Deservedly Scathing

One of America's best journalists who still doesn't get the recognition that he deserves basically held back no punches in highlighting how the Obama Administration has somehow left the Department of Justice in a state of politicization.

In an article written today at the Huffington Post, the industrious Dan Froomkin reminded us of the departure of the man tipped to make the closing of Guantanamo Bay be a smooth process. And further reminded us about how his replacement is not the steadfast voice required to steer the Administration to the right direction it advocated for during the campaign.

Greg Craig, as Obama's top lawyer, was the point man on a number of hot-button issues, the fieriest being how to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Craig argued for holding fast to the principles that Obama outlined before he became president, regardless of the immediate political consequences -- an idealistic approach that, in a White House filled with increasingly pusillanimous pragmatists, earned him some powerful enemies.

After a steady drip of leaks over a period of months to the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and other news outlets to the effect that his days were numbered, Craig finally resigned in November.

He was replaced by Robert Bauer, a politically adept consummate Washington insider whose expertise is in campaign finance law -- in short, a man whose job is to win elections, not defend principles.

Now as other sources have indicated, the Administration said Craig's departure was actually planned on and given a time limit.

"He was always slated to leave at the end of the year," one White House official told The Cable, speaking on background basis. Craig developed a close personal relationship with Obama during the presidential campaign and wanted to stay on in some foreign policy capacity, the official said. "He was reluctant at first but agreed to take the job out of loyalty to the president with caveat that he would return to private practice at the end of the year," the official said.

But other have indicated that this is the nice sugar coating of what really happen with Craig egressing his position. And that is the painful continuation of the politicization of a department that was suppose to have its existence of being a political football end with a new Administration.

Instead, the continuing buddy buddy thing Rahm and Lindsay Graham have going on continues. And that reach across the isle has extended to even the very crazy:

Emanuel is apparently even wooing Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the bombastic ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, who opposes closing Guantanamo and supports a ban on civilian trials of terror suspects. According to the Hill, Emanuel told King that he was "on his side", although King wasn't exactly sure what Emanuel was talking about.

Now why Emanuel is given the green light to talk to a nutcase like king is beyond me?

And would that happen if Craig were still in the position instead of Bauer? I really have a hard time believing so (or if it did happen, you sure would have heard Craig's disaproval spread throughout the capital), as Froomkin indicates from a close source:

And with Bauer serving in Craig's place, the pushback is lacking.

Even White House officials don't disagree that Bauer, who was general counsel for Obama's presidential campaign and chief counsel at the Democratic National Committee, is taking a fundamentally different approach to the job than his predecessor did.

Craig was undeniably opinionated. By contrast, a White House spokesperson told HuffPost: "Bob does not approach the position of White House counsel advocating for a particular set of policy preferences. He thinks that his role as counsel is to give the best legal advice available to the president and to other staff members in the White House."

So he doesn't stake out a position and defend it? "The White House counsel's office has not developed under Bauer a policy recommendation," the spokesperson said. "In the context of any pending legal question or pending policy, what they've done is to outline a range of options given their reading of the opportunities."

This even prompted a quote from a usually reserved figure expressing discontent over this situation

The White House did not make Bauer available for comment. And Craig declined several interview requests. But Craig's friends are horrified. Bauer is "becoming a validator and an enabler, rather than someone on the president's staff who keeps him out of trouble," said Steve Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.

What Craig did was to try to keep Obama true to his campaign rhetoric about reversing the extremist legal views of the previous administration.

"To Greg Craig, that was a defining characteristic of what the Obama administration was supposed to be about," Clemons said. "He ended up being the guy who kept pulling Obama toward his own moral and legal and political commitments."

In addition to the focus on the aftermath on Craig leaving the current President behind, Froomkin notes one aspect that isn't a good sign: How Attorney General Eric Holder's voice has been marginalized in the Administration over the last several months:

Meanwhile, not invited to the key meetings anymore, Holder is expressing no regrets about his decision. At a recent congressional hearing, he addressed the arguments in favor of military commissions: Yes, commissions are a bit more flexible on admitting hearsay, but national security information is protected in both venues, defendants have similar rights in both, and experienced civilian prosecutors can actually be more aggressive than military prosecutors arguing in the unfamiliar setting of a military commission, he said.

And in a final highlight of this terrific read from the former White House correspondent of the Washington Post (before Fred Kaplan has flushed its op-ed page down the toilet in such stunning fashion), Froomkin reports on the possible compromise deal that could be made here on Gitmo and upcoming terrorists trials:

Tom Wilner, a Washington attorney who argued on behalf of Guantanamo detainees in the Supreme Court's 2004 and 2008 cases, in which they won habeas corpus rights, told HuffPost that he understands how the White House could feel it has to make a deal with members of Congress.

"I can imagine them saying, 'Look if I need to give up the trial of these five guys to military commissions in order to get Guantanamo closed and to preserve the right to try others in civilian courts, that's not a deal I particularly like, but overall I think it's worthwhile.' And I can understand them saying that," Wilner said.

"It's a shame, though, from my standpoint, because it makes no sense to try these people, who are the most important terrorists, in forums -- the military commissions -- that have less credibility and are untested and subject to challenge."

Wilner said it's also a shame because it undermines the message Obama ran on, "which is that we don't need to avoid our institutions to fight terrorism, that our existing institutions work and they're our strongest assets in the fight against global terrorism." That's a strong, consistent message, and one he should have stuck to.

And what makes it even more intricate that it needs to be is the possibility that at least one Republican Senator, despite the compromise, still doesn't look poised to be bipartisan and vote with the Democrats.

Froomkin's read is full of quality, where if you haven't been closely following this like some have been able to, you certainly will be caught up to speed in a few minutes.

Let us hope that President Obama just makes the right decision here. It's easier than using your nose to breathe oxygen. It backs up the continued pledge of America "coming back into the world" that he has strived for publicly for some many times. And it doesn't relapse into letting the nutty party placed barricades on his agenda, something he indicated today on...."Today."

Once again, the decision is up to him. But it would be another real blow to just common sense and the principle of law in our country if he doesn't stick to something he vehemently wanted, something that needs to be done correctly.

And it would be another real blow of not living up to a campaign based on doing the smart, right thing.