Comments on: Visions of Oliver North: Jose Rodriguez Demands Immunity as Condition for Congressional Immunity in CIA Torture Scandal

By: Where’s the Outrage? » Countdown - Bushed

Where’s the Outrage? » Countdown - Bushed — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:10:47 +0000

[...] immunity from prosecution for his statements, the sources said. [WaPo] This move reminds some of Oliver North and [...]

By: Justice Seeker

Justice Seeker — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:18:26 +0000

This country is in serious trouble. A constitutional crisis is in our midst. If any ounce of justice can be had these crimes must be exposed and prosecuted, I hope the next executive uses these same powers to imprison these white collar thugs..Dennis kucinich is the only one to mention holding these crooks to account..

By: Patty C

Patty C — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 01:48:29 +0000

They made it up.

By: deeply worried

deeply worried — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:25:32 +0000

The “best” legal minds of the executive branch got together on it. It is a comprehensive defense including prose that states:

The Executive is not bound by criminal statutes in the execution of his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

The Executive is not bound by customary international law or treaties in his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

The Executive is not bound by Congress in his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

Officers of the Executive cannot be compelled to testify before Congress if executive privilege is invoked.

Nice tidy bundle.

For anyone who is interested in the redacted document, kindly supplied by the WSJ (of all folks):

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/torture/30603wgrpt.html

By: Patty C

Patty C — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:56:21 +0000

Excuse me? I believe they wrote that, but that doesn’t make it true
- just a “possible” interpretation – open to challenge.

Wide open, in my view.

By: deeply worried

deeply worried — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:12:33 +0000

My suspicion is that Addington would not be allowed to even insist on immunity. The course of action open to the administration would be to invoke executive privilege in preventing his appearance and then basically daring Congress to use contempt. They are probably pretty sure that the Supreme Court will back them up if it comes down to a constitutional showdown between the two branches.

Getting him to that table will be very difficult I’m guessing.

As far as Haynes and why Davis was quick to resign:

From the Pentagon Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations, March 2003,prepared under General Counsel William J. Haynes:

“…in order to respect the President’s inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign . . . [the prohibition against torture] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority.”

and this was stated as applicable to interrogations undertaken at GITMO.

By: jonathanturley

jonathanturley — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:28:34 +0000

DW:

The new chairman of House Intelligence is not a bad guy and may seriously want to investigate. It would be interesting to call Addington to see if he insists on immunity. Such a demand would make his continuation in the White House problematic.

By: deeply worried

deeply worried — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:37:04 +0000

Congress should subpoena Morris D Davis, the former chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantanamo. He probably can offer some illuminating facts about waterboarding at Guantanamo.

“I had instructed the prosecutors in September 2005 that we would not offer any evidence derived by waterboarding, one of the aggressive interrogation techniques the administration has sanctioned. Haynes and I have different perspectives and support different agendas, and the decision to give him command over the chief prosecutor’s office cast a shadow over the integrity of military commissions. I resigned a few hours after I was informed of Haynes’ place in my chain of command.”

Above quote is from his op-ed in the Miami Herald 12/16/07

http://www.miamiherald.com/851/story/345317.html

What makes the quote interesting is that to make it, Davis must have either had such evidence available or known of the existence of such evidence. Either way, that is a pointer to activity that is being efficiently covered-up.

It is doubtful Bennett will allow Rodriquez to testify without some kind of immunity and as Prof Turley points out…we know where that leads.

Addington must be brought, by hook or crook, to testify. But he will be guarded most zealously of course. The clock is running out so the Democrats must move quickly. I hope Prof Turley is wrong in thinking the leadership lacks enthusiasm.