THE HALFWAY PUNDIT

Justice Now Means Dodging Drones Anywhere

2012-01-23T19:58:00.004-05:00

Anwar Awlaki (American-born citizen killed by Drone). President Obama who approved the attack

The subject of Awlaki's killing (assassination some conclude) is well-documented, well, sort of. According to this article by Glenn Greenwald in Salon.com we will have an explanation, but it's not apt to satisfy most of us for many reasons. Greenwald lays it out pretty concisely and it is worth your time to read the piece.

I take away several points that interest me about this whole subject. The subject is justice for actual terrorists in our custody, or terrorist suspects (in our custody who may or may not be a terrorist like those at Gitmo), or people on the run who may/or may not be terrorist or even connected to terrorists.

Drone killings are on the rise and it is a main issue for this decade, and probably much longer. The points I find penetrating from the Greenwald piece follow:

First, regarding the main character of the piece, 27-year-old Lebanon-born, ex-British citizen Bilal el-Berjawi killed by an American drone in Somalia recently:

• El-Berjawi’s family vehemently denies that he is involved with Terrorism, but he was never able to appeal the decree against him for this reason:

• Berjawi is understood to have sought to appeal against the order, but lawyers representing his family were unable to take instructions from him amid concerns that any telephone contact could precipitate a drone attack. Obviously, those concerns were valid.

Second, tie that part of the story to the Awlaki drone killing:

• A Daily Beast report today says that the Obama administration “is finally going to break its silence” on the Awlaki killing, but here’s what they will and will not disclose:

• In the coming weeks, according to four participants in the debate, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. is planning to make a major address on the administration’s national-security record. Embedded in the speech will be a carefully worded but firm defense of its right to target U.S. citizens.

• An early draft of Holder’s speech identified Awlaki by name, but in a concession to concerns from the intelligence community, all references to the al Qaeda leader were removed. As currently written, the speech makes no overt mention of the Awlaki operation, and reveals none of the intelligence the administration relied on in carrying out his killing.

• In other words, they’re going to dispatch Eric Holder to assert that the U.S. Government has the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination by-CIA-drone, but will not even describe a single piece of evidence to justify the claim that Awlaki was guilty of anything.

Continue at the main link above. Makes for excellent reading and as usual, Greenwald makes it easy to follow and comprehend. Enjoy.

Permanent Detention (U.S. citizens included) - Maybe

2011-12-31T17:24:00.008-05:00

Got 'cha ... (maybe)

Updated (December 31, 2011) -- As promised, and regarding President Obama's "signing statement" attached to the DOD spending bill regarding the following subject. The whole story is here. Key pieces of that statement are ...

1. The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

2. The president said, in part: "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

3. Despite the changes, [some] officials cited serious concerns that the law will complicate and could harm the investigation of terrorism cases.

Original two updates follow:

#1: Verbatim from President Obama to issue "signing statement" re: Detention of Detainees Including U.S. Citizens from TPMMuckraker.TalkingPointsMemo.com here.

Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed speculation Wednesday that President Barack Obama would issue a signing statement when he makes the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its controversial detention provisions law. “We made really substantial progress in moving from something that was really unacceptable to the administration to something with which we still have problems,” Holder said in response to a question from the Wall Street Journal’s Evan Perez. “But I think through these procedures, with these regulations we will be crafting, we can minimize the problems that will actually affect us in an operational way.”

Holder said the language of the NDAA had been moved in a “substantial way” from some of the original language which led the president to issue a veto threat. “So we are in a better place, I think the regulations, procedures that will help, and we’ll also have a signing statement from the president” which will help clarify how they view the law, Holder said.

#2: From Salon.com and Glenn Greenwald here.

"For that reason, it is very worthwhile to briefly examine — and debunk — the three principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill, and to do so very simply: by citing the relevant provisions of the bill, as well as the relevant passages of the original 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), so that everyone can judge for themselves what this bill actually includes (this is all above and beyond the evidence I assembled in writing about this bill yesterday)." (emphasis is mine).

As part of the defense spending bill, rules for detention of suspected and/or alleged terrorist have changed - dramatically.

Original Post: News stories are following this kind of headline (from HuffingtonPost.com):

WASHINGTON -- Congress would give the president ultimate authority to detain American citizens indefinitely in military custody under the final version of a defense bill expected to pass this week. The National Defense Authorization Act was facing the threat of a presidential veto after the White House complained that it restricted the administration's ability to fight terrorism and raised "serious and unsettled legal questions." The conference committee working out the differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill added and amended several provisions in an attempt to produce legislation that would pass muster with President Barack Obama, who appealed personally for fixes.

But the version released Monday night still contains the authority to indefinitely imprison suspects linked to al Qaeda or associated groups, including citizens captured in the United States.

"We have [in the bill] the authority to detain without charge or trial terrorism suspects. There aren't any material changes to the indefinite detention provision," says Raha Wala, a lawyer with the Law and Security Program of the group Human Rights First in a recent conference call. On the Rachel Maddow Show (MSNBC.MSN.com) a sharp lawyer from the ACLU (Mr. Jameel Jaffer) has an easy explanation of the long term impact of this, if it stands, vis-a-vis the United States vs. the World. That short 7-minute clip can be seen here - it is worth watching.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com offers his review of this issue, which he has written about extensively. I post it here from his latest post: "In one of the least surprising developments imaginable, President Obama – after spending months threatening to veto the Levin/McCain detention bill – yesterday announced that he would instead sign it into law (this is the same individual, of course, who unequivocally vowed when seeking the Democratic nomination to support a filibuster of “any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom[s],” only to turn around – once he had the nomination secure — and not only vote against such a filibuster, but to vote in favor of the underlying bill itself, so this is perfectly consistent with his past conduct). As a result, the final version of the Levin/McCain bill will be enshrined as law this week as part of the the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I wrote about the primary provisions and implications of this bill last week, and won’t repeat those points here.

"The ACLU said last night (on the Maddow Show) that the bill contains “harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world” and added: “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage his legacy.” Human Rights Watch said that Obama’s decision “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad” and that “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."

More at the Salon.com link.

So, have we now made Gitmo forever, even for American citizens suspected but not given their full rights to prove otherwise? Is the military now taking over law enforcement and if so, how can that be legal (possibly under Posse Comitatus)? Far too many questions remain unanswered. The USSC needs to weigh in, but will they? That remains to be seen.

This a very complex issue in very complex times, however, there is a growing concern, and rightly so that we are treading on thin ice here and the long-term impact will be irreversible regarding loss our guaranteed civil rights.

Stay tuned. There will certainly will be more following this signing statement.

Rep. Bachmann: You are flat out wrong

2011-11-17T19:11:00.002-05:00

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN): Further off the reservation on torture issue.

Story [click here].

I posted this at the story site:

Rep. Bachmann and anyone else like her who believes that waterboarding is not torture, or just an “enhanced” interrogation technique, or that it's okay since our troops under go it, too, are in a word: insane. Here's why.

1. Waterboarding is torture and has been for decades. We have prosecuted people for carrying conducting it and that included prosecution after WWII and in VN.

2. There is no such thing as an “enhanced” interrogation technique except in the minds of those peddling the myth.

3. Our troops do not undergo waterboarding as many try to explain the way they do to prop up their weak argument.

Some of our troops (select pilots, flight crew members; some special ops personnel, and those who are apt to operate in units behind enemy lines and face capture more so than average combat soldiers) face torture and waterboard and other things as part of the SERE training program. That program is explained this way:

Survive (the crash or ambush, for example); Evade (the enemy as long as possible); Resist (resist interrogation as long as possible, and that may include harsh punishment); and Escape (whenever possible).

I know the rules. I was a Marine interrogator and DOD interrogator for nearly 12 years later in my career. At one point I used to teach the Resist portion to show how harsh, or as nearly harsh potential enemy interrogation could be. We took many of our troops to the edge, but we never harmed anyone in the process.

Rep. Bachmann is flat out wrong and so is anyone else who thinks that same way.

Bottom Line: Professional Interrogators, real professional interrogators, know the rules and follow the law. Those GOP candidates for president like Bachmann and several others who support waterboarding and claim it is not torture are not ready for the office, let ready to be the CINC.

Faces of those who made torture U.S. policy

2011-11-06T12:44:00.005-05:00

Top (L-R): Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Alberto Gonzales.

Bottom (L-R): David Addington, Jim Haynes, John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and George Tenet

All are former high-ranking U.S. government officials, both elected and appointed, and all very powerful.

Call them the "Bush Torture Team" — They authorized it, they decided how to implement it, and they crafted the legal fig leaf to justify it. The rest is history, however reflection never hurts, or does it?

• April 16, 2009: On this date, the Obama administration released four memos that were used to authorize torture in interrogations during the Bush administration. When President Obama released the memos, he said, "It is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.”

The problem is, those who carried out their "duties relying on good faith" should have know better - if they were professional interrogators, which we now know many were not.

Plus, the "legal advice" from DOJ in those secret John Yoo/Jay Bybee memos approved up and down the line, were designed to take the illegal (torture is and has been illegal, unlawful and a war crimes for decades) and made torture somehow "legal" — that is, to provide cover for future prosecution, which apparently the Obama is willing to provide.

Of the "13" that this article highlights, and not pictured above are John Rizzo, Steven Bradbury, and Jim Mitchell (along with this partner, Bruce Jessen).

Summary: Between 9/11 and the end of 2002, the "Torture 13" (10 pictured above and three not pictured) decided to torture detainees, then they reverse-engineered the techniques, and then they crafted the legal cover.

So, here is who they are, and summary of what role they played and what they did. Can it ever be proven in a court of law, or will it? That is doubtful. And, that is the biggest crime of all. (follow the link here).

We should never be reluctant to reflect on the past. We have to hope that we never made these same mistakes again, either by accident, or on purpose and by design. Justice is never served the way we have handled this issue.

We say we are a country of laws and not men. We say that no one is above or beneath the law. So, are we? Dop we really practice what we preach? At this point, I say no. It is one huge hypocritical lie.

What does that say for the country and for our future?

Justice Redefined: Purposely Target Americans

2011-10-22T23:33:00.002-04:00

American-born Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki (born in New Mexico): Targeted and killed in Yemen

Update (October 22, 2011) of following story from The AP at NPR: "Tribal Elders: Al-Awlaki's Son Killed in Airstrike"

Highlights include: The Yemeni Defense Ministry identified one of the slain as the media chief, Egyptian-born Ibrahim al-Bana. Tribal elders in the area also said the dead also included Abdul-Rahman al-Awlaki, the 21-year-old son of Anwar al-Awlaki (pictured above).

However, the family of the young al-Awlaki says he was born in Denver, Colorado on August 26 1995, therefore he is not 21 years old as the media has been reporting, but 16 years old. He had been a resident of the city of Sana'a since he returned from the U.S. with his family in 2002.

This is a whole new twist, but one not apt to get much attention - that's the nature of these things today. Instant, dramatic news and then 24 hours later, "What news?"

A long winding trail of a very complex story comes to an end with his death in Yemen by a U.S. drone attack. The complete story is here from the AP - highlights follow:

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a devastating double blow to al-Qaida's most dangerous franchise, U.S. counter-terrorism forces killed two American citizens who played major roles in inspiring attacks against the United States, U.S. and Yemeni officials said Friday (September 30, 2011). US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who edited a slick Jihadi Internet magazine, were killed in an air strike on their convoy in Yemen by a joint CIA-US military operation, according to counter-terrorism officials. Al-Awlaki was targeted in the killing. Khan apparently was not targeted directly.

After three weeks of tracking the targets, US armed drones and fighter jets shadowed the al-Qaida convoy, before armed drones launched the lethal strike. The strike killed four operatives in all, officials said. All officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss matters of intelligence. [continue at the above link].

Background: It is important and critical to understand the full depth and background of this story because it opens up an old scab on a very old sore. And, no one, in my opinion, has written about extensively about it in such clear and understandable legal terms than Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com [his reviews start here]. A few extracts are important to set the stage about this story, which I'm pretty sure is not over yet, even with the death of al-Awlaki.

Glenn Greenwald's Own Words:

"It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki. No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was "considering" indicting him). Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even has any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt. When Awlaki's father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were "state secrets" and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts. He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner. When Awlaki's inclusion on President Obama's hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that "it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing."

"After several unsuccessful efforts to assassinate its own citizen, the U.S. succeeded today (and it was the U.S.). It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off from murdering his own citizens to help the U.S. murder its. The U.S. thus transformed someone who was, at best, a marginal figure into a martyr, and again showed its true face to the world. The government and media search for The Next bin Laden has undoubtedly already commenced." (Note: The points I want to emphasize are in red. They are not Greenwald's highlights).

Continue Greenwald's coverage of this very important story from this link. There are many branches to this story, or as Yogi Berra might say, "It ain't over till it's over."

"Dark" Dick strikes again and again

2011-08-31T14:30:00.010-04:00

Cheney in his own words: "I would strongly support using it (water boarding) again if we had a high-value detainee and that was the only way we could get him to talk." (NBC's DATELINE)

Prior to starting his book tour (about his memoir, In My Time), he said people's heads would explode. Well, he is correct about that if incorrect about so much more.

My head is still exploding over the question of why the U.S. (and yes, even under Mr. Obama) has not and apparently will not prosecute Bush and Cheney (admitted they ordered and approved torture and yes, water boarding is torture), or a few others involved in torture. Water boarding is unlawful, illegal, and a war crimes and it has been for decades. This hair-splitting about Bush-Cheney and others "don't call it torture" matters now in the face of the law. Even a John Yoo-Jay Bybee memo has tried to make the illegal, legal because that is what Bush-Cheney wanted the OLC to do. They did and the rest is history, but I hope it is not complete yet.

Let's be perfectly clear on this whole topic of "enhanced" interrogation techniques. First of all, it's a buzzword used for torture for people who do not know an interrogation technique from a handshake. Second, the word is used to justify war crimes about torture like water boarding. All the excuses being used to "justify" it are flat out false and misleading that come from high-ranking people like Cheney and Bush who make such outrageous statements about something they know nothing about as they admit to the crime. And, Mr. Obama apparently is willing to give them a pass - for what reason I simply cannot figure out.

History of water boarding is outlined here and at other places. This site provides good links to other sources (most of them legal-based sites).

Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago (source ABC News). A photograph that appeared in the Washington Post showing a soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment. "The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in the Washington Post -- he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.

Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines.

How can anyone openly and proudly admit to a crime, any crime, and as serious as torture get off Scott-free in our country - the country we all claim is based on law and order and one of laws and not men?

Heads exploding; yes, they are and for good reason. However, and sadly, reason had taken a back seat to what, I am still not sure.

More follows at this blog below -- enjoy your research.

When a confession to a crime is not punishable by law

2011-08-25T20:22:00.004-04:00

"We did?" No sir, "We" did not. You two ordered torture in the name of "We, the People."

According to the law, a confession is defined as a voluntarily admission of wrongdoing.

Some individuals feel the need to confess to unload guilty feelings. Politicians confess when the chips are down and they feel compelled to protect their careers or families in some cases. The are levels of crimes and levels of confessions about those crimes.

However, confessing to a crime isn't as simple as merely opening your mouth and speaking or signing a document saying "I did it."

But, in the case of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney confessing to a crime is okay.

To wit:

One guesses that in America confessing to a crime is not punishable by law any longer??

• Cheney admitted that he okayed water boarding as reported here: Interview with ABC News One

• Bush says he approved water boarding as reported here.

Let's be clear: Water boarding is torture. Torture is illegal, unlawful, and a war crimes.

How come we are not prosecuting war criminals in our own country at the same time we go after them outside the U.S. in droves as we act all "holier than thou" in our quest for law and order and of course our favorite word: "In the name of justice?"

I'd have to say we are hypocrites to the umpteenth level.

Mr. Cheney is coming out with his memoir on August 30, 2011. Leading up to that release date, he has been hitting the media circuits to hawk advance sales and copies of the book. One sample extract from NBC is here:

JAMIE GANGEL: In your view, we should still be using enhanced interrogation?

DICK CHENEY: Yes.

JAMIE GANGEL: No regrets?

DICK CHENEY: No regrets.

JAMIE GANGEL: Should we still be water boarding terror suspects?

DICK CHENEY: I would strongly support using it again if we had a high value detainee and that was the only way we could get him to talk.

JAMIE GANGEL: Even though so many people have condemned it, people call it torture; you think it should still be a tool?

DICK CHENEY: Yes.

