying that releasing the photos would do just that. Who are we to question the top brass?

Amrit Singh, an ACLU lawyer handling the case, answered that for me yesterday. “The argument the government has put forward is unacceptable because it would afford the greatest protection from disclosure to records that depict the worst kind of government misconduct. That is fundamentally inconsistent with FOIA. And it’s fundamentally inconsistent with democracy.”

It’s a good point. Though I want to protect our troops as much as anybody, it turns out the law wasn’t drafted to protect Americans from retaliation that might result because their country did something illegal, or even just really embarrassing. If it were, then evidence of any illegal or upsetting U.S. government conduct would be exempt from disclosure. And that would defeat the entire purpose of the Freedom of Information law.

According to the Supreme Court, the purpose of FOIA is “to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.” So you can see how that would be seriously compromised by the government’s interpretation of the law here.

It turns out that when you look at the language of FOIA, the government’s interpretation doesn’t make much sense either.

Exemption 7(f) allows an agency to withhold “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information … could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.”

But does “any individual” mean any conceivable individual out there, or some specific individual that the government can identify?

The appeals court ruled that because Congress said the release must endanger “any individual” rather than just “endanger life or physical safety” generally to be considered exempt, Congress must have meant some identifiable individual – a particular witness to a crime or subject of a law enforcement investigation, for example. If Congress had meant to include any member of a group of people who could possibly become the target of someone’s anger, it would have used the more general phrase, the court reasoned. So the court ruled the exemption doesn’t apply, and the Obama administration has to turn over the photographs.

Now, the administration faces a dilemma. When it released the Office of Legal Counsel memos written by the now-infamous John Yoo authorizing the administration to torture prisoners abroad, it wasn’t prepared for the media firestorm that erupted — and the growing public pressure to prosecute. Reluctant to face that again, Obama and senior officials in his administration are trying hard now not to stoke the fires. (Even if they can go along with a limited prosecution along the lines of what Holder has described, they certainly don’t want to face calls for prosecuting senior Bush officials.)

But it looks like they can’t legally stop this release.

Sill, they can delay it. Supreme Court review could delay the case months or even years, depending on what the court decides to do. In the meantime, other reports will be released about the Bush era anti-terror tactics. Those include the Senate Intelligence committee’s investigation led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the report from the ethics division of the Justice Department, the Office of Professional Responsibility, on the work of the Justice Department lawyers who crafted the memos, and, of course, the 2004 CIA inspector general report I wrote about earlier that’s supposed to be released by Aug. 24.

Which raises the question whether the government will invoke Exemption 7(f) of FOIA to try to withhold that report. After all, couldn’t the government make the exact same argument about the CIA report that it’s making about the photos? You see the slippery slope we’re on.

The CIA report apparently describes cases of murder and abuse so horrific that Holder was moved to consider initiating prosecutions. And that’s despite the fact that the Justice Department under President George W. Bush investigated those cases, but decided not to prosecute them. That report must be pretty upsetting.

So don’t be surprised if we start hearing that we shouldn’t be allowed to see that one either, because someone somewhere might get hurt.

The administration could, of course, try to distinguish the report from the photographs, arguing that, essentially, a picture is worth a thousand words. The photos may be just too powerful.

When faced with the atrocities of the Nazi concentration camps at the close of World War II, Eisenhower found that words failed him:

I have never felt able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face to face with indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I am certain, however that I have never at any other time experienced an equal sense of shock . . . as soon as I returned to Patton’s headquarters that evening I sent communications to both Washington and London, urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and British publics in a fashion that would leave no room for cynical doubt.

-Dwight D. Eisenhower, Crusade in Europe (1977), at 408-09.

One can only conclude that the Obama administration is taking refuge in that doubt, or is not prepared to face the consequences in this country once the veil of doubt is lifted.

According to Newsweek, although the public demand for prosecutions had seemed to die down, in late June Holder spent two days holed up in his office poring over a classified CIA inspector general report on interrogation abuses and was “shocked and saddened” by what he read. The New York Times later reported that if Holder does open an investigation, it’s likely to be a narrow one, “focusing only on C.I.A. interrogators and contract employees who clearly crossed the line and violated the Bush administration’s guidelines and engaged in flagrantly abusive acts.”

That’s what The Post’s editorial board now wants as well, arguing that “those who relied on the memos and shaped their behavior in the good-faith belief that they were following the law should not be subject to prosecution.”

Of course, that’s exactly what former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Vice President Dick Cheney argued more than a year ago. Will President Obama’s attorney general now conduct an investigation according to the strict parameters those Bush administration officials set out back then, which were widely viewed as self-serving?

Glenn Greenwald today points out the absurdity of the Justice Department’s going after low-level criminals and ignoring the bosses who instructed and cheered them on. That’s precisely the opposite of the way the Justice Department usually goes after criminal investigations — at least the ones it takes seriously.

As Greenwald puts it:

That, in a nutshell, is the twisted Washington mentality when it comes to lawbreaking:  when political crimes become so blatant and extreme that they can no longer be safely excused (Watergate, Iran-contra, Abu Ghraib), then it’s necessary to sacrifice some underlings who carried out the crimes by prosecuting them, but — no matter what else happens — the high-level political officials responsible for the crimes must be shielded from all accountability.  In ordinary criminal justice, what typically guides prosecutions is the opposite mindset:  namely, a willingness to immunize low-level soldiers in order to ensure that the higher-level criminals suffer the consequences of their crimes.  But when it comes to crimes committed by political officials in America’s Versailles culture, only the pawns are subjected to the rule of law while the monarchs and their highest royal court aides are immunized.