The Justice Department appears close to re-opening nearly a dozen prisoner abuse cases that were all but buried by the Bush Administration. The move comes after a recommendation of the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility. The Obama Administration, however, is still blocking any investigation into war crimes and the torture program. I discussed the appointment of Mr. Durham in <a href="“>this segment of Countdown.
The Justice Department is expected to release details on prisoner abuse this week, which will add pressure for re-opening these cases. The Bush Administration rejected any prosecution after sending the cases to the Eastern District of Virginia. The Eastern District has had a number of controversial terrorism cases and has been criticized for extreme views of the law. Critics charged that the office effectively buried the cases.
This announcement also comes with the disclosure that the CIA officers used mock executions and a power drill to interrogate detainees, here.
The cases include the controversy over the death of Manadel al-Jamadi, who died in 2003 in C.I.A. custody at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. While prosecutors dismissed the case by saying that he probably suffered the wounds in his capture, Navy seals who captured him deny that.
Rather than proceed on this piecemeal approach, the Obama Administration should simply appoint a special prosecutor with full authority to investigate the torture program and all detainee abuse –without limitations. Instead, Attorney General Holder appears to be struggling to game the system to protect officials for any war crimes prosecution — a politically difficult move for the Obama Administration.
For the full story, click here.
Mike,
Please do not characterize the collective intelligence of those who disagree with you by suggesting that we are merely driven by misguided passion and Jack Bauer worship.
George Washington never had to worry about someone parking a dirty bomb next to Independence Hall. Times change, and the constitution has been a remarkably resiliant document. To say that the founding fathers would would agree with you is vastly over-stated.
But, that isn’t really an academic argument.
See my point?
If the validity of arguments were measured by the vehement hatred of their proponents, those favoring torture would easily carry the day. It confirms my view that emotion informs human judgment more than reason.
Fortunately, the Founding Fathers also recognized this human trait. They recognized that certain rights are inherent, neither bestowed by nor removed at the whim of either a government or a majority. They itemized these rights in the Constitution to emphasize their primacy and they imposed arduous requirements for the enactment of amendments to insure that in times of national stress passion would not be able to overcome wisdom.
They abhorred torture, not only because of its visible horrors, but because they understood history and recognized that torture destroys the perpetrator as well as the victim. Thus the first American general to prohibit the torture or mistreatment of enemy soldiers was George Washington. This principle became firmly imbedded in our laws and, ultimately, in international law. Until recently, those who have engaged in torture have been prosecuted and either imprisoned or executed.
They understood the abuses that inevitably accompanied the power to detain and imprison another human being without formal charges, so they made certain that the ancient right of habeas corpus was preserved.
To judge from some of the previous posts on this thread, we have now decided that the standards of our own behavior should be determined not by our laws and our historic values, but by the behavior of our enemies. We no longer study history or the constitutional foundations of our country. Instead we sit in front of television screens and worship Jack Bauer as the arbiter of our national morality. We view arbitrary arrest, torture, indefinite detention and secret prisons as proofs of our courage and determination. We insist that those who have engaged in this conduct are to be viewed as heroes rather than criminals. We even hire private companies and pay them millions of dollars to commit atrocities in our name. And we react with outrage and condemnation to those who seek to remind us that we cannot protect the values which distinguish us as a people by abandoning them when we feel threatened or afraid.
It’s about time we took a collective deep breath in this country and decided whether we wish to restore the rule of law or resign ourselves to living in a perpetual state of despotism.
C,
We only need one law outlawing something for it to be illegal. In this case, we signed a treaty agreeing that torture would be illegal in the U.S.
You don’t need to read the whole thing, just the first 2 articles of Part I. Articles 4 and 5 would be good as well. They’re short, each one shouldn’t take more time than it took to read this comment.
does anyone imagine that Holder was waiting for something, some kind of torture that was not approved by Yoo in order to move forward?
Breaking (our Constitution)!
“Career DOJer John Durham Of Connecticut To Be Prosecutor … Mandate Will Be ‘Narrow’ … Probe Apparently Won’t Look At Yoo, Bybee, Other DOJers”
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Basically, torture is now legal. It would have been much better to offer pardons which require admissions of guilt, than to use this approach which will, legalize torture in just about every case.
C,
The argument against torture is not equally as valid as the argument against torture, nor is it a matter of perspective. As a matter of precedent, we have laid out who gets to determine what are and are not war crimes (the red cross, who says the US committed war crimes) that they are illegal and that we have an obligation to prosecute them. There is absolutely no evidence that torture produced any actionable intelligence whatsoever and substantial (first-hand) evidence that it was actually far less effective than standard interrogation techniques. Not to mention the thousands of US soldiers killed by insurgents who entered Iraq to fight Americans because of torture. Torture is immoral, illegal, and counterproductive and is not one of the things America should stand for.
Quote from a letter from the dinosaur wing of the Republican Party:
“The intelligence community will be left to wonder whether actions taken today in the interest of national security will be subject to legal recriminations when the political winds shift,” said the letter, signed by lawmakers including Sens. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), John Cornyn (Tex.), Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Charles Grassley (Iowa).
“…when the political wind shifts,” as if the propriety of torture is up for debate? It seems that, for some, you really do need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Gyges,
There is a reason that we have not joined the international criminal court 😉 Thanks though, I will read the UN convention as I have not previously. I appreciate the info.
C,
Then you obviously have either never read the UN convention on Torture (which the U.S. has ratified) or the U.S. Constitution (which says that treaties are considered the law of the land.)