Stay tuned. But for anyone to take sides on this issue along with Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney is as un-American as ordering and supervising water boarding, or any other "enhanced technique." They all amount to torture. Believe me, I know - I was an interrogator for over 10 years.

Closing the Books on Torture — Apparently Not

2011-08-13T00:38:00.003-04:00

U.S. Torture Policy: A Matter of Fact. One Huge Crime Scene. The Gates of Hell. But the evidence

has been destroyed (those CIA tapes — update below).

Update and More Background (August 12, 2011): A Federal Judge will not pursue action against the CIA for the destroyed interrogation tapes, an action that has been pending from 2005-2007 (link here). Refresher on the topic from the NY Times here. NY Times archives on related subjects here.

Previous Update (July 4, 2011): This article asks precisely the right and appropriate question: Is Torture In America's Future As Well As In Our Country's Past?

Notes from that article: The Fourth of July is a joyous celebration of the United States' independence. And yet this country finds itself turning 235 at a morally precarious moment. That's because President Barack Obama has made it clear that we don't torture now -- but he's done very little to ensure that we won't do it again in the future. The Justice Department's Thursday announcement that it has closed its investigation into all torture-related actions save two particularly gruesome fatalities was a poignant reminder of that inaction (see that aspect further down the page).

Obama has renounced torture. He has issued a new executive order defining acceptable interrogation techniques. He has reasserted the illegality of many of the techniques used in American prisons around the world during the first few years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But he has also repeatedly expressed his desire to "look forward instead of looking backward." As a result, there has yet to be any accountability for the actions of the Bush/Cheney administration. And none appears forthcoming.Without accountability -- without either criminal prosecutions or some sort of official national reckoning of what took place -- there's no reason to think that the next time a perceived emergency comes up, some other president or vice president will not decide to torture again.

My View: This has been my concern all along. That our national honor — our very soul in fact — are at stake and for anyone, including Mr. Obama on down the line who do NOT take this more serious is a grave breach of trust for us as a people and as a nation — one who always says it "We lead the world on human rights issues." Apparently we do not.

Original Post is from Here: One of my fav constitutional lawyers and scholars for anyone who reads this blog will see that it is Glenn Greenwald who writes for Salon.com. I reference and link his work at this page. I respect his view and work. He is seldom wrong on the tough issues. He wraps up the story of our torture policy at this point in a piece on torture and two scapegoats to be punished, or so it seems. I hope, however, that this is not his last article or say-so one on this serious topic. Part is his latest follows this short review, which I want to highlight in my own editing taken from his post linked below:

"If any democrat who had any balls and ample support (read: people and money) were to challenge Mr. Obama in a democratic primary next year, it should be over the issue of neglect: Detainee neglect and torture."

GREENWALD SAYS THE STORY IS APPARENTLY OVER — a portion follows: "Some 100 detainees died during U.S. interrogations, dozens due directly to interrogation abuse.

"Gen. Barry McCaffrey said: "We tortured people unmercifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during the course of that, both the armed forces and the C.I.A."

"Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who oversaw the official investigation into detainee abuse, wrote: "there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

"Thanks to the Obama DOJ, that is no longer in question." Continue the story here.

I would have to say in all honesty that is a national disgrace. It will haunt us for decades. We all share in this national shame. The greatest shame is on Mr. Obama, and certainly those before him who broke the law on purpose and continue right until today breaking the law.

They can all breathe a sigh of relief (again) right now based on this latest ruling, but how any of them sleep at night, remains a mystery to me and those who think the way I do on this topic.

The GOP-Rightwing Can't Stop Itching for a New Scratch

2011-05-05T11:33:00.008-04:00

GOP-Rightwing Illogical Chain of Events Fantasy: Torture (water boarding) of KSM led to bin-Laden

As old Southern hunters say: "That dawg won't hunt."

The GOP-Rightwingers badly want to justify and/or make torture common practice and permanent U.S. policy no matter what it takes, even if lies and myth and hype work over facts and the truth, then by golly, they'll make that dawg hunt, and hunt until the poor things drops dead from exhaustion. Then, they'll pick up another dawg and keep on hunting. They even drug out old VP "Deadeye" Dick Cheney to help on the hunt (let's hope that poor old Harry Whittington stayed home this time).

The story of how we tracked down bin-Laden and killed him on May 1, 2011 is a myth in the making - real prime time FOX-sorta of fake reality show stuff. Let's review the facts, neatly and logically laid out by a number of people who track these things a lot closer than I do: the NY Times and Michael Isikoff's fine analysis follow.

From Michael Isikoff: NBC's National Investigative Correspondent, in part (emphases are mine):

"The trail that led to the doorstep of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan began years earlier with aggressive interrogations of al-Qaida detainees at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and CIA “black site" prisons overseas, according to U.S. officials.

"It was those sometimes controversial interrogations that first produced descriptions of members of bin Laden’s courier network, including one critical Middle Eastern courier who along with his brother was protecting bin Laden at his heavily fortified compound in Abbottabad on Sunday. Both the courier and his brother were among those killed, along with bin Laden, in the dramatic raid by U.S. special forces.

"The behind-the-scenes story of how bin Laden was finally located is yet to be fully told, but emerging details seem likely to reignite the debate over whether “enhanced interrogation” techniques and other aggressive methods that have been widely criticized by human rights groups provided useful – or timely -- intelligence about al-Qaida. While some current and former U.S. officials credited those interrogations Monday with producing the big break in the case, others countered that they failed to produce what turned out to be the most crucial piece of intelligence of all: the identity and whereabouts of the most important figure in bin Laden courier's network.

“Multiple sources of intelligence led us to where we are,” one senior U.S. intelligence official, who like the others spoke on condition of anonymity told reporters. "Key information was gleaned from detainees (and) that detainee reporting provided insight into the (bin Laden) courier network.”

Continue reading Isikoff here

The New York Times presents a timeline of events that is worthwhile reading (here). A few highlights follow (again, the emphases are mine):

"As intelligence officials disclosed the trail of evidence that led to the compound in Pakistan where bin-Laden was hiding, a chorus of Bush administration officials claimed vindication for their policy of “enhanced interrogation techniques” like waterboarding. Among them was John Yoo, a former Justice Department official who wrote secret legal memorandums justifying brutal interrogations. He wrote in part this in the National Review: “President Obama can take credit, rightfully, for the success. But he owes it to the tough decisions taken by the Bush administration.”

The key parts we must focus on continue to perplex people:

"But a closer look at prisoner interrogations suggests that the harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying bin-Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out. One detainee who apparently was subjected to some tough treatment provided a crucial description of the courier, according to current and former officials briefed on the interrogations. But two prisoners who underwent some of the harshest treatment — including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times — repeatedly misled their interrogators about the courier’s identity..."

The NY Times continues here

A good summary from my standpoint is best summarized this way:

“The bottom line is this: If we had some kind of smoking-gun intelligence from waterboarding in 2003, we would have taken out Osama bin Laden in 2003,” said Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council. “It took years of collection and analysis from many different sources to develop the case that enabled us to identify this compound, and reach a judgment that Bin Laden was likely to be living there.”

Government-Approved Torture: Lies, Deception, and Arrogance

2011-02-10T21:05:00.001-05:00

Hear, Speak, See no torture

“A nation can survive its fools, even its ambitious; it cannot survive lies from its government.” — Cicero

Update *(January 22, 2011): Everything that follows this posting are posts I have re-published from those originally posted in August 2009. My purpose is to ensure that we cannot lose focus on this issue by allowing it to be placed on the back burner or take a backseat in history like other "political problems" have - to be ignored.

Thanks for stopping by here - I hope you enjoy your research on this timely subject through this site and those sites linked herein.

Please note that over time, some links may have become broken, or out of date. However, if you type the subject in the search window at the broken site location, it should help put you back on track. If the link still remains unavailable, I apologize - please let me know.

The heart of this chain of events surrounding this topic are well documented at sites herein, which should not be not broken - they in most cases are a matter of law.

As you read these entries, please keep this in mind: Article 2(2) and 2(3) of the UN Convention against Torture states and applicable U.S. laws still apply despite the secret memos and rulings otherwise:

“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war, or threat of war, or internal political instability, or any other public emergency may be invoked or used as a justification for torture. An order from a superior officer or other public authority may not be invoked as a justification for torture.”

Enjoy your research. — dmf

The following summary in part, was written by David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and the author, most recently, of “The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable,” to be published in September expresses my views better than I can express them myself.

"A comprehensive investigation is needed, not limited by political considerations to the weak, but including those all the way up the chain of command who hold ultimate responsibility for launching us on a path of torture. In particular, the lawyers at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) who contorted the law to authorize precisely what it forbade need to be investigated. Lawyers in that office, including John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury, wrote a series of memos from 2002 to 2005 that baldly misinterpreted the law with one and only one goal in mind — to give a green light to the C.I.A. to use tactics amounting to torture, including slamming suspects into walls, stripping them naked, forcing them into painful stress positions for hours, and waterboarding. The Justice Department lawyers had an obligation to tell the C.I.A. that such tactics are illegal. But instead they conspired to rationalize their use through skewed distortions of law, language and logic."

I Note: Those lawyers did not do that - instead, they failed the country. Oh yes, they served Cheney, Ashcroft, Gonzales and Rice very well, but they are equally, if not more so, responsible for the use of brutality than the interrogators themselves.

Introduction: Former VP Cheney and others have said regarding the release of the CIA IG documents that "... the enhanced interrogation techniques (torture) saved lives and kept us safe."

Many like me surmise that by that statement that if the techniques were NOT used, then the world-wide terrorist bombings in Madrid, London, Mumbai, Singapore, Manila, and others places would NOT have happened? In other words: "If torture worked, but why did those bombings occur with thousands killed?"

Purpose: To publish, provide links to documents, and offer my opinion based upon what I have read and what I know and what I have experienced as a former Marine Corps Interrogator. My aim is to get to the root cause of improper detainee handling and the documented torture related to that handling which our government has authorized and allowed -- all in the name of the United States, and by extension, in the people's name. The truth must come out no matter how painful it may be, or where it may lead. Along that road, I hope the process is not a drip, drip, drip process. (* Update: the drip, drip, drip has begun - see next post below).

Update (August 30, 2009): The following links to the NY Times discussion page about the upcoming CIA detainee investigation (really a relook at an investigation closed back in 2005 to see if prosecution can, this time, take place) is provided for a starting point to show just how bad this issue has become, how bad it is to apt to get before it's over. One word comes to mind: LOOPHOLE. And plenty of them. We are about to see the dream of most lawyers come into full view - getting their clients off the hook with little if any effort, and getting big bucks for doing it, too.

This update comes on the heels of this NY Times editorial (August 30, 2009). I read it, and it got me to thinking just how bad the final outcome about this issue will be. That is one editorial I totally disagree with, almost word-for-word. As for me, the NY Times should be ashamed of themselves for holding this view... it may seem legal and just, but it is not.

Any professional interrogator would have known well in advance what torture was/was not -- and even if a SECRET memo came out that stated otherwise (i.e., the John Yoo memos) they would have said, "Sir, this is wrong, I don't care what the memo says. It is illegal, unlawful and a war crimes."

That did not happen -- why not? The CIA certified a bunch of interrogators (mostly contractor personnel) to use in their enhanced techniques program (which is simply a buzzword for torture) who only received two weeks of interrogator training ...

Why didn't the government call back to active duty any number of former military interrogators? I'll tell you why: They knew that the pros would not have tolerated their program and/or plan for torture.

As I said, LOOPHOLES and plenty of of them. Sad, really.

Update (August 25, 2009): The after the CIA IG report has sunk in, again, with more details, I post this, what I call the "Mother of all Posts" — an excellent summary by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com [click here].

The main point from this story is this quote: "For all the talk about how clearly legal the CIA methods were -- or, at worst, that they mistakenly believed in “good faith” that it was legal -- the reality is that even those who participated in the program worried that their actions were criminal, would subject them to prosecution, and would destroy the reputation of the CIA." [Clearly people were worried about what they were doing even at the time they were doing it].

Update (August 24, 2009): On the day the long-awaited CIA IG torture update hits the streets, we get this from Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) — a man who needs to shut up, get out of office, be voted out of office.

Update (August 22, 2009) from Examiner.com (NY) [click here]. Many like me take pride in saying, as professional Interrogators, "Torture does not work."

We have rock-solid evidence that proves and supports the contention about the fallacy that torture made Abu Zubaydah talk, kept us safe, and prevented more attacks -- none of that is true. Zubaydah gave key info freely to FBI Interrogator, Mr. Ali Soufan. That included the name and location of KSM. He later clamed up when he was tortured by CIA contractors (Soufan's story is further down the page).

Even former CIA and former NSA Director, Gen. Michael Hayden, gave us a peek by saying in six key paragraphs of the CIA report that the program achieved "modest success" in learning about Al Qaeda organization and leadership, but did not uncover any imminent attacks." That contradicts everything that Bush-Cheney and others have said all along and that is, "The enhanced (torture) techniques kept us safe and free and stopped attacks."

Update: (August 19, 2009): Nine GOP Senators have said to AG, "Don't pursue prosecution against any Bush TEAM members, re: torture claims -- it will hurt the country." Story from The Hill.com [click here]. Need I remind them of their oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Update (July 25, 2009): This introduction to the linked article demands your close attention [article here].

Update (July 19, 2009): This is a major update regarding the recently-released video of the U.S. soldier who was captured in Afghanistan on June 30, 2009. The story with the video comes from various AP sources by way of ABC News.com [click here]. We must not be under any illusion, or hold false hope about his ultimate fate. The Taliban are ruthless and have in the past mistreated very badly those they have captured, even peasants fighting against them.

Update (July 18, 2009): This headlines to a very interesting news article from RawStory.com [click here] is this: Obama considering special CIA interrogation squad.

Update (June 27, 2009): This story from the Washington Post brings an extremely hot issue back into full view: White House Weighs Order on Detention

Update (June 26, 2009): A good source to track along side my chronology on the board subject of torture is offered by Salon.com and their extensive library of links and sources. It can be accessed here. They have a great staff who stays fully engaged in the work of seeking out every piece of news about torture. Pay them a visit.

Glenn Greenwald wrote a very timely and poignant piece in a long string of timely and poignant pieces about torture, release of the photos, release of CIA interrogation documents, the destroyed CIA interrogation tapes and the massive coverup attempts followed by admission of torture and now apparently acceptable nearly one-half of our public - that is the idea that torture is okay as shown by this NY Times/ABC News poll (if you trust polls) [click here]. I refer you to Question #31 of 32 questions asked:

"President Obama has said that under his administration the United States will not use torture as part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism, no matter what the circumstance. Do you support this position not to use torture, or do you think there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects?" (emphasis is mine).

As Greenwald says, and I agree, is this: "Half of the American citizenry is now explicitly pro-torture (and the question even specified that the torture would be used not against Terrorists, but "terrorist suspects"). Just think about what that says about how coarsened and barbaric our populace is and what types of abuses that entrenched mentality is certain to spawn in the future, particularly in the event of another terrorist attack. But even more meaningful is the question itself -- it's now normal and standard for pollsters to include among the various questions about garden-variety political controversies (health care, tax and spending policies, clean energy approaches) a question about whether one believes the U.S. Government should torture people (are you for or against government torture?) That's how normalized torture has become, how completely eroded the taboo is in the United States." (again, emphasis is mine).

Update (June 9, 2009): Added to the two stories below: (1) the NY Times story about three emails that "prove legal authority was given to use harsh or "enhanced" interrogation techniques," (which we now know included water-boarding, which is torture), and (2) two other stories, from TPMMuckraker.com and Salon.com, present two entirely different angles about those emails. That is the position I support. This update comes from the AP [click here].

Update (June 8, 2009): The link to this story comes from TPMMuckraker.com [click here]. It ties into the Greenwald piece next below. The TPM angle is that the NYTimes could have written their story a bit differently as the evidence now shows after reading the three emails identified in the story as proof that legal approval was given to torture - such approval was clearly NOT given.

Update (June 7, 2009): This is a critically important update to this puzzle. It comes from Salon.com (writer and constitutional expert lawyer, Glenn Greenwald). Greenwald offers this insight into this story from the NY Times [click here] with this extract:

Greenwald writes: "The New York Times was provided 3 extremely important internal Justice Department emails from April, 2005 -- all written by then-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey -- which highlight how the Bush administration's torture techniques became legally authorized by Bush lawyers.

As Marcy Wheeler documents, the leak to the NYT was clearly from someone eager to defend Bush officials by suggesting that Comey's emails prove that all DOJ lawyers --- even those opposed to torture on policy grounds -- agreed these techniques were legal, and the NYT reporters, Scott Shane and David Johnston, dutifully do the leakers' bidding by misleadingly depicting the Comey emails as vindication for Bush/Cheney.

( ... with this Headline: "U.S. Lawyers Agreed on the Legality of Brutal Tactic" - [... the] First Paragraph: "When Justice Department lawyers engaged in a sharp internal debate in 2005 over brutal interrogation techniques, even some who believed that using tough tactics was a serious mistake agreed on a basic point: the methods themselves were legal.)"

Greenwald then says: I defy anyone to read Comey's 3 emails and walk away with that conclusion. I took Greenwald up on the offer and I read the three emails - and he is correct, they are short, only 7 pages and not even 7 full pages, and they are pretty easy to read, and I'm not even a lawyer. I reached the exact same conclusion as Greenwald: those emails DO NOT prove, show, give "approval or legal opinion or authorization" for the harsh interrogation techniques we now call "enhanced" which is the buzzword for torture (i.e., water-boarding).

The NY Times article that carried those three emails is a sad commentary about any validation or approval for carrying out those enhanced techniques. The emails do not show that at all. Now I wonder, will the NY Times clarify that aspect of this continuing saga and set the record straight? They got it wrong, plain and simple. They should set the record straight.

Update (May 26, 2009): This story just will not go away - from CQ [click here] via TPMMuckraker [click here]. It's just like that damn Bunny - it just keeps on going and going and going!!!

Update (May 15, 2009): I'm really confused about the flap over new detainee photos that President Obama said he would release, then reversing himself said no, that releasing them would cause harm our personnel overseas. But that may not be so easy to backtrack. To wit:

UPDATE from Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com: Federal District Judge Alvin Hellerstein (.pdf) and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (.pdf) have both rejected the Bush arguments — and now have rejected the Obama arguments — for suppressing the photographs. Both held that the law clearly requires their public disclosure. Let's tie that in with this look back in time, too:

September 6, 2006: From JURIST at the University of Pittsburgh [click here]. The suspects transferred to Guantanamo include alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as well as key al-Qaeda members suspected of designing the bombings of the USS Cole and US embassies in Africa. Mr. Bush went on to say that it was necessary to keep a “small number of detainees in secret facilities where they could be questioned by experts and - when appropriate - prosecuted for terrorist acts due to the threat posed by the detainees or because they may possess intelligence that we and our allies need to have to prevent new attacks.” Mr. Bush stressed that US Justice Department and CIA lawyers have determined that the program complies with US law, and he concluded by saying:

"I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it. Last year, my administration worked with Senator John McCain, and I signed into law the Detainee Treatment Act, which established the legal standard for treatment of detainees wherever they are held. I support this act. And as we implement this law, our government will continue to use every lawful method to obtain intelligence that can protect innocent people, and stop another attack like the one we experienced on September the 11, 2001."

We don't torture, maybe there was proof that we did, but it no longer exists (those 100 CIA tapes), but we do have some photos that Mr. Obama said could be released, but then he reversed himself and said no. Thus, the question is so obvious I hesitate to even ask: "Why not? If the photos show torture, we're in deep Kimchi; but if they do not, so what? Abu Ghraib photos didn't show torture according to many on the "right," right? They showed a lot of nasty shit, but not torture - at least by GOP standards, and besides, all those low-life enlisted personnel have been punished - only the big fish escaped justice?"

Update (May 14, 2009): Headlines from TPMMuckraker: Pelosi Remarks at Press Conference About Briefing on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques [click here].

My Emphasis: (1) "When Democrats assumed control of Congress in 2007, Congress passed legislation banning torture and requiring all government agencies to abide by the Army Field Manual. President Bush vetoed this bill barring the use of torture. An effort to overturn his veto failed because of the votes of Republican Members, and (2), "We needed to elect a new President. We did; and he has banned torture. I say: Mrs. Pelosi, "Torture has been a crime for decades. There WAS NO reason to "ban" it now - it already was illegal, unlawful and a war crimes. Stop covering your behind - this is becoming worse than Watergate, believe me, it is.

Update: (May 14, 2009): Long-awaited testimony from former FBI supervisory agent, Mr. Ali Soufan (speaking from behind a screen to mask his identity) told Congress (May 13, 2009) that the so-called CIA enhanced interrogation techniques authorized for use against al-Qaeda by the Bush administration were in fact "slow, ineffective, unreliable and harmful." His story is compelling [click here]. More on Mr. Soufan is further down this page: his record; his history; and his successes, and all without applying torture.

Update (May 12, 2009): The Obama administration "threatens Britain to keep torture evidence concealed if a British court describes Binyam Mohamed's torture. The U.S. will no longer inform Britain of terrorist plots, Obama threatens says the headlines today, Tuesday, May 12, 2009, from this very good source [click here]. Some more on the torture and release of Binyam Mohamed [click here].

Highlights:

1. In February, Obama's DOJ demanded dismissal of Mohamed's lawsuit against the company which helped "render" him to be tortured on the ground that national security would be harmed if the lawsuit continued.

2. Then, after a British High Court ruled that there was credible evidence that Mohamed was subjected to brutal torture and was entitled to obtain evidence in the possession of the British government which detailed the CIA's treatment of Mohamed, and after a formal police inquiry began into allegations that British agents collaborated in his torture, the British government cited threats from the U.S. government that it would no longer engage in intelligence-sharing with Britain -- i.e., it would no longer pass on information about terrorist threats aimed at British citizens -- if the British court disclosed the facts of Mohamed's torture.

Update (May 11, 2009): From TPMMuckraker and Constitutional Law Professor, Jonathan Turley, George Washington Law School, who's an outspoken advocate of curbing executive power, gave a bravura performance on MSNBC's Countdown, on the subject of possible torture prosecutions. The video clip can be seen here. Turley makes two important points that have been getting a bit lost in the rapid-fire debate lately.

First: There's a huge difference between an investigation conducted by Congress or a bipartisan commission and the appointment of a special prosecutor by the Justice Department, on the other. He seeks genuine accountability.

Second: Turley lamented the way that the Washington debate has lately centered on the issue of whether the DOJ lawyers who wrote the memos -- John Yoo, Steven Bradbury, and Jay Bybee, among others -- will face prosecution. A full investigation should focus on those who ordered the polices -- including, if necessary, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, and others -- not just the lawyers who produced the legal rationale for it.

Update (May 10, 2009): Several new references are included in this update.

1. From Mother Jones, by Kevin Drum (April 16, 2009) [click here]. In part: “Reading the OLC torture memos is enough to make you ill. The techniques in question are plainly and instinctively abhorrent by any common sense definition, and the authors of the memos obviously know it..."

2. NY Times [click here] by Clark Hoyt, in part: "Deborah Tannen, an author and professor of linguistics at Georgetown University, when asked by the NY Times Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, said in part, “The search for words that are not in any way evaluative is hopeless. All words have connotations.” Hoyt continued: “I was not sure I saw a huge difference between harsh and brutal — my dictionary says one meaning of harsh is brutal. President that Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder and many other experts called it “torture” – why don’t we all call it that?" Many argue argued for precision and caution, Hoyt agrees by writing, the United States prosecuted Japanese interrogators after World War II for their use of “water boarding (then called ‘water torture’) and thus it continues to be a deeply troubling issue.

3. Gen. Hayden on MSNBC video angry about the release of the CIA memos by President Obama [click here].

4. Glenn Greenwald writing at Salon.com (May 8, 2009): He updates of his previous articles regarding the news about Speaker Pelosi and her knowledge of the CIA “techniques" [click here].

Update (May 8, 2009): From TPMMuckraker: "Record Suggests Pelosi Did Little In Response To Torture Briefing" [click here].

Introduction: What exactly is torture, and who decides? Former USSC Justice Potter Stewart, in 1964, in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964), tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced ... but I know it when I see it."

Unlike many in government today who will not admit it, or who know nothing about it, I know what torture is. I know that waterboading is torture, and thus a crime. I know we tortured detainees in our custody (upwards of nearly 300 times after we were told only a few times and only three detainees). I know the truth is eeking out in dribs and drabs. I know we don't know the complete story. I believe that more memos authorizing and justifying torture are a matter of public record and more are apt to be available.

Sadly, also today, everyone and their brother is trying to dismiss torture as "those who conducted the torture were just following orders, or those who wrote the memos that laid the foundation for the 'program' were innocent lawyers just giving their opinion." We know now that President Obama has stated that those who conducted and carried out torture will not be punished, and then he and the AG (Holder) shifted discusison to the three lawyers (Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury) who gave opinions and the so-called "Green Light" (as outlined in this Vanity Fair article [click here] for the torture policy to actually be implemented. So, now it seems no one will be prosecuted. So, who will pay for the crimes? Who indeed? Apparently no one.

1. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/briefings.pdf (10 pages that show who was briefed and when).

2. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/hoekstra.pdf (letter to Rep. Hoekstra from Director of National Intelligence).

3. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/thompson.pdf (letter to Rep. Thompson from Director, CIA).

4. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ_JusticeMemo_090507.pdf (DOJ memo showing that detainee, Abu Zubaydah was waterboard 83 times and weak comparison between object of SERE training and detainee waterboarding in the real world).

Two points: (1) If our lawmakers don't know the law, then they are in office on false pretenses, and they should be kicked out, and (2) if they knew the laws against torture, yet looked the other way and are now trying to cover their backsides, then they need to be prosecuted. I see nothing in between those two points. The lies that got us into Iraq are well documented, and now the lies about torture are starting to be well documented. But, now the Obama administration says we should look ahead and not back, or worse, that prosecution is not their goal or cup of tea (for those who actually conducted torture, or by those in the previous DOJ and OLC: those three lawyers who wrote the policy okaying torture). But, may face disbarment for any criminal acts says the Obama AG (Eric Holder).

Ladies and gentlemen, that IS NOT justice. Laws against torture were broken - crimes were committed, and a lot or excuses, covering up, or at the minimum serious high level whitewashing are on going. To a lot of people smarter than I, this is Watergate 10 times over (former White House legal counsel, John Dean and Georgetown University Constitutional Law Professor, Jonathan Turley).

THE TORTURE TRAIL:

Those three DOJ/OLC lawyers (John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury) are about to escape justice. Insiders just want to say that they made poor judgments on torture in those memos they wrote – only giving their legal opinions some say – ergo: they should not be prosecuted, maybe disbarred, but not prosecuted for any connection to war crimes (i.e., the current torture scandal).

Reflection: Remember the words of then-AG nominee Eric Holder back in January testifying at his confirmation hearing about torture. Lest, We Forget [click here] and [click here]. The Chicago Tribune sub-title from that link says, "Attorney general nominee vows review of Bush administration’s practices."

Holder "vows to review their practices?" The 4-year review and report are out and ... ".... they apparently are off the hook from prosecution..."

This from RawStory [click here]. At the bottom of that piece is an excellent 8-minute video of a discussion between the MSNBC show host, Rachel Maddow and Michael Isikoff from NEWSWEEK. Maybe "Justice is really blind?"

Frank Rich in the NY Times (April 25, 2009) [click here for full piece] says in part: “If anyone deserves blame (for Abu Ghraib), it was only those identified by President Bush as “... a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values:" promiscuous, sinister-looking lowlifes like Lynndie England, Charles Graner, and the other grunts who were held accountable while the top command got a pass.”

Update (April 18, 2009: This latest update from MSNBC with two interviews that warrant viewing: First is this 8-minute clip (click here for the interview) with respected George Washington University Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley. That is followed by a 4-minute clip from Matthew Alexander, former U.S. Air Force interrogator in Iraq (Matthew Alexander is not his real name) (click here for his interview).

Update (April 16, 2009): Introduction: "Blind Justice" is the theory that law should be viewed objectively. That means that determination of innocence or guilt should be made without bias or prejudice. It is the idea behind the United States Supreme Court motto “Equal Justice Under Law.” However, it has not always been indicative of fairness. President Obama seems to believe that torture of detainees and reports of that torture should be biased and prejudiced if those who tortured thought what they were doing was "legal."

That story [click here].

WASHINGTON – Seeking to move beyond what he calls a “a dark and painful chapter in our history,” President Barack Obama said Thursday that CIA officials who used harsh interrogation tactics during the Bush administration will not be prosecuted. Mr. Obama said in his statement and a separate letter sent directly to CIA employees that the nation must protect their identity “as vigilantly as they protect our security.” “We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.”

I take major issue with: “... as long as actions were in line with the legal advice at the time..." "Mr. President: Ordering someone to torture, when the handler knows that torture is illegal is UNLAWFUL, a WAR CRIMES, AGAINST THE LAW of the United States, and no one should be able to mitigate those actions. What if the handler-interrogator was told by a superior or DOJ lawyer via some “secret memo” or wink and nod or handshake that killing, or maiming the detainee for life were okay. What then?”

I guess the excuse will be: “They were just following orders” does not hold water – not when the interrogator knows well in advance what the rules are, and if we employ or use interrogators who do not know the rules, then a whole lot of people needs to be in jail for sure, and at the minimum, lose their jobs and pensions! President Obama is the chief law enforcement officer of the land – he cannot allow this to be brushed aside by saying they were following orders. Of course, those guilty will say they were following orders and thought that torture was “okay.” This is a sad day for America.

Introduction: “When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubadah, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him. The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads. In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaydah’s tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaydah -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced,” they said.

The country's honor is at stake; the rule of law is at stake, and that must be measured against the fact of what happens to our troops if they were to be captured or detained in time of war is paramount.

Update (March 16, 2009): This update also comes via TPMMuckraker [click here]. The author, Mark Danner, wrote a book on this subject. A short review of that book, release date was April 9, 2009 is available [click here]. The two key parts of this story as reported by Danner, who gathered the facts after reading the ICRC (International Red Cross) reports, are:

1. “Most importantly, the Bush administration approved torture in its questioning of al-Qaeda suspects as early as 2002.”

2. “[and] ... everyone in the administration, including President Bush, knew it was happening.”

Danner says that it is unclear exactly how successful these tactics were in gathering key information about potential terrorists. But one key comment from Khaled Shaik Mohammed indicates that the information is worthless. In the worst moments of torture, Mohammed says he "... gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop, and [this information] undoubtedly ... wasted a lot of their time and led to several false red-alerts."

There are many questions, but the key one is: WHY TORURE and DOES IT WORK? That question is answered below in part. It follows a story from ABC News, April 24, 2009, [click here]. It contradicts everything many on the political right say about torture “working,” or anyone else who thinks it’s an effective interrogation technique – it is neither. This quote introduces the story: “We were getting a lot of useful material from (Abu) Zubaydah, and we would have continued to get material from him. The rough tactics were not necessary.”

That statement comes from an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times from Mr. Ali Soufan, retired Lebanese-American FBI agent who was instrumental in a number of high-profile anti-terrorism cases in the United States. Soufan further writes that Abu Zubaydah gave up information between March and June 2002 while he was being interrogated by Soufan, another FBI agent and some CIA officers. But that information was not gleaned as the result of harsh techniques, including water boarding, which were not introduced until August 2002.

Soufan introduces his story in that Op-Ed with this: “For seven years I have remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like water boarding. I have spoken only in closed government hearings, as these matters were classified. But the release last week of four Justice Department memos on interrogations allows me to shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned.”

The Ali Soufan case study: Mr. Soufan, now-retired Lebanese-American FBI agent, was instrumental in a number of high-profile anti-terrorism cases in the United States and abroad. Soufan retired from the FBI, but only after publicly chastising the CIA for not sharing information with him which he says could have prevented the September 11 attacks. What cases did Soufan work on and how effective was he, but more importantly, how did he get the valuable information? Mr. Soufan is considered to have been the most-effective of all interrogators (CIA, FBI, military or others) of al-Qaeda operatives. He says the use of those so-called “enhanced/harsh” interrogation techniques were unnecessary and often counterproductive. Further, he says detainees provided vital intelligence under non-violent questioning, before they were ever put through any “walling or waterboarding” techniques.

Soufan's Record:

In 1999, he was called to Jordan to investigate the Jordan Millennium Bombing plot. He discovered a box of documents delivered by Jordanian intelligence officials prior to the investigation just sitting on the floor of the CIA station, which contained maps showing the bomb sites. His find “embarrassed the CIA.”