For the UN Convention http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm
I suggest reading Part I Articles 1 and 2
For the specific Article of the Constitution, http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html
Gyges,
I agree to disagree – you are totally right about the effectiveness of torture, but I disagree that “torture is illegal – period”.
On a personal level, I think the dividing line on torture is the old argument between idealism and realism. We would all like to seem so stoic with our moral fiber, but until you are alone in a room with a guy who has information that can save lives you will never know what you would do.
The academic argument against this “amoral drivel” is an easy sell, but not nearly as easy to apply to the field. Contrary to popular opinion we are not in a world run by moral absolutes, and when I hear that kind of nieve absolutism it is hard to take seriously.
C,
Here’s the problem. Legally, we’ve never been a country that allowed torture, We’ve tried all sorts of people for water boarding. We’ve signed treaties that outlaw torture.
Torture is illegal. Period.
Here’s another problem. Torture doesn’t get good info. U.S. intelligence agencies have consistantly gotten more reliable information from traditional interrogation methods. That’s why they were traditional, the FBI, CIA, and armed forces didn’t just make some stuff up and say “this is what we’re going to do from now on.” They tried different techniques and kept the ones that worked and stopped using the ones that didn’t.
So no, the arguments for torture are not as valid as those against. Facts back up one side, and not the other.
mespo,
I respect your point and I think you are right criticizing those whom oversimply the argument, but I think you are totally missing the argument here.
My point is that the argument “for” torture is as valid as the argument “against” it. I am sure some would disagree with that statement but I stand behind it.
Just because we used to be a country that allowed torture (for what I feel was a good reason) and now we are not, should not mean that we need to go after the people who made the decisions and took the actions. Its called ex post facto, check it out in the constitution.
Whether torture should be allowed is an entirely different arguement, but do think that if we are allowing it there are much worse things that can be done than threats and intimidation.
The latest “spin” apparently exactly follows the script mentioned by Glenn Greenwald courtesy one of his commenters–“it’s old news” Then why worry about redaction and release?
“Panetta Spins Forthcoming Torture Report: We Were Told It Was Legal
By Zachary Roth – August 24, 2009, 11:23AM
With the Obama administration set later today to release an internal CIA report on torture, director Leon Panetta is preemptively defending his agency, claiming that CIA personnel simply followed the legal guidelines they were given.
In a message to agency employees — but in fact intended for the reporters to whom it was sent moments ago — Panetta called the information contained in the 2004 report “old news.” He pointed out that the CIA referred cases of abuse to DOJ for prosecution. And he noted: “The Agency sought and received multiple written assurances that its methods were lawful.”
(talkingpointsmemo)
C:
“We have people in custody who have demontrated an inclination towards killing Americans – not just have said they would if they could or would like to, but people whom have already done so.
If in order to save the lives of Americans we need to demonstrate our will by intimidating terrorists with guns or power drills or mock executions, so be it.
This is an example of where the “greater good” argument is correct, and we need to forgive the people in our society who did what was necessary to preserve the republic.”
****************
The same bit of amoral drivel written above can be used to justify torturing everyone from serial murderers to drunk drivers to habitual speeders on the roadway–just substitute the word.
That is the both the seductiveness and stupidity of torture: it seems simple and effective, but it is catastrophically complicated and ill-suited to its purpose– as if the moral proscription isn’t barrier enough to civilized men.
I always like to see who wields the taboo tool like violence or torture and I typically find them stupefyingly similar and their justifications almost word for word–“we are in danger;” “we must act now;” “there is no time to think;” “violence works;” “it’s all about us;” “we are never wrong since we do it.”
Childish, circular, pedantic reasoning and all too common.
We don’t protect our Constitution by gutting it. This is the way of cowards not a strong, free people.
The president and the AG took an oath upon taking office. Here is the oath every president takes upon office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Now is the time for both Obama and Holder to show their oaths meant something to them besides a meal ticket to power.
to, obviously. Insert appropriate grammatic and spelling changes where needed.
Certainly, your perspective is as valid as mine. I agree. I think this is the primary reason these people shouldn’t be procecuted; however strongly you may currently feel that torure is wrong, at the time these actions were taken it was legal.
As for the people who decide what is “legal” and what isn’t, they made a choice to support torture – which was their right.
Further, these aren’t crimes against the constitution Most of these “crimes” were committed outside this country against people who are not afforded the protection of our constitution (not too mention have a proven record of trying to damage our country and its people).
This is a conversation which needs to be had. But just because the current inhabitants of the white house tend to agree with your side of the argument does not meant hat we can allow retroactive victors justice.
So, if we as a country decide to stop the practice of torture, so be it. But we need to stop the ex post facto procecutions of the people who carried out these enhanced actions in the past.
The ACLU and all the left wing hippies need to take a long walk off a short pier! We need to protect the US and protect those men and women that did their job. You should be supporting them not trying to bring them to trial! What do you think they do to Americans when they are captured? What were your thoughts 9/11? You probably wanted America to go and kick someones butt. Well, George W wanted to but he had to fight with too many left wing, tree hugging, let’s be friend hippies to do his job. I say let’s end this war. Tell our guys over seas to kick their butts and don’t bother to take names. When the sand dunes are all leveled out, Obama can come out of hiding and tell them what a good job they did. So buy some kleenex you cry babies and let our military do their job without having to worry about your sorry butts.
If the Justice Department going to have every single CIA interrogator on trial for abuse, we are going to have no one to the job of finding out any future terrorist attack. From my anderstanding the White House during the Bush administration ignored the intelligence agencies report about 9/11. Now it’s the Obama administration using Mr.Holder as a tool to stop the CIA from doing there job, while our dear President is vacationing.