In 2000, he is put in charge of the investigation of the USS Cole bombing. When he was given a transcript of the interrogations of Fahd Mohammed Ahmed al-Quso, he noticed a reference to a one-legged Afghan named “Khallad,” a name he remembered from a source identified years earlier as Walid bin 'Attash. [Prosecutors at the Guantanamo military commissions allege that ‘Attash helped in the preparation of the 1998 East Africa Embassy bombings and the USS Cole bombing and he acted as a bodyguard to Osama bin Laden. He was formally charged with selecting and helping to train several of the hijackers of the September 11th attacks].

Following the September 11th attacks, Soufan was one of eight FBI agents who spoke Arabic, and the only one in New York. He was tasked with the “intensive interrogation” of Abu Jandal. [Jandal was a member of al-Qaeda and former chief bodyguard of Osama bin Laden. He is a Saudi citizen of Yemeni descent. He was arrested by Yemeni authorities in connection with the USS Cole bombing in October 2000.

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York's World Trade Center, Jandal was brought before FBI agent Soufan for questioning in Aden, Yemen. After five days of intense interrogation, Abu Jandal identified many of the hijackers and became a significant source to link the 9/11 attacks to al-Qaeda. He also provided information for the United States war on Afghanistan in October 2001. Abu Jandal is currently free from custody and lives in Yemen]. Soufan obtained a confession from Salim Hamdan.

NOTE: On June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in the famous Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case that the military commissions ordered for Hamdan and other detainees at Gitmo violated the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention].

NOTE: In response to that Supreme Court decision, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, in an attempt grant the President the necessary authority to create the commissions. Hamdan's trial was scheduled for June 2006. In two separate rulings all charges were dropped against Hamdan and Canadian youth Omar Khadr on the 4th June 2007. Hamdan was further held, but without being charged, as an enemy combatant. He then was brought up on new charges on July 21, 2008. He was found guilty of “providing material support” to al Qaeda, but was cleared of terrorism conspiracy charges. He was sentenced to 5 ½ years of imprisonment by a military jury, being counted as having already served five years of the sentence at the time. Despite the threat to detain Hamdan indefinitely, the U.S. in November 2008 transferred him to Yemen to serve out the remainder of his sentence. He was released January 8, 2009. He now lives with his family in Sana’a (the capital) of Yemen]. Soufan also obtained a confession from Ali al-Bahlul, al Qaeda propagandist and Bin laden media secretary accused of making a video celebrating the Cole attacks, and testified at his military tribunal as well. [On November 3, 2008, Bahlul was convicted for conspiring with al Qaeda, soliciting murder and providing material support for terrorism. At his sentencing he admitted he was a member of Al-Qaeda, and was sentenced to life imprisonment].

In 2005, Soufan approached Florida doctor Rafiq Abdus Sabir and pretended to be an Islamist militant, and asked him whether he would provide medical treatment to wounded fighters in the Iraq War. When Sabir agreed to provide medical treatment, he was arrested and later tried and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment for supporting terrorism and various other crimes. Mr. Soufan left the FBI and now runs a security consultancy. Although he rarely speaks of his past life in public, he has given testimony to several Congressional hearings on Gitmo.In my view, this is also one of the main reasons many others haven’t come forth to speak out on this topic — either pro and con: The information was and/or remains classified. The complete Ali Soufan Op-Ed can be read on-line [click here].

The Main Points: (1) [... ] key members of Congress sanctioned this program (the CIA torture program), so many of those who might ordinarily be counted on to lead the charge are themselves compromised; (2) with regard to the illegal Bush programs of torture and eavesdropping, key Congressional Democrats were contemporaneously briefed on what the administration was doing (albeit, in fairness, often in unspecific ways); and (3) the fact that they did nothing to stop those illegalities, and often explicitly approved of them, obviously incentivizes them to block any investigations or judicial proceedings into those illegal programs [now]. Then factor in this part of that story from a December 2007 Washington Post piece that revealed [click here] Pelosi and others member's involvement this way: "Four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was water boarding, a practice that years later [I note: now in 2009] would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said." (Note: this story has been updated with the release of CIA briefing documents that show 65 members of the House and Senate were involved – from the Wall Street Journal [click here].

First, I wonder which member actually said, "Push harder?" We need to know that little tidbit.

Second, if this double standard (appearing in public to be against crimes such as torture) yet in private condoning it by allowing it to continue shakes the very foundation of our country.

Third, if those in office skate on this issue, imagine what lesser crime they can skate on that directly impacts you and your life down the line? This is something to seriously think about. I say, work to help remove them from office — of course, the first step is know who "they" is, but keep in mind, in this system that they have devised, it's like a brand new H.A.L. 9000 in that science fiction movie, 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Deceit and Incumbency! But, they are wrong, and as long as thinking citizens have a breath of fresh air and enough ink to continue to write the truth about them, then we will overcome their arrogant attitude and prevail. It may take time, but right always wins over wrong.Original Story about Condi Rice, April 23, 2009: This story like so many others just keeps on going and going like the Energizer Bunny — the only new equation: New players running on the same old batteries. The story and highlights [click here].

Torture v. Abuse: What's the difference, if any? This April 23, 2009 hadlines from the NY Times [click here]: “US Adopted Harsh Interrogations Without Examining Their Past Use An examination."

This section deals with the much larger section (see below). It is called the “Torture Law and How the Bush Lawyers Wanted to Go Around It.” Note the last sentence in this memo, dated, August 1, 2002, from Jay Bybee, Legal Counsel for DOJ, to John Rizzo, Acting Legal Counsel, CIA. The memo [click here].

That last sentence: “We conclude that on the facts in this case (harsh interrogation of Abu Zubaydah) that the use of methods (waterboard) separately or in a course of conduct would not violate Section 2340-A.”

I note that section of current law is provided here from Cornell Law School [click here]. It is clearly stated even for a non-lawyer to understand in three short sections.

THE LAW: U.S. CODE >TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > TORTURE

§ 2340. Definitions

§ 2340A. Torture (the provision that Jay Bybee referred to)

§ 2340B. Exclusive remedies

Note: Mr. Bybee is no dummy. He knew exactly which part of current law they would be violating should they use torture and waterboard Abu Zubaydah or anyone else. They wanted to skirt it. As we now know, Zubaydah was waterboarded at least 83 times. One wonders if once or twice (as the Bush TEAM said) would have been effective (assuming they got good info)? Apparently the info was lousy or incomplete and more water was needed... which un-reinforces the idea that it worked...

This from April 21, 2009, and the AP [story is here] to that Bybee story.

THE HOTTEST GAME IN TOWN:

The Crimes? Torture of detainees in U.S. custody.

The Ducking? (Some might even say whitewash or cover-up)? This area is still developing.

Storyboard: President Obama says we must move forward. Ergo, he means and has said that "those who conducted torture were in fact “just following orders – the best legal advice that John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Steven Bradury, and a few others could give, so they committed no crimes per se since their actions were DOJ “approved,” thus, hey will not be prosecuted.” Now, AG Holder has added to the drama of what Mr. Obama said and both now say that those three lawyers who wrote those memos (Yoo, Bybee, Bradbury) outlining torture also will not be prosecuted, either, but actions may be taken to have them disbarred, but they will not face a judge and jury on torture.”

The shame? All of it. This saga, for it truly is a saga, is a growing, huge cancer and stain on America — the country we all say we love and respect and admire that is now willing, through our elected and appointed "leaders" it seems, to look the other way about crimes or pursue justice? So, is is over? I don't think so. As Yogi Berra might say, "It ain't over 'til it's over." What follows is a short trail of a few key documents and events as they unfolded and continue to unfold. This list is not very long (compared to the final list further down the page), but it is worth your time.

Note: My objections to what President Obama stated and to other remarks in this post, I basically wonder: Why didn't Mr. Obama use the word torture in this statement?

April 17, 2009: Manfred Nowak, an Austrian who serves as a U.N. special rapporteur in Geneva criticizes Mr. Obama for not pursing legal action against those who ordered, carried out, or condoned the torture by saying essence: "Now we need to know all the facts — not just bits and pieces. First you need the truth and then you need justice." Rest of this story [click here].

April 20, 2009: Today (Keep in mind: It has been said many times, "We don’t torture; we only tortured three high-value detainees; but, only a few times and only for a few seconds and we must move forward and not prosecute)." This block buster story [click here].

Note: “If water boarding is NOT torture, as Bush-Cheney, et al have said all along and their secret memos imply it is okay to do so, and Mr. Obama bans it, then how can something that was illegal be made legal; something that was unlawful can be made lawful; and a war crimes made into no crime by simply banning it with a presidential statement?”

February 7, 2002: President Bush memo on al-Qaeda and Taliban “detainee policy:” In this memo to VP Cheney, Dept. of State, DOD, the AG, JCS, and to others [click here], Mr. Bush declares that the United States will not be bound by the Geneva Convention's protections for prisoners of war who are al-Qaeda and/or Taliban detainees.

August 1, 2002: Memo from John Yoo to AG Alberto Gonzales: In this memo, John Yoo writes to AG Gonzales [click here] warns of potential threats of international prosecution regarding the administration's interrogation policies. But, Yoo notes that “Interrogations of al-Qaeda members ... cannot constitute a war crime” because of the Presidential determination that Geneva's protections do not apply.

August 1, 2002: Same date as used above, Jay Bybee signs off on the John Memo to AG Gonzales: Bybee signs off on this memo, which has since become known as the “torture policy memo,” to Gonzales [click here] that is the opinion authored by John Yoo by systematically dismissing numerous U.S. federal laws, treaties and international law prohibiting the use of torture, essentially defining the term, “torture” out of existence.

September 6, 2006: From JURIST at the University of Pittsburgh [click here]. Mr. Bush on Wednesday acknowledged that the US Central Intelligence Agency has operated secret prisons outside the US where high-value terror suspects were detained, and said that 14 of those suspects have now been transferred to the Defense Department's military prison at Guantanamo Bay where they will face trial. The suspects transferred to Guantanamo include alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as well as key al-Qaeda members suspected of designing the bombings of the USS Cole and US embassies in Africa.

Bush said that it was necessary to keep the “small number of detainees in secret facilities where they could be questioned by experts and - when appropriate - prosecuted for terrorist acts due to the threat posed by the detainees or because they may possess intelligence that we and our allies need to have to prevent new attacks.” He the stressed that US Justice Department and CIA lawyers have determined that the program complies with US law.

Mr. Bush concluded by saying: "I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it. Last year, my administration worked with Senator John McCain, and I signed into law the Detainee Treatment Act, which established the legal standard for treatment of detainees wherever they are held. I support this act. And as we implement this law, our government will continue to use every lawful method to obtain intelligence that can protect innocent people, and stop another attack like the one we experienced on September the 11, 2001."

WHERE DID IT ALL BEGIN:

1. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: September 14, 2001 - President Bush declares national emergency after 9/1 [click here].

2. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: 2002 letter from Amnesty International Letter to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld [click here]. The most-critical memos follow:

3. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: September 25, 2001 – “The President's Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations Against Terrorist and Nations Supporting Them” AUTHOR: John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel. This memo [click here] lays out an expansive vision of presidential power, arguing that Congress cannot “place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.”

4. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: November 13, 2001 – “Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War on Terrorism” AUTHOR: President George W. Bush. This military order [click here] declares the Commander-in-Chief's unilateral authority to hold prisoners in the war on terror indefinitely.

5. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: December 28, 2001 – “Possible Habeas Jurisdiction over Aliens Held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba” AUTHORS: John Yoo & Patrick Philbin, Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, OLC. This memo [click here] concludes that federal district courts would lack jurisdiction to accept habeas petitions from prisoners who were held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

6. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: January 9, 2002 – “SUBJECT: Application of Treaties and Laws to Al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees” AUTHOR: John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel. In this memo [click here] Yoo writes, “We conclude that these treaties, including Geneva, do not protect members of the al-Qaeda organization. We further conclude that that these treaties do not apply to the Taliban militia.”

7. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: January 11, 2002 – “Your Draft Memorandum of January 9th” AUTHOR: William Taft IV, Legal Adviser to the State Department (to John Yoo). Taft’s 40-page memo [click here] describes Yoo's legal analysis as “seriously flawed,” and the memorandum also warns that “this raises the risk of future criminal prosecution for U.S. civilian and military leadership and their advisers.”

8. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: January 19, 2002 – “Status of Taliban and al-Qaeda” AUTHOR: Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld declares in this memo [click here] that “The United States has determined that Al Qaida and Taliban individuals under the control of the Department of Defense are not entitled to prisoner of war status for purposes of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.”

9. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: January 22, 2002 – “Application of Treaties and Laws to Al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees” AUTHOR: Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC. Bybee in this memo [click here] signs off on John Yoo's January 9th draft memo [above], and sends it in its final form to Pentagon General Counsel Jim Haynes and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. The memo explains that “certain deviations from the text of Geneva III may be permissible, as a matter of domestic law, if they fall within certain justifications or legal exceptions, such as those for self defense.”

10. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: January 25, 2002 – “Application of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War to the Conflict with al-Qaeda and the Taliban" AUTHOR: Alberto Gonzales, White House Counsel. This memo for President Bush [click here] outlines the benefits of opting out of the Geneva Conventions and lists the benefits of such a finding. Gonzales notes that non-compliance with Geneva “would create a reasonable basis in law that Section 2441 [War Crimes Act] does not apply, which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution.”

11. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: January 26, 2002 – “Draft Decision Memorandum for the President on the Applicability of the Geneva Convention to the Conflict in Afghanistan” AUTHOR: Colin Powell, Secretary of State. Powell warns in this memo [click here] of the consequences of opting out of the Geneva Convention. “It will reverse over a century of U.S. policy ... and undermine the prosecutions of the law of war for our troops...” He adds, “it may provoke some individual foreign prosecutors to investigate and prosecute our officials and troops.”

12. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: February 1, 2002 - N/A AUTHOR: John Ashcroft, Attorney General. Ashcroft concludes in this memo to President Bush [click here] that opting out of Geneva “would provide the highest assurance that no court would subsequently entertain charges that American military officers, intelligence officials, or law enforcement officials violated Geneva Convention rules relating to field conduct, detention conduct or interrogation of detainees.”

13. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: February 7, 2002 – “Status of Taliban Forces Under Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949” AUTHOR: Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC. In this memo to Gonzales [click here] Bybee states that the President has the power to ignore Geneva's requirement that prisoners be given “Article 5” hearings to establish their status as POWs. “The President may use his constitutional power to interpret treaties and apply them to the facts, to make the determination that the Taliban are unlawful combatants. We therefore conclude that there is no need to establish tribunals to determine POW status under Article 5.”

14. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: February 7, 2002 – “Humane Treatment of al-Qaeda and Taliban Detainees" AUTHOR: President George W. Bush. Mr. Bush in this memo to Cheney, State, DOD, AG, JCS, and others [click here] declares that the United States will not be bound by the Geneva Convention's protections for prisoners of war.

15. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: February 26, 2002 – “Potential Legal Constraints Applicable to Interrogations of Persons Captured by U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan” AUTHOR: Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC. In this Bybee memo [click here] and in the wake of the capture of the so-called “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh, questions about the rights of American citizens captured in the war on terror became a new issue. In conclusion, Bybee notes to Haynes, “even if the Government did in fact violate Rule 4.2 by having military lawyers interrogate represented persons (including Mr. Walker) without consent of counsel, it would not follow that the evidence obtained in that questioning would be inadmissible at trial.”

16. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: August 1, 2002 – “Standards for Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. 2340 - 2340A. Note: This from Cornell Law. It is the official legal definitions according to current U.S. law [click here] AUTHOR: Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC. In this memo to Gonzales [click here] what has become the notorious “torture memo,” Jay Bybee signs off on an opinion authored by John Yoo. The memorandum systematically dismisses numerous U.S. federal laws, treaties and international law prohibiting the use of torture, essentially defining the term out of existence.

17. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: August 1, 2002 - N/A. AUTHOR: John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC. Yoo in this memo to Gonzales [click here] warns of potential threats of international prosecution regarding the administration's interrogation policies. Yoo notes that “Interrogations of al-Qaeda members ... cannot constitute a war crime” because of the Presidential determination that Geneva's protections do not apply. (Note: The memo(s) they were asked to write).

18. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: August 1, 2002 – “Memorandum for [REDACTED] Interrogation of [REDACTED]” AUTHOR: Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC. This memo from Bybee was sent to the CIA [click here] is heavily redacted. It was released to the ACLU in 2008. It details “advising the CIA regarding interrogation methods it may use against al-Qaeda members,” and in one un-redacted portion, argues that “to violate the statute, an individual must have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering. Based on the information you have provided us, we believe those carrying out these procedures would not have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering.”

19. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: September 27, 2002 – “Trip Report, DOD General Counsel Visit to GTMO” AUTHOR: Office of the Staff Judge Advocate. A one page summary [click here] of Pentagon General Counsel Jim Haynes and Vice President Cheney's legal counsel David Addington trip to Guantanamo on September 25, 2002. The report notes that their stated purpose was to “receive briefings on Intel successes, Intel challenges, Intel techniques, Intel problems and future plans for facilities.”

20. MEMO DATE and SUBJECT: October 2, 2002 – “Counter Resistance Strategy Meeting Minutes” AUTHOR: Email author: Mark Fallon. In this memo [click here] a senior CIA lawyer meets with military officials at Guantanamo. He states that laws banning torture are “basically subject to perception. If the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong.” The Pentagon's top legal adviser at the camp responds, “We will need documentation to protect us.” When the military's top criminal investigator reads the minutes, he forwards them to other senior personnel, noting, “This looks like the kind of stuff Congressional hearings are made of. Water boarding, for example, would shock the conscience of any legal body looking at the results of the interrogations or possibly even the interrogators. Somebody needs to be considering how history will look back at this.”

The remaining memos (numbered 21 – 34) that relate to this can be found and read at the main site [click here] - then click on the “Read the Key Documents.”

DOCUMENT LIST (most not listed above; a few could be duplicates):

The 1996 “War Crimes Act” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996 resulted in the following:

THE U.S. STATUTE [LAW] TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441 – War Crimes

U.S. Law: penalty for those who torture http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340---A000-.html

U.S. Law: exclusive remedies http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340---B000-.html

U.S. Law: torture definedhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html

THE U.S. LEGAL DEFINITION OF TORTURE and US CODE REF:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html

ACLU Log of FOIA RE: Torture http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/torturefoia.html

FRONTLINE (PBS) Report on Torture http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/

FRONTLINE (PBS) Torture at Abu Ghraib http://tinyurl.com/d9f3vd

Bush Administration redefines Torture (FRONTLINE Series) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/themes/redefining.html

UN Commission Against Torture http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Analysis of the Jay Bybee and John Yoo Memos http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080428/gillers

Open Letter to former AG Alberto Gonzales re: Water boarding is Torture and a Crime http://tinyurl.com/d64fkq

John Yoo and David Addington torture testimony: Writer of the infamous torture memo and the other, a defender http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GT-BZvhrw

John Yoo under oath http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0SiDeK1s8o&feature=related

Addington to Congress, “I can’t talk about torture, al Qaeda might watch C-SPAN.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j2uvxsCU_M

Report that Condi Rice admits to Torture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_YYljFTo84&feature=related

Justice Scalia quote from a 60 Minutes segment: “Torture is illegal - we have laws against torture.”

Bush admission of torture (but we only tortured three hi-value detainees)http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/TheLaw/story?id=4244423&page=1 and
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/Story?id=4635175&page=1

Bush silences torture critic http://abcnews.go.com/WN/DOJ/story?id=3814076&page=1

Bush approved “principal’s” torture policies and apparently proud of it? http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=4583256

Cheney admits to his role in torture [his own words] and also proud of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjSmdZcX1Ig&feature=channel_page

CIA admits to torture http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/TheLaw/story?id=4244423

Analysis of Bush’s admission to torture http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/34879prs20080412.html

More analysis http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml

Bush denounces torture http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030626-3.html

ABC News and the ACLU analysis http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/34879prs20080412.html

List of congressional testimony on Torture http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=HouseJudiciary&view=videos

Confirmation hearing Analysis of Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey who was frustrated and angered some senators by refusing to state that water boarding was torture the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/us/politics/17detain.html

Torture from the NY Times Editorial, Dec 18, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/3p526m

Permanent Detainee Detention

2011-01-04T17:44:00.000-05:00

Camp Delta (Gitmo, Cuba). Camp 4 is where most detainees are now kept.

[WashPo photo gallery here]

Update (January 4, 2011): This update from Talking Points Memo (here).

The basic question remains: What if our Vietnam War POW's were still held in NVN? After all, the North's leadership labeled that war "unlawful and illegal as they called our POW's war criminals."

What's the difference today?

Original Post: This story comes from the Washington Post [click here], in part, which states:

"The Obama administration is preparing an executive order that would formalize indefinite detention without trial for some detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but allow those detainees and their lawyers to challenge the basis for continued incarceration, U.S. officials said."

Emotions run high about this issues, and rightly so.

As a former Marine Corps Interrogator and intelligence officer, allow me to express this view: What if North Vietnam or Korea or any other country for that matter, were still holding U.S. POW's or detainees for any length of time right up until today, where would this country stand on that issue?

Let's ask John McCain shall we. In the meantime, let's get real about this issue.

Prolonged detention vs. Permanent (permanent means forever, right?) detention vs. Mr. Obama's view about holding them without a trial indefinitely (no specific time period - maybe forever, maybe not).

. . . Wow! Is there a difference between any of those views and definitions? Some compare it to locking them up like regular criminals. Okay, that's fine, but let's try them first, convict them, and them make them permanent or prolonged criminals, and then lock them up for life or whatever term the court says.

In the meantime, let's keep away from the, "Bring the guilty bastards in, give them a fair trial, and then hang 'em" attitude, okay?

Or, as I said above, what if our POW's were still in North Vietnam; let's ask John McCain and a few other former POW's. North Vietnam always thought the war with them was illegal and that our POW's were "war criminals."

I guess we didn't think so back, but we think so today? I see, I see, so 9-11 really did change everything, even our view of law and justice, and right and wrong.

Time passes, but the circumstances do not...

2010-11-26T23:58:00.006-05:00

May, 1901, in Sual, the Philippines

Fast forward the story from here, in part reads pretty much like today:

One April 16, 1902, the New York World described the “American Public” sitting down to eat its breakfast with a newspaper full of the Philippine atrocities depicted above, including "water cure" (known as water boarding today):

"The American public sips its coffee and reads of its soldiers administering the “water cure” to rebels: how water with handfuls of salt thrown in to make it more efficacious, is forced down the throats of the patients until their bodies become distended to the point of bursting; and how our soldiers then jump on the distended bodies to force the water out quickly so that the “treatment” can begin all over again. The American Public takes another sip of its coffee and remarks, "How very unpleasant!"

The more things change through time, the less time they change as time passes!!

Obama to punish torturers — but NOT Americans who torture...!!

2010-11-11T17:06:00.001-05:00

Update (November 2, 2010): Former President George W. Bush (see story at top of page) again admits he ordered water boarding, which is torture. Still we look the other way and take no steps for justice.

Update (November 11, 2010) to the the story that follows: Pressure rises on Obama to investigate Bush torture policies.

Excellent story and source of information therein with good links [here] to track this issue along with what I have compiled at this site.

We cannot become "a country of men, not laws..."

The Original Story Starts Here: Background from the NY Times here, and supplemented by a very good analysis by Glenn Greenwald [Salon.com] here.

Highlights:

1. The Obama administration has placed eight Iranian officials on a U.S. financial blacklist, saying they were responsible for beatings, killings and torture following Iran's disputed presidential election last year.

Okay, fair enough - sounds good, right? Then ...

2. Numerous detainees in American custody were also beaten, tortured and killed. The photos Obama caused to be suppressed -- even after two federal courts ordered them disclosed -- depicted multiple acts of detainee rape. Thousands were arbitrarily arrested and detained by the U.S. without due process, and continue to be. None of that resulted in a smidgen of accountability for the high-level government officials responsible for all of that, because the Obama administration (and the Bush administration before that) formally took the position that they should be immunized.

3. Also note how freely the Associated Press uses the word "torture" to describe what the Iranians did, in contrast to the overall American media's refusal to use that term for what Americans did.

My Views: Remember how our government officials and many others referred to our definition of torture as "enhanced interrogation techniques?" Any skilled and trained and experienced Interrogator knows that means torture, or at pretty least harsh punishment and treatment.

This issue should concern every one of us because it impacts directly on our values as a people and as nation who professes to believe in "right and wrong/law and order and international law."

However, the events and actions of the past and some that Mr. Obama is sustaining only show, ironically, how we want the world to see us (the kind of country we say we are) vs. the kind of country we really are!!

By these current actions - some of which are carried over from the Bush years - might be called hypocrisy by some: they would be right.

Torture Policy in our Name: Lies, Deception, Arrogance, War Crimes...

2010-09-08T23:15:00.002-04:00

Hear, Speak, See no torture

“A nation can survive its fools, even its ambitious; it cannot survive lies from its government.” — Cicero

Update: Everything that follows this posting are posts I have re-published from those originally posted in August 2009. My purpose is to ensure that we cannot lose focus on this issue by allowing it to be placed on the back burner or take a backseat in history like other "political problems" have - to be ignored.

Thanks for stopping by here - I hope you enjoy your research on this timely subject through this site and those sites linked herein.

Note: over time, some links may have become broken, or out of date. However, if you type the subject in the search window at the broken site location, it should help put you back on track. If the link still remains unavailable, I apologize. The heart of this chain of events surrounding this topic are well documented at sites herein, which are not broken and are a matter of law.

Enjoy your research. — dmf

Introduction: Former VP Cheney and others have said regarding the release of the CIA IG documents that "... the enhanced interrogation techniques (torture) saved lives and kept us safe."

As I said, LOOPHOLES and plenty of of them. Sad, really.

Update (August 22, 2009) from Examiner.com (NY) [click here]. Many like me take pride in saying, as professional Interrogators, "Torture does not work."

Update (July 25, 2009): This introduction to the linked article demands your close attention [article here].

Update (July 18, 2009): This headlines to a very interesting news article from RawStory.com [click here] is this: Obama considering special CIA interrogation squad.

Update (June 27, 2009): This story from the Washington Post brings an extremely hot issue back into full view: White House Weighs Order on Detention

Update (May 8, 2009): From TPMMuckraker: "Record Suggests Pelosi Did Little In Response To Torture Briefing" [click here].

1. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/briefings.pdf (10 pages that show who was briefed and when).

2. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/hoekstra.pdf (letter to Rep. Hoekstra from Director of National Intelligence).

3. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/thompson.pdf (letter to Rep. Thompson from Director, CIA).

THE TORTURE TRAIL:

Holder "vows to review their practices?" The 4-year review and report are out and ... ".... they apparently are off the hook from prosecution..."

That story [click here].

1. “Most importantly, the Bush administration approved torture in its questioning of al-Qaeda suspects as early as 2002.”

2. “[and] ... everyone in the administration, including President Bush, knew it was happening.”

Soufan's Record:

First, I wonder which member actually said, "Push harder?" We need to know that little tidbit.

Second, if this double standard (appearing in public to be against crimes such as torture) yet in private condoning it by allowing it to continue shakes the very foundation of our country.

Torture v. Abuse: What's the difference, if any? This April 23, 2009 hadlines from the NY Times [click here]: “US Adopted Harsh Interrogations Without Examining Their Past Use An examination."

I note that section of current law is provided here from Cornell Law School [click here]. It is clearly stated even for a non-lawyer to understand in three short sections.

THE LAW: U.S. CODE >TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > TORTURE

§ 2340. Definitions

The Crimes? Torture of detainees in U.S. custody.

Note: My objections to what President Obama stated and to other remarks in this post, I basically wonder: Why didn't Mr. Obama use the word torture in this statement?

The remaining memos (numbered 21 – 34) that relate to this can be found and read at the main site [click here] - then click on the “Read the Key Documents.”

DOCUMENT LIST (most not listed above; a few could be duplicates):

U.S. Law: exclusive remedies http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340---B000-.html

U.S. does not torture, except when we torture...

2010-07-23T01:19:00.001-04:00

Shall we ask: Canadian Maher Arar -

His story (here) and latest USSC ruling (not to hear his case).

While we're at it, how about this? Condoleezza Rice said in an April 2006 during a radio interview "The United States does not transfer people to places where it is known they will be tortured." So, I guess she didn't know about Syria, right?

People like Rice and Bush and Cheney and others need to be under oath and ask about torture. Then we can watch the tap dancing.

This story needs attention by our government - but, don't bet on it - National Security, don't you know?

George Walker Bush v. The World International Court...

2010-06-03T16:07:00.006-04:00

The Story Here in Part:

"Former President Bush recently spoke at the Economic Club of Grand Rapids, MI, where he said that had no regrets about water boarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the self-professed 9/11 mastermind, and would do it again. According to Fox 17 in Grand Rapids, Bush didn’t allow cameras inside for the event, but reporters caught his remarks (here and here): “Yeah, we water boarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I’d do it again to save lives.”

Flashback: Water boarding Mohammed 183 times didn’t save any lives. In fact, Mohammed told U.S. military officials that he gave false information to the CIA after withstanding torture.

The Question is: "Who has proper legal standing to bring charges against Bush for this admission of a war crimes made in public?"

Water boarding is and has been torture and a war crimes for decades. The U.S. has prosecuted for that crime.

So, how can Bush get away with these public admissions of that crime?

The world needs justice - anywhere it leads.

Recall these words as part of Justice Robert Jackson's summation at Nuremberg:

“If you were to say of these men that they are not guilty, it would be as true to say that there has been no war, there are no slain, there has been no crime.”

We must never forget, excuse, or let go, any war crimes or injustice -- now or ever.

Indefinite Detention of Detainees ...

2010-05-30T16:28:00.001-04:00

Left drawing grab from Lance Page at TruthOut.org, and right screen grab credit from Salon.com (Glenn Greenwald article linked below).

Latest Update here (from Salon.com and Glenn Greenwald and includes this from NY Times).

Original Post: Glenn Greenwald has written a truly excellent and easy to follow article about the legal (and Constitutional) ramifications about the subject of detainees and their detention by the U.S., and the pitfalls about the hypocrisy shown by our government in our name.

This extract from the Greenwald strikes me as important:

"Can you smell the hypocrisy? How could anyone miss its pungent, suffocating odor? Apparently, what Obama called "a legal black hole at Guantanamo" is a heinous injustice, but "a legal black hole at Bagram" is the Embodiment of Hope."

"Evidently, then-Senator Obama (video clip here) would only feel "terror" if his child were abducted and taken to Guantanamo and imprisoned "without even getting one chance to ask why and prove their innocence," but if the very same child were instead taken to Bagram and treated exactly the same way, that would be called Justice -- or, to use his jargon, pragmatism."

"And what kind of person hails a Supreme Court decision as "protecting our core values" -- as Obama said of the Boumediene ruling -- only to then turn around and make a complete mockery of that ruling by insisting that the Cherished, Sacred Rights it recognized are purely a function of where the President orders a detainee-carrying military plane to land?"

The Greenwald piece is here. Added to that is this flashback to an old topic from TruthOut.org.

All this makes me wonder: "What are we Americans all about. Who are we becoming as we head in this direction?"

The truth shall set you free if it ever comes out...

2010-04-16T02:33:00.005-04:00

Harriet Miers and Porter Goss back in the limelight (re: CIA destroyed video tapes of torture).

The 2007 version of the story got worse with this update in March 2009 from ABC News re: how many tapes were destroyed by the CIA to hide torture of detainees.

And, now this 2010 version of the story comes out, in part:

WASHINGTON – Former CIA Director Porter Goss agreed with a 2005 decision to destroy interrogation videos showing water boarding, but nobody told former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who was "livid" to find out afterward, according to internal CIA e-mails released Thursday. The documents show that, despite Goss' apparent agreement, officials almost immediately began worrying they'd done something improper, foreshadowing a controversy that has lingered for years and remains under FBI investigation.

This story has been lingering since 2002 — isn't it time for the whole truth to come out? Or do we just want it to go away like Bush and Cheney did, never to be heard from unless they want us to hear from them?

Bombshell, if true ... but then what??? Punt...

2010-04-09T12:16:00.003-04:00

This story from NY Daily News [click here] is a bombshell among many other bombshells... but as Cheney might say, "So, what? It worked just like torture worked -- they kept us safe and free."

Okee, dokee, then.

I'll just post the story and let the facts therein speak for themselves, and hopefully other future facts will speak just as loudly on this issue (if they ever speak at all)?

Hypocrisy: Our View of Justice and Law...

2010-04-01T15:58:00.003-04:00

Just when you thought the NSA domestic wiretapping was, well, kinda of a death issue - low and behold the Courts react (again).

"In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's." Or so says this headlines from early 2009. What has changed?

A very comprehensive update is here from Salon.com (Glenn Greenwald). Is is worth your time and catch up on this issue especially in light of this latest Federal District Judge (Judge Vaughn Walker) ruling here from the NY Times.

Is there a bottom line to this saga, which started under Bush, and now apparently spilled over or under Obama? If so, what do these Federal Judge rulings mean at all, if anything? Greenwald says, in part:

"Although news reports are focusing (appropriately) on the fact that Bush's NSA program was found to be illegal, the bulk of Judge Walker's opinion was actually a scathing repudiation of the Obama DOJ. In fact, the opinion spent almost no time addressing the merits of the claim that the NSA program was legal. That's because the Obama DOJ -- exactly like the Bush DOJ in the case before Judge Taylor -- refused to offer legal justifications to the court for this eavesdropping.

"Instead, the Obama DOJ took the imperial and hubristic position that the court had no right whatsoever to rule on the legality of the program because (a) plaintiffs could not prove they were subjected to the secret eavesdropping (and thus lacked "standing" to sue) and (b) the NSA program was such a vital "state secret" that courts were barred from adjudicating its legality.

"Those were the arguments that Judge Walker scathingly rejected." [read more from the Salon.com link above].

My summary: This NSA domestic spying issue like the detainee torture issue is not complete, and rightly so.

What then is the hypocrisy? We Americans hawk our freedoms around the world, and rightly so. But, in these two cases, we don't practice what we preach. We are very poor in judging character — especially our own!!

Unless and until we bring people to justice regarding these two issues, and let's face, we do not know what else lurks out there, then a huge hypocrisy label hangs over us and that brings us national shame.

Every American should be concerned about that as much as we say we are happy about being safe due to the illegal actions from those two issues .

Fact Check: The facts do not check ...

2010-03-22T15:09:00.004-04:00

Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and Marc Thiessen (author).
[Artwork grabbed from The New Yorker]

The story unfolds this way according to a fine article by Jane Mayer at The New Yorker as she writes in part:

"Marc Thiessen wrote a book, "Courting Disaster" that has the subtitle “How the C.I.A. Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack.”

"Thiessen writes and offers a relentless defense of the Bush Administration’s interrogation policies, which, according to many critics, sanctioned torture and yielded no appreciable intelligence benefit. In addition, Thiessen attacks the Obama Administration for having banned techniques such as water boarding. “Americans could die as a result.”

Mayer continues: "Yet Thiessen is better at conveying fear than at relaying the facts. His account of the foiled Heathrow plot, for example, is “completely and utterly wrong,” according to Peter Clarke, who was the head of Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorism branch in 2006."

Read the rest from Mayer here and also some here from Talking Points Memo.

The bottom line is this: Jane Mayer is an excellent and top-notch reporter who knows this issue from top to bottom. She has reported and written extensively about torture. Marc Thiessen is trying to sell a book and prop up Cheney and Bush and a few others along the way. He uses fear and his own ego and a total lack of knowledge and apparently facts, too, not only about "water boarding (torture)" but about much of anything at all dealing with the rules of land warfare or American laws. He believes torture works and that it keeps us safe and free. Nothing could be further from the truth.

People like Marc Thiessen need to be exposed for what they are: liars and sinister exaggerators.

Rove is 'proud' we water boarded detainees...

2010-03-12T16:36:00.004-05:00

Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove

Karl Rove joins a long class of GOP-Conservative maniacs who believe that torture works and that water boarding of detainees was correct and justified as well as any other "enhanced interrogation techniques," because they "kept us safe."

Further, Rove says that water boarding should not be considered torture, even though it is and as been for decades. Rove uses the justification from the John Yoo/Jay Bybee, et al, in their memos to justify those war crimes. The same memos that Bush-Cheney wanted Yoo and others to write for them to justify the crimes. Make no mistake about that.

Watch this short 6-minute BBC video interview of Karl Rove. Pay close and particular attention to the slick words he used to somehow give himself and others cover as he weakly justifies the war crimes.

This interview on top the Cheney's relentless pursuit of selling "enhanced interrogation techniques" as somehow okay underscores the need, the immediate need, for us as a nation to pursue war crimes against all the guilty parties.

Rove is hitting the TV/Talk Radio circuit for one reason: to hawk his book and by making outrageous statements, he draws attention to this book ergo: more sales. On the Charlie Rose Show (PBS) he again said he was proud that we tortured. On that same show, Rove spouted statistics, facts and figures that would put IBM's BlueGene/L (the world's fastest computer) to same. Yet, awhile back, Rove couldn't remember who leaked Plame's name or where his missing White House Emails were.

Rove is a complete political dirty tricks genius, and he always has been. He knows exactly and precisely what he is doing . . . make no mistake about that. And, what he does/has done, is all evil.

Make no mistake about it, what people like Rove have done in the name of our government — yes, in our name as "We, the People — regarding torture, are war crimes. They should be brought to justice.

"Legally Right or Politically Correct???"

2010-03-09T18:59:00.002-05:00

Try the terrorists behind which venue: Door #1 - for the world to see, or Door #2 - limited visibility?

Update (March 9, 2010): The drip, drip, drip of torture info is torture in and of itself. It's worse than trying to conduct a decent interrogation of members of Congress about former Rep. Mark Foley's hanky-panky with a group of House pages ... but, that's a different story.

This story about what water boarding did and didn't do at Gitmo is from Salon.com and it's an excellent piece by Mark Benjamin.

Original Post: As we watch and wait for President Obama to decide, keep these two things to keep in mind:

"It would be a sad day for the rule of law if President Obama decides not to proceed with a federal trial. I thought the decision where to put people on trial -- whether federal court or military commissions -- was based on what was right, not what is politically advantageous."

— Marine Corps Colonel (Lawyer) Jeffrey Colwell, acting chief defense counsel at the Defense Department's Office of Military Commissions.

and:

"If President Obama reverses Holder's decision to try the 9/11 defendants in criminal court and retreats to using the Bush military commissions, he deals a death blow to his own Justice Department, breaks a clear campaign promise to restore the rule of law and demonstrates that the promises to his constituents are all up for grabs. The military commissions have not worked, they are doomed to failure, and Obama will invariably find himself running for office again while not achieving justice for the 9/11 attacks."

— Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The public is complicit by its silence ...

2010-03-01T11:52:00.008-05:00

John Yoo; Defendants at Nuremberg; Justice Robert Jackson.

John Yoo just will not let this go... he is blasting everyone about his so-called vindication of his role in the "torture memos" and the torture that followed. His latest is from here.

Here is what I say to Mr. John Yoo: "No, sir, it is you who is a "farce" and a war criminal to boot."

I'm sad to say also that by extension (and mostly silence) via an out-of-control media like Fox and Talk Radio, that most Americans believe Yoo is innocent and thus by extension, torture is okay. The words of Justice Jackson ring as clear today as they did in 1946:

“If we were to say of these men that they are not guilty, it would be as true to say that there has been no war, there are no slain, there has been no crime.”

— Part of Justice Jackson’s concluding sentence from his 20-page summation at the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials, July 26, 1946. His complete summation can be seen here.

As a nation, as a people, we Americans should be ashamed. Are we? It does not seem so.

Sen. Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions III

2010-02-26T11:10:00.006-05:00

That's his real name and he is a staunch Alabama Republican. Now he defends John Yoo about the torture memo.

I seriously wonder with as much candor as I can muster: "How can this man call himself a Senator of the United States with a straight face?" What makes people like Sessions tick? The main story from here.

But, first: Who is "Beauregard" Sessions the Third -- the man? Here are a few details from this bio sketch:

In 1986, Reagan nominated Sessions to be a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Sessions was actively backed by Alabama Senator Jeremiah Denton, a Republican. The nomination of Sessions was first sent to the Senate for confirmation on October 23, 1985, and was resubmitted on January 29, 1986. The American Bar Association, which rates nominees to the federal bench, rated Sessions "qualified."

At his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, four Department of Justice lawyers who had worked with Sessions testified that he had made several racist statements. One of those lawyers, J. Gerald Hebert, testified that Sessions had referred to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as "un-American" and "Communist-inspired" because they "forced civil rights down the throats of people." Hebert said that Sessions had a tendency to "pop off" on such topics frequently and had once called a white civil rights lawyer who dealt with voting rights suits a "disgrace to his race."

Thomas Figures, a black Assistant U.S. Attorney, testified that Sessions said he thought the Klan was "OK until I found out they smoked pot." Figures also testified that on one occasion, when the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division sent the office instructions to investigate a case that Sessions had tried to close, Figures and Sessions "had a very spirited discussion regarding how the Hodge case should then be handled; in the course of that argument, Mr. Sessions threw the file on a table, and remarked, 'I wish I could decline on all of them,'" by which Figures said Sessions meant civil rights cases generally.

After becoming Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Sessions was asked in an interview about his civil rights record as a U.S Attorney. He denied that he had not sufficiently pursued civil rights cases, saying that "when I was [a U.S. Attorney], I signed 10 pleadings attacking segregation or the remnants of segregation, where we as part of the Department of Justice, we sought desegregation remedies."

Figures also said that Sessions had called him "boy." He also testified that "Mr. Sessions admonished me to 'be careful what you say to white folks.'" Sessions responded to the testimony by denying the allegations, saying his remarks were taken out of context or meant in jest, and also stating that groups could be considered un-American when "they involve themselves in un-American positions" in foreign policy. Sessions said during testimony that he considered the Klan to be "a force for hatred and bigotry." In regards to the marijuana quote, Sessions said the comment was a joke but apologized.

In response to a question from Joe Biden on whether he had called the NAACP and other civil rights organizations, Sessions replied "I'm often loose with my tongue. I may have said something about the NAACP being un-American or Communist, but I meant no harm by it." Although on the Judiciary Committee Republicans held 10 seats and Democrats eight, on June 5, 1986 the Committee voted 10-8 against recommendation the nomination to the floor, with Republican Senators Charles Mathias of Maryland and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania voted with the Democrats. It then split 9-9 on a vote to send Sessions' nomination to the Senate floor with no recommendation, with Specter again voting with the Democrats. The pivotal votes against Sessions came from Democratic Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama. Although Heflin had previously backed Sessions, he began to oppose Sessions after hearing testimony, concluding that there were "reasonable doubts" over Sessions' ability to be "fair and impartial."

His nomination was withdrawn on July 31, 1986. Sessions became only the second nominee to the federal judiciary in 48 years whose nomination was killed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sessions was quoted then as saying that the Senate on occasion had been insensitive to the rights and reputation of nominees. After joining the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sessions remarked that his presence there, alongside several of the members who voted against him, was a "great irony."

I note: You gotta hand it to those folks in Alabama -- they sure know how to pick their representatives in Congress. And, now with this story, Sessions apparently supports torture along with John Yoo and that mess.

I have to wonder how people like Sen. Sessions sleep at night?

Equal Justice Under Law ... except for ...

2010-02-24T19:45:00.000-05:00

Water boarding (is not torture). Jay Bybee and John Yoo - "Torture Memo Authors."

John Yoo Faux Pas (February 24, 2010): Mr. Yoo can't even get the date straight for when the investigation started that just cleared him of misconduct (instead found that he displayed poor judgment with the so-called torture memo). Yoo blames it all on Mr. Obama. In fact, the investigation started under Mr. Bush in 2008 - long before Mr. Obama was even elected. John Yoo is a despictable human being.

The story is here.

Major Update (main post follows this update) (February 22, 2010): I bit long, but needs to be said.

From Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com (editing for this post by me to try and make it simple and clear for my non-lawyer readers ... I hope I succeeded, but if not, the original sources are provided for them to read the entire background themselves.

Greenwald’s piece is here. He writes in part (edited by me for simplicity) this regarding the OPR report (all segments of that report are here):

Margolis declined to adopt OPR's finding of misconduct against John Yoo and Jay Bybee, saying in part, “While I have declined to adopt OPR's finding of misconduct... as the recommendation did not reach the level of the DOJ guidelines for misconduct ... they both exhibited poor judgment ... etc. etc.”

Poor judgment? Margolis had to follow the D0J Ethics Handbook, as it were, to find out what the outcome should/would have to reach in such cases

Margolis repeatedly adopted the OPR's findings that the Yoo/Bybee torture memos – on which the entire American torture regime was constructed and which media elites now embrace in order to argue against prosecutions – were “wrong, extreme, misguided, and the by-product of poor judgment, but, as he concluded not based on any misconduct.”

So, did a definition, or lack thereof of a clear definition “save” Yoo and Bybee? Apparently so, but how or why? The thing that saved therm in Margolis' eyes was that attorney ethical rules (that he measured their conduct or lack thereof against) was written by lawyers to protect themselves – ergo: It did not fit, so he had to acquit.

What would have been misconduct, we wonder for such government lawyers in such cases? Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin says it pretty well in this piece – extract follows: (emphasis is mine)

“... the rules of professional misconduct are aimed at weeding out sociopaths and people driven to theft and egregious incompetence by serious drug and alcohol abuse problems; they do not guarantee that lawyers will do right by their clients, or, in this case, by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.”

“In effect, by setting the standard of conduct so low, rules of professional conduct effectively work to protect all those lawyers out there whose moral standing is just a hair's breadth above your average mass murderer. This is how the American legal profession simultaneously polices and takes care of its own.”

“To show misconduct, according to the standard that Margolis finds most relevant, one would have to show that Yoo or Bybee intentionally made arguments that they knew were wrong and false or did so not caring whether they were wrong or false. That standard could not be met for Jay Bybee, because Bybee was, to put it bluntly, an empty suit who relied on the advice of others and didn't analyze the memos all that closely. He just signed the papers. This makes him pathetic, but not, in Margolis' view, someone who unambiguously violated existing rules of professional responsibility.”

“As for John Yoo, Margolis explains (although he puts it far more diplomatically) that Yoo was an ideologue who entered government service with a warped vision of the world in which he sincerely believed. Yoo had crazy ideas even before he entered government; which strongly suggests that he probably shouldn't have been hired in the first place.”

I could not have said it any clearer.

The Original Post Follows Below:

Introductory quote from Deborah Rhode, director of the Stanford Center on Ethics. She is Ernest W. McFarland Professor of Law at Stanford University.

This quote has nothing to do with the issue of torture that I address below, but her quote is worth remembering at this stage of the so-called investigation of the "torture memo," or the now apparent closure of the Bybee/Yoo portion. In short, those two may be off the hook.

"Equal justice under law" is one of America's most firmly embedded and widely violated legal principles. It is a rhetorical flourish commonly encountered in ceremonial rhetoric and occasionally even constitutional decisions. But it comes nowhere close to describing the justice system in practice. While this is not, of course, the only legal context in which rhetoric outruns reality, it is one of the most disturbing, given the fundamental nature of the rights at issue."

Bybee and Yoo: According to the new "modified final DOJ memo" says that they displayed poor judgement and NOT misconduct or anything else foul. So, at this piont they can keep their law licenses and continue having "bad hair days?"

This short 5-minute video from a very smart constitutional law professor, Jonathan Turley says it far better than I can [click here]. He says it violates the principles laid out at the Nuremberg trials, summarized here, I suspect he means in this quote:

“If we were to say of these men that they are not guilty, it would be as true to say that there has been no war, there are no slain, there has been no crime.” — Justice Robert Jackson’s final concluding sentence from his 20-page summation at the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials (July 26, 1946).

The full document of that is [from here].

Background: The CIA requested legal advice on conducting detainee interrogation from Jay Byee's office. That request was routed to the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) by then-White House General Counsel Alberto Gonzalez who desired the "ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors."

The CIA inquired whether, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it could aggressively interrogate suspected high-ranking al-Qaeda members captured outside the United States. In effect, the CIA was asking for an interpretation of the statutory term of "torture" as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2340. That section implements, in part, the obligations of the United States under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The OLC drafted a memo in response to the CIA request. The memo was principally authored by OLC lawyer John Yoo with aid from David Addington, then legal counsel to then Vice President Dick Cheney.

The memo described the limitations on the behavior of U.S. government interrogators outside the United States as governed by the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

This memo became known as the "Torture Memo."

To Date: The Justice Department released a long-awaited watchdog report on the Bush administration legal team that authorized the now-infamous torture memos. And in a move destined to anger critics of the past administration's conduct, the career official in charge of the investigation overruled a previous finding of misconduct -- exonerating the lawyers (Bybee and Yoo) under examination (see below link).

The nearly 300-page report concludes that Yoo and Bybee are not guilty of any "professional misconduct" in writing the memos that recommended "enhanced interrogation techniques." Rather, Yoo and Bybee used "poor judgment" in their issuing of the torture memos.

To the Point: In late January 2010, Newsweek reported that the official in charge from the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) who spearheaded the report is career veteran David Margolis. Margolis watered down his criticism of Bybee and Yoo in his final draft. The accompanying documents released show that while an initial OPR report found Yoo and Bybee to have engaged "in professional misconduct," but Margolis subsequently decided to drop the charge.

The Latest: Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has announced that the Senate Judicial Committee will hold a hearing next Friday, Feb. 26, to examine the Justice Department's report about the Bush administration's torture memos. According to a press release from the Senator's office, witnesses will be announced in the coming days. Leahy, a former prosecutor, said that he was "offended" by the "premeditated approach" that John Yoo and Jay Bybee used to draft "seriously flawed national security policies."

Stay tuned - or, as Yogi Berra would say, "It ain't over til it's over."

Equal Justice Under Law ... except for...

2010-02-22T14:05:00.003-05:00

Water boarding (is not torture). Jay Bybee and John Yoo - "Torture Memo Authors."

The story is here.

Major Update (main post follows this update) (February 22, 2010): I bit long, but needs to be said.

The Original Post Follows Below:

The full document of that is [from here].

The Gift that Keeps on Giving: Dick Cheney...

2010-02-14T20:22:00.006-05:00

Deadeye Dick on ABC's THIS WEEK -

Update to the post that follows (February 17, 2010): Review this clip (7 min :25 seconds) and especially the concluding remarks of the guest on the show, Mr. Malcom Nance, former Navy professional who knows this stuff inside and out. So, Mr. Cheney, "Are you listening?" (probably not).

In part, Cheney said, "... it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend that we are at war."

Then pressed by the host, Jonathan Karl, Cheney weakly tries to clarify his words ... [see and hear here].

Cheney just will not let go of the idea that the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" work and that good intelligence has come from it and that's why we are safe. Apparently, Mr. Cheney supports torture -- his comments prove that point, thus he apparently has not heard of these comments [from here]:

• Gen. David Petraeus: “Torture yields information of questionable value.”

• The FBI: “Enhanced techniques are of questionable effectiveness.”

• Special Ops Interrogator: “Enhanced interrogation causes detainees to shut up.”

• Military’s Joint Personnel Recovery Agency [JPRA]: “Enhanced program produces unreliable intelligence.”

• Army psychologist: “Enhanced techniques ‘do not work’ in intelligence-gathering.”

• Another Army psychologist: “Rapport techniques produce better intelligence.”

• FBI Director Robert Meuller: “Enhanced techniques haven’t prevented any terrorist attacks.”

• FBI Agent Jack Cloonan: “Abu Zubaydah and KSM gave only pabulum, after being water boarded (by the CIA)."

• CIA Official: “CIA interrogations of KSM produced total f-ing BS.”

• Mr. Ali Soufan, the FBI Agent and Interrogator who broke Abu Zubaydah, who in turn revealed the name and whereabouts of KSM that led to his capture: “Torturing Abu Zubaydah was unnecessary. The CIA enhanced interrogations applied later destroyed the progress that had been made with Zubaydah. Traditional methods provided important actionable intelligence, like the name and location which led to the capture of KSM.”

Cheney has zero shame or credibility... he pops up like a "whack a mole," blows off steam and fat lips about much of nothing jut to stay in the limelight, and for what reason? Who really knows what lurks in the "dark" crevices of Richard Bruce Cheney? I certainly do not know.

I suspect his recent performance will be followed by the fruit of his loin, daughter Liz Cheney. I presume she will hit the circuits starting at FOX, working her way back to FOX. Then the Cheney tag team of dumb and dumber will be back at it, full bore.

Pathetic.

Detainees Always Hang Themselves: In 3's...

2010-01-20T23:43:00.001-05:00

Not just one detainee hanged himself; not even two, but three ... and all at the same time ...

Major Update (January 20, 2010): This report, a short 6-minute video, is from the Countdown show on MSNBC.com. It presents Seton Hall University law professor, Mark Denbeaux, who is challenging the DOJ report about the three unexplained deaths.

Note: Professor Denbeaux's son son is representing one of the Army MPs, Sergeant Joe Hickman, who is the four witnesses who say the DOJ report is wrong (Hickman is the main whistle blower in this case).

Major Update (January 18, 2010): I am moving this story back to the top of the heap. It had some attention, then it died away out of sight. But, it "may be coming back," I said earlier.

Well, it it back ... and with a vengeance. More details have come to light, and come from the Countdown Show (at MSNBC.com) as shown in this short 8-minute video.

The main speaker in this story is Scott Horton from Harper's Magazine. He broke this story and has followed it with new and update materials that he explains in the video clip. The Harper's piece is here. Note that an Army soldier (an MP) who was stationed at the site is the main whistle blower for Mr. Horton. Others are involved and the investigation continues. Congressional hearings have been held in secret - more is coming -- stay tuned.

Original Post Starts Here: Let's look at the details as they have been redeveloped and examined this way from Salon.com and Glenn Greenwald, who stays on top of issues like this one, we get this assessment from him that he writes in part:

"On the night of June 10, 2006, three Guantanamo detainees were found dead in their individual cells. Without any autopsy or investigation, U.S. military officials proclaimed "suicide by hanging" as the cause of each death, and immediately sought to exploit the episode as proof of the evil of the detainees. Admiral Harry Harris, the camp's commander, said it showed "they have no regard for life" and that the suicides were "not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetric warfare aimed at us here at Guantanamo." Another official anonymously said that the suicides showed the victims were "committed Jihadists [who] will do anything they can to advance their cause." Another sneered that "it was a good PR move to draw attention."

"Questions immediately arose about how it could be possible that three detainees kept in isolation and under constant and intense monitoring could have coordinated and then carried out group suicide without detection, particularly since the military claimed their bodies were not found for over two hours after their deaths."

This story may not go away, nor should it go away until the whole story is clear. We need to know the truth, even in the case of these three detainees and the odd (to say the least) way of their deaths, don't we?

Yes, we do.

"We always told the truth... honest... really..."

2010-01-10T15:57:00.003-05:00

Rumsfeld, Bush, and Cheney

"Alrighty then" (said with a Jim Carrey accent) ... how about this story (May 11, 2009) that still ties into current events? A couple of highlights that the public must never lose sight of:

Former Vice president Dick Cheney said Bush’s “enhanced interrogation” methods, “I think it was absolutely the right thing to do. I am convinced, absolutely convinced, that we saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives.”

Wow - but Mr. Cheney, the truth of the matter — as this 2004 CIA report purportedly shows (and is well-documented) — is that “enhanced interrogation (buzzword for torture)” does not work.

In fact, torture endangers American lives and helps terrorists recruit new foot soldiers.

Quote of the Century and Beyond???

2009-12-25T13:55:00.004-05:00

"We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful. That's the world we operate in, and so it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective."

— Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney explaining new approaches the Bush administration would use just five days after the 9/11

Abuses of Power since 9/11: At home and abroad.

* Abu Ghraib

* Gitmo

* CIA "dark sites"

* CIA extraordinary rendition and irregular rendition are terms used to describe the apprehension and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another.

* "Torture by proxy" (United States has purportedly transferred suspected terrorists to countries known to employ harsh interrogation techniques).

* NSA domestic wire tapping

* FBI abuses of Patriot Act

America — World Leader in Democracy, Freedom, Law and Order, Justice for all, and right and wrong?

Question: Is this our country? Is it the "new" rule of law? Is it equal justice under law (for some, but not for others)? Are we really this way today?

Answer: Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. Or so, it seems ... if not, then you haven't followed or examined our "political process" lately. I rest my case.

Pre-Nuremberg Trials: 1945 redux...

2009-12-09T22:08:00.005-05:00

John Yoo, Professor Jonathan Turley, and Jay Bybee.

The story is briefly stated here from Professor Turley's blog (emphasis is mine):

"The Obama Administration has filed a brief that brushes over the war crimes aspects of Yoo’s work at the Justice Department. Instead, it insists that attorneys must be free to give advice — even if it is to establish a torture program. In its filing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Justice Department insists that there is “the risk of deterring full and frank advice regarding the military’s detention and treatment of those determined to be enemies during an armed conflict.”

What that means in plain lingo is that the DOJ believes that government lawyers can give advice to the president, even if it bad or poor or in this case, illegal, advice to the president and be safe from prosecution.

How absurd that sounds says Professor Turley on the Countdown Show at MSNBC.com (6-minute clip is here).

The history of John Yoo and Jay Bybee and others can be found further down this blog regarding their involvement in writing and approve those infamous "Torture Memos" that were the basis for the White House and others to give and receive "The Green Light" for harsh detainee treatment that the whole world now knows was torture -- and that was illegal, unlawful and a war crimes.

Of course Federal lawyers advising the president should not feel constrained in giving advice or worry about prosecution (later), but that assumes the advice they give is NOT advice about things that are illegal, unlawful and a war crimes and torture certainly fits that bill.

At the Nuremberg Trials in 1947, the world did not allow that "excuse" to stand: "For Nazi lawyers who gave advice to Nazi leaders on the Jewish problem, or other gross war crimes, to go free just because they gave such advice."

They were prosecuted then and John Yoo and others should be prosecuted now.

Lest, We Forget — these words from U.S. Justice Robert Jackson's summation (20 pages) at the Nuremberg trials (July 26, 1946): “If we were to say of these men that they are not guilty, it would be as true to say that there has been no war, there are no slain, there has been no crime.”

Jackson's full summantion can be read here. Today, it is not different than then.

What the Party of Torture Hath Wrought...

2009-12-03T16:13:00.005-05:00

The title of this post: "What the Party of Torture Hath Wrought" was swiped from this blog posting at The American Prospect.org and posted by Adam Serwer on December 3, 2009.

An excellent analysis of this issue, which linked the post that follows comes from Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com.

-- I post the blog below, verbatim -- the emphasis is mine.

"A new survey on public attitudes on international issues conducted by Pew and the Council on Foreign Relations is gonna make the Cheneys squeal with delight:"

"Public opinion about the use of torture remains divided, though the share saying it can at least sometimes be justified has edged upward over the past year. Currently just over half of Americans say that the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can either often (19%) or sometimes (35%) be justified."

(Note: This is 54 percent of our public who say torture can be often or sometimes JUSTIFIED).

"This is the first time in over five years of Pew Research polling on this question that a majority has expressed these views. Another 16% say torture can rarely be justified, while 25% say it can never be justified."

"Torture is a crime. Torture is morally wrong. Torture is ineffective. It erodes our influence abroad and endangers our ability to prosecute terrorists at home. But like global warming, you can see what happens when one party in a two party system makes something outrageous part of its political platform: Even the most abhorrent behavior can be mainstreamed." — A. Serwer

The results from this Pew and the Council on Foreign Relations poll should make every American cringe in horror, and not just the 54 percent who think torture often or sometimes can be justified.

The fundamental fact that anyone at all even thinks torture can EVER be justified is disheartening.

Those who think that way must be watching too much "24 with Jack Bauer." But, even those people should note that even "Jack Bauer" never broke under torture, even by the Chinese for two years, and once or twice when he had to be brought back from death itself. (And, before you ask, yes. I am a huge "24" fan — but I am also a former Marine Corps interrogator who knows the rule of law, rules of ground warfare, and the Geneva Conventions, etc.).

Torture never works — never, and it never will.

Destroyed CIA Torture Tapes: Update...

2009-12-02T14:01:00.004-05:00

It was said that a "Cloud hangs over the Vice President" (in the Plame case), but apparently we have a pretty dark shadow cast over the entire White House in this case?

This update comes in three parts:

The first part is this introduction from The Hill.com.

The second part cites an extensive list of documents from the ACLU obtained in late November which reveal new information about the CIA's destruction of nearly 100 videotapes. They depict the brutal techniques used during interrogation of detainees at CIA black sites. Included are the precise dates tapes were destroyed, and further evidence which shows that the White House was far more involved in early discussions about the proposed destruction than had been reported.

The third part comes in this short 9-minute video which shows several detainees released after years at Gitmo who were never charged — their compelling story ...

— More to follow as it becomes available.

"BLACKWATER or Xe = No Difference..."

2009-11-24T13:42:00.005-05:00

Blackwater changed their name to Xe (pronounced Zee) in case you didn't know. But, as long as their mission continues, it won't matter what they do or get away with, but it should.

The latest from an author, Jeremy Scahill, an expert on Blackwater/Xe. From this piece we can see a trend that should scare the living crap out of anyone. To wit:

"The source, who has worked on covert US military programs for years, including in Afghanistan and Pakistan, has direct knowledge of Blackwater's involvement. He spoke to The Nation on condition of anonymity because the program is classified. The source said that the program is so "compartmentalized that senior figures within the Obama administration and the US military chain of command may not be aware of its existence."

Read the rest of Scahill's report and check his other articles here. Then pitch in and help track this story.

Justice for the Torture Policy Writers????

2009-11-18T23:49:00.006-05:00

UPDATE (November 18, 2009): The above screen grab came by way of a short video from the Rachel Maddow Show (MSNBC.com).

Two of the major players in the so-called "Memo Writers on Torture Policy" are pictured above. This update on John Yoo is from the NY Times (April 22, 2009). Included in the piece is reference to Jay Bybee.

And, this also from the NY Times (March 8, 2009).

It seems that after nearly 5 years of pursuit of these two, among many others involved in the torture policy memo issue, that in fact, they may be disbarred from ever practicing law again.

In the meantime, here is a list of key "terrorism-related" memos from September 25, 2001 through January 15, 2009.

Stay tuned — more to follow. Justice may be slow in America, but as they say, "Justice is Not Blind" (we hope).

Torture the innocent & get immunity...

2009-11-03T13:20:00.005-05:00

Equal Justice Under Law or this???

This update is an article written by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com [click for article].

I wanted to highlight a few points from the article to set the scene.

"Maher Arar is both a Canadian and Syrian citizen of Syrian descent. A telecommunications engineer and graduate of Montreal's McGill University, he has lived in Canada since he's 17 years old. In 2002, he was returning home to Canada from vacation when, on a stopover at JFK Airport, he was (a) detained by U.S. officials, (b) accused of being a Terrorist, (c) held for two weeks incommunicado and without access to counsel while he was abusively interrogated, and then (d) was "rendered" -- despite his pleas that he would be tortured -- to Syria, to be interrogated and tortured. He remained in Syria for the next 10 months under the most brutal and inhumane conditions imaginable, where he was repeatedly tortured." (The emphases are mine, not Greenwald's). Greenwald continues:

"In January, 2007, the Canadian Prime Minister publicly apologized to Arar for the role Canada played in these events, and the Canadian government paid him $9 million in compensation. That was preceded by a full investigation by Canadian authorities and the public disclosure of a detailed report which concluded "categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offense or that his activities constituted a threat to the security of Canada."

The Irony:

"By stark and very revealing contrast, the U.S. Government has never admitted any wrongdoing or even spoken publicly about what it did; to the contrary, it repeatedly insisted that courts were barred from examining the conduct of government officials because what we did to Arar involves "state secrets" and because courts should not interfere in the actions of the Executive where national security is involved."

Justice, or Not?

"(yesterday) ... the Second Circuit -- by a vote of 7-4 -- agreed with the government and dismissed Arar's case in its entirety. It held that even if the government violated Arar's Constitutional rights as well as statutes banning participation in torture, he still has no right to sue for what was done to him."

"Why? Because "providing a damages remedy against senior officials who implement an extraordinary rendition policy would enmesh the courts ineluctably in an assessment of the validity of the rationale of that policy and its implementation in this particular case, matters that directly affect significant diplomatic and national security concerns" (p. 39). In other words, government officials are free to do anything they want in the national security context -- even violate the law and purposely cause someone to be tortured -- and courts should honor and defer to their actions by refusing to scrutinize them."

We owe a huge gratitude of thanks to George W. Bush and his "justice" machine. Please read the entire Greenwald piece and then keep it handy for the next election. You could be next ... (Ha ... far fetched you say. Let's ask Mr. Arar about that, shall we?).

"The Long War Ahead: Caution..."

2009-10-28T18:07:00.001-04:00

One view of U.S. occupation forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan = in the year 2051. (This Artwork is by Zina Saunders, and snagged from the article linked below) . Thanks.

Update (October 28, 2009): Headlines the last few days and weeks:

PAKISTAN:

PESHAWAR, Pakistan – A car bomb struck a busy market in northwestern Pakistan on Wednesday, killing 100 people — mostly women and children. More than 200 people were wounded in the blast. It is the deadliest attack in a surge of attacks by suspected insurgents this month. The government blamed militants seeking to avenge an army offensive launched this month against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in their stronghold close to the Afghan border.
IRAQ: Two huge blasts in Baghdad killed 155 and wounded more than 500 last week.

AFGHANISTAN: The U.S. death toll has reached an all-time high since the 2001 invasion: 22 Americans killed last week and three helicopters were lost.

IRAN: The Obama team is said to be developing “new policy” that will face the fact that Iran will be nuclear-armed country and we can’t do much about that. We will have to live with that fact. (But, I’d double check with the Jews first).

So, are we winning (however that is defined), have we won – or will we win? Many say we need more troops, right? (More troops will equal more dead, bet on that). Some say we need to pour more money to help those countries stand on their own, right? Some say all we need are new tactics, right? Others say we have new leadership, so that is the right message, right? Most Republicans say we need a quick decision by the president, right?

At the same time, we get more fireworks from the GOP about “dithering, or dragging our heels.”

The winner, by their standard, is the GOP with their eyes towards 2010 and beyond (get back into power anyway possible).

Sadly, they are NOT willing to help except with more failed policies that got us to this point in the first place. We had an election last year. Give this president a chance.

This stuff is NOT a free-for-all, or “Politics as usual.” We had better start working together to solve our massive problems, or we surely will fall together under the weight of those massive problems – aboard and at home. That is a fact.

ORIGINAL POST: A very good 2-page article by Tom Hayden [click here].

The so-called Kilcullen "theory or hypothesis" is designed to make us think, and it surely does.

I suspect it has or will be read by the Obama team as they struggle about the issue of more troops for Afghanistan.

The hypothesis is put forth this way: "American forces kill or capture Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, enabling President Obama to declare victory and bring our troops home. Would he?"

Hayden writes: "Not according to the Pentagon's plan for a fifty-year "Long War" of counterinsurgency spanning Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Horn of Africa, the Philippines and beyond." (My note: Referred to from here on as the "Kilcullen Plan.")

Hayden goes on discussing the "enemy" in that region: "[these accidental guerrillas] ... are no accident at all. They inevitably and predictably emerge as a nationalist force against foreign invaders. Their resistance to imperialism stretches back far before Al Qaeda. In fact, Al Qaeda was born with US resources, as a byproduct of resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and earlier oppression of hundreds of Islamic radicals in Egyptian prisons."

Hayden summarizes with this: "To his credit, President Obama and his White House advisers see the quagmire ahead, with the majority of Democrats opposing escalation in Afghanistan, with Iraq teetering and Pakistan sliding over the edge, and with no funding for a Long War. There is no short-term way to repair the self-inflicted dysfunctions of the Kabul regime, nor is there any plan likely to win public approval in Pakistan. The military and the Republicans will accuse Obama of failure if he tries to withdraw, and of a quagmire if he stays. Instead of treating counterinsurgency as a holy text, he needs to study the hardest maneuver of all, strategic retreat (like John F. Kennedy in Laos, Ronald Reagan in Lebanon or Bill Clinton in Mogadishu), in order to avoid greater losses that threaten the very promise of his presidency."

I wonder: So, this may dwindle down to a "political vs. a military decision?" Obama loses politically if he fails the military and does not abide by their requests? Or, if the military fails as McChrystal claims if he does not get the 40,000 plus troops he says he needs to win (discounting the Kilcullen theory), then Obama loses for losing another war? What if Obama gives the troops and keeps giving the troops, especially now since McChrystal now says, "No amount of troops will matter — we may lose because the Kabul government is corrupt."

Reminds me of the two doors leading into Hell each has a sign above that reads: "Damned if You Do" and the other reads: "Damned if You Don't."

"Past the Point of No Return or Not????"

2009-10-08T13:27:00.006-04:00

Refection (November 20, 2008):

WASHINGTON – A federal judge today ordered the release of five Algerian detainees who have been held at Guantánamo for nearly seven years without charges.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon also ruled that the government may continue to hold a sixth Algerian indefinitely. These cases are the first contested challenges to the indefinite detention of Guantánamo prisoners since the Supreme Court's landmark decision upholding the right of habeas corpus last June in Boumediene v Bush.

Reflection (May 20, 2009):

A federal judge says the United States can continue to hold some prisoners at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely without any charges. U.S. District Judge John Bates' opinion issued Tuesday night limited the Obama administration's definition of who can be held. But he said Congress in the days after Sept. 11, 2001 gave the president the authority to hold anyone involved in planning, aiding or carrying out the terrorist attacks. Bates' opinion comes amid increasing debate over whether President Barack Obama is going to release anyone from Guantanamo. Obama has promised to close the prison by January, but Senate Democrats say they will block the move until he comes up with a plan for the detainees. (Update: so far they have blocked any move).

Detainees need their day in court to either have charges against them dropped or that they be prosecuted as war criminals or whatever other law applies. To hold the forever, or until this "war" in Afghanistan or Iraq are over, is dreaming. This war on terror by by terrorists (operating in small bands or groups) is here forever. We will never win as long as one terrorist is willing to strap on a suicide vest and walk into a hotel or office or some high-value area and blow himself/herself up in the name of Allah. It ain't gonna happen. So, holding them forever, by some accounts, keeps them "off the streets and out of action?"

Imagine if we still had our POW's in North Vietnam being held as "war criminals" as the North called them this long — John McCain wouldn't be a Senator — he'd be just an old man in a cell in Hanoi.

We need resolution on this issue — now rather than later. It's a huge ugly nasty stain on our national honor.

Prolonged, Preventive, Indefinite Detainees...

2009-09-24T17:45:00.016-04:00

“A nation can survive its fools, even its ambitious; it cannot survive lies from its government.” — Cicero

If this subject weren't so serious, the Three Stooges might actually be in charge.

Update (September 24, 2009): From Salon.com (Glenn Greenwald) [click here], writes in part:

"When Barack Obama gave his "civil liberties" speech (from Salon.com) at the National Archives in May, he advocated a new scheme of preventive detention for detainees whom he claimed "cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people," and he unambiguously vowed to develop a new statutory regime, enacted by Congress, to vest him with the power of what he called "prolonged detention."

"Obama has now changed his mind (from the NY Times) about seeking a new law, and instead will continue to detain Terrorism suspects without charges under the current system (the one used by Bush/Cheney as well): The Obama administration has decided not to seek new legislation from Congress authorizing the indefinite detention of about 50 terrorism suspects being held without charges at at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, officials said Wednesday (September 23, 2009)."

"Regardless of what motivated this, and no matter how bad the current detention scheme is, this development is very positive, and should be considered a victory for those who spent the last four months loudly protesting Obama's proposal."

"Here's why:" [click here to read the rest of this fine assessment].

Time to re-examine our national soul...

2009-09-19T21:29:00.008-04:00

“A nation can survive its fools, even its ambitious; it cannot survive lies from its government.” — Cicero

"The GREEN LIGHT" crew (sanctioned torture of detainees) — missing from this photo are John Yoo, Steven Bradbury, and Jay Bybee, who basically wrote the secret memos that gave the cover for the go orders that followed.

Update: Glenn Greenwald writing in Salon.com has a nice piece out on the topic of some folks who do not want the CIA interrogators to be investigated by AG Eric Holder [click here]. Greenwald offers this up for consideration, in part:

"In a truly shocking development being treated as major news (NY Times), seven former CIA Directors -- including all three who served under George W. Bush -- jointly concluded that the CIA should not be criminally investigated for torture deaths, and they have written a letter to President Obama (.pdf format) expressing that view."

"Do leaders of organizations in general ever believe that their organizations and its members should be criminally investigated and possibly prosecuted for acts carried out on behalf of that organization, and do CIA Directors specifically ever believe that about the CIA? Has a CIA Director ever advocated that CIA agents be criminally investigated for illegal intelligence activities?"

"But what's most notable about this letter is that it is not addressed to the individual charged with making decisions about whether an individual should be prosecuted: namely, the Attorney General. Instead, it is addressed to President Obama, and they "urge [him] to exercise [his] authority to reverse the Attorney General's August 24 decision to re-open the criminal investigation of CIA interrogations. What so-called "authority" are they talking about?"

Greenwald includes this part which is totally mind-boggling for me:

"The CIA's personal spokesman at The Washington Post, David Ignatius, argues outright that the CIA should not be prosecuted for crimes because we want to ensure they are willing to act illegally in the future."

Now I wade in: The assumption (that we want to legal in the future implies we were illegal in the past). Couple that with actual statements and documents, which all prove we tortured detainees (those so-called "enhanced techniques"), and there is ample reason to not only re-investigate, but to start writing criminal charges for prosecution -- that should be the future.

In short, we have already broken many laws (see articles below in more detail) -- so, that much is clear. How in the world can anyone in their right mind now try to justify that in the past by looking the other way now saying, "We'll get it right in the future."

It appears that they have forgotten a key legal word, and although I'm not a lawyer, I know what precedent means. And, I see one being made right now if Holder backs down. We can never move forward over the bodies laying at our feet by saying, oops, we did wrong, but we'll do better in the future. If some get away with those crimes now, then the future is open season for twice that many.

This is plainly a sad day... Mr. Holder must not, nay, cannot back down. Crimes were committed and justice begs for him to continue.

Professionals know the rules or at least they should have -- if they looked the other way and broke the law, then that's tough. There are stiff penalties for war crimes. That used to be our sense of justice -- it still is, isn't it? I wonder?

"Ashcroft: Preventive Detention Lawsuit..."

2009-09-07T14:00:00.005-04:00

Former AG John Ashcroft v. "Illegally Detained U.S. Citizen"

Background: A federal appeals court has ruled that Ashcroft can be sued by people who claim they were wrongfully detained as material witnesses after 9/11, and the court called the government practice "repugnant to the Constitution" with this statement from Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr., who wrote:

"We find this to be repugnant to the Constitution and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history."

Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. — he nominated to the court by President George W. Bush on February 14, 2006, and he is the brother of former GOP U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith from Oregon .

The ruling allows Abdullah al-Kidd, a U.S. citizen born in Kansas, and one who changed his name and religion to Muslim, to proceed with a lawsuit that claims his constitutional rights were violated when he was detained in 2003 as a material witness in a federal terrorism case.

The al-Kidd case in part from the complaint to the court as filed by his lawyers, reads:

"Plaintiff-Appellee Abdullah al-Kidd (al-Kidd), a United States citizen and a married man with two children, was arrested at a Dulles International Airport ticket counter. He was handcuffed, taken to the airport’s police substation, and interrogated. Over the next sixteen days, he was confined in high security cells lit twenty-four hours a day in Virginia, Oklahoma, and then Idaho, during which he was strip searched on multiple occasions. Each time he was transferred to a different facility, al-Kidd was handcuffed and shackled about his wrists, legs, and waist. He was eventually released from custody by court order, on the conditions that he live with his wife and in-laws in Nevada, limit his travel to Nevada and three other states, surrender his travel documents, regularly report to a probation officer and consent to home visits throughout the period of supervision. By the time al-Kidd’s confinement and supervision ended, fifteen months after his arrest, al-Kidd had been fired from his job as an employee of a government contractor because he was denied a security clearance due to his arrest, and had separated from his wife. He has been unable to obtain steady employment since his arrest."

"Al-Kidd was not arrested and detained because he had allegedly committed a crime. He alleges that he was arrested and confined because former US Attorney General John Ashcroft (Ashcroft), subordinates operating under policies promulgated by Ashcroft, and others within the United States Department of Justice, unlawfully used the federal material witness statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3144, to investigate or pre-emptively detain him. Ashcroft asserts that he is entitled to absolute and qualified immunity against al-Kidd’s claims. We hold that on the facts pled, Ashcroft is not protected by either form of immunity, and we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the district court."

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com writes a great piece about this case [click here]. This summary is for the layman — it is very easy to understand as follows:

The real significance of the Ashcroft case is that it highlights the dangers and evils of preventive detention – an issue that will be front and center when Obama shortly presents his proposal for a preventive detention scheme, something he first advocated in May.

What Ashcroft is accused of doing illegally is exactly the same thing Obama wants the legal power to do (except that Obama's powers would presumably apply to foreign nationals, not U.S. citizens): Namely, order people imprisoned as terrorist suspects – “preventively detained” – where there is insufficient evidence to prove they committed any crime. Where is the justice there – to hold someone on a hunch or whim and not cause to prosecute?

I would conclude: Wm. Blackstone would turn over in his grave witnessing what is going on now in this regard as shown by this ruling.

The Obama DOJ must reassess it's current view of "preventive detention." It is flat out wrong, totally un-American, and is not who we are, is it? (This is not a rhetorical question).

"Lies, Deception, Arrogance and Mores Lies..."

2009-09-02T23:12:00.003-04:00

The epitome of lies, the height of arrogance, and the depth of this man's deception is amazing, truly amazing.

His latest, in part, are words taken from his interview with Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday, August 30, 2009.

This statement is from a series of new (new in time, but not new in substance) statements from this man who is clearly out of touch with just about anything. We should all wonder out loud, "How in the world did this man ever reach the office of Vice President of the United States?"

In essence, his latest rant goes something like this: "Yes, we tortured and it worked and it kept is safe for nearly 8 years and saved thousands and thousands of American lives, but now with the release of the latest CIA IG report and threats to review things leading to possible prosecution, is well... just plain wrong, and those things will not keep us safe any longer."

I wonder if his fingers were crossed behind his back in the hopes that an attack, any attack, would be forthcoming to help vindicate his belief in torture and lack of attention to that detail by the Obama administration?

"The two Ph.D CIA yahoo Contractors..."

2009-08-12T20:43:00.005-04:00

Bruce Jessen (top) and Jim Mitchell

This extract from the NY Times [click here]. The story is quite extensive and very detailed. Scott Shane from the Times did a very excellent job on this story - and that story is not over yet.

"Mitchell and Jessen were military retirees (USAF) and school-educated/trained psychologists. They were on the lookout for business opportunities. They found an excellent customer in the Central Intelligence Agency, where in 2002 they became the architects of the most important interrogation program in the history of American counterterrorism."

As Paul Harvey liked to say, "Now, the rest of the story."

"They had never carried out a real interrogation, only mock sessions in the military training they had overseen. They had no relevant scholarship; their Ph.D. dissertations were on high blood pressure and family therapy. They had no language skills and no expertise on Al Qaeda. But they had psychology credentials and an intimate knowledge of a brutal treatment regimen used decades ago by Chinese Communists. For an administration eager to get tough on those who had killed 3,000 Americans, that was enough."

"So “Doc Mitchell” and “Doc Jessen,” as they had been known in the Air Force, helped lead the United States into a wrenching conflict over torture, terror and values that seven years later has not run its course."

The bottom line and I hope AG Holder gets to the bottom of this line soon and prosecutes these two and others - for they are guilty as sin (of war crimes), plus their harsh efforts were non-effective.

Cite the Abu Zubaydah case that gave reason to question the Mitchell-Jessen "harsh technique" plan: The prisoner had given up his most valuable information without coercion (he had already named and given the location that led to the capture of KSM - which FBI supervisor, Mr. Ali Soufan got after he broke Zubaydah, and without torture).

But top CIA officials made no changes, and the methods would be used on at least 27 more prisoners, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times.

The business plans of Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Jessen, meanwhile, were working out beautifully. They were paid $1,000 to $2,000 a day apiece, one official said. They had permanent desks in the Counterterrorist Center, and could now claim genuine experience in interrogating high-level Qaeda operatives.

This story still unfolds. People need to be held accountable. Our national honor is at stake - not only that, but we still have two soldiers held by the enemy: one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.

The question has to be asked, "How have they been treated, or more importantly, how will they be treated? Will they be treated like we treated detainees? If so, those two soldiers are in deep trouble."

— dmf

Some of my military yearbook ...

2009-02-11T10:25:00.007-05:00

For some of the old sea "Salts," a few photos of three warships that I sailed to Vietnam and served on in that war; and one I served on in the Med (USS Mount Whitney).

Top (left to right): USS Bexar; USS Iwo Jima; USS Valley Forge, USS Mount Whitney.

[click photos for larger view]

Marine Corps Divisions I served: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th. Two Tours of Duty in Vietnam: 1965-66 with 2nd BN, 1st Marines, and 1968-69 with 1st BN, 7th Marines.

[click photos for larger view]

Above (from left to right): PFC in 1960; Dparting duty with the Naval Advisory Group in Seoul, Korea, 1963; Vietnam during first tour (left in photo); Vietnam during second tour; Retirement Ceremony from DOD-Army civilian service, Syracuse, NY, December 2006; My book, published in 2004. It can be read on-line free, just click here.