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.
Chris,
That is a long winded and completely false dichotomy. There is middle ground between “Lots of people are going to die” and “torture this guy.”
Just like there is a middle ground between starving to death and stealing bread.
If you have to go into such great details to frame your hypotheticals, chances are pretty good that they will always remain a hypothetical.
Mike Appleton:
dont you think the republicans are going to scream politics either way/anyway
What would you rather read on the front page tomorrow morning…that a killer of the innocent was threatened with brutality against both himself and his family, or that 3000 more innocent American lives were lost due to a tragic bombing outside of Chicago? Think about it.
Chris
I would say Chris that you are an alarmist who uses hyperbole to stir fear.
Slartibartfast, I agree with mespo. I’m expecting that Durham will uncover all sorts of stuff that goes beyond his mandate and will meet with Holder regarding the need to expand the probe. If Holder refuses, all hell will break loose. Were I cynical, I would suggest that Holder realizes that Durham will have to move into areas beyond the stated limits and will give the go ahead at the appropriate moment while announcing that he has been compelled to broaden the scope of the investigation because the evidence uncovered by Durham requires it. Selective leaking of some of that evidence will increase public support for a broader investigation and provide some political cover to the Obama administration against Republican outrage over “political” prosecutions. In reality, the opposition by people such as Sen. Kyl and Sen. Sessions is not based upon principle so much as it is upon the fear of being perceived as having approved or even having encouraged flagrant violations of the law.
I am neither a leftist nor a conservative. What I am is a pragmatist. Like a lot of you (yet, sadly, unlike a lot of you) I look through things from a devils advocate perspective, weighing both the pros and cons. With that said, I for one hate the thought of torture being used to get information. It is against the law, it is inhumane, and to read about it (let alone seeing it) is very jarring to the senses. In addition, by the admission of many intelligence experts (and I objectively agree) torture does not always yield results. In fact, most of the time it yields little to nothing.
However…
If you are the mother or father of a starving child, and say, for example, there are no shelters, there is no such thing as welfare, and nobody will give you a hand out, I ask one question…would you not steal a loaf of bread to feed your child? I know I would, despite it being illegal and morally questionable. The same thought process applies here.
While many of those intelligence experts I mentioned above state that torture does not always yield results, they also agree that some of the time they do, while other methods do not. In fact, the information released today in regards to the CIA using torturous methods to extract information from the MASTERMIND OF THE COLE BOMBINGS, DID, yes…DID yield results. Now, were the tactics used deplorable? Yes, I think so, especially when the man was being told that his children and mother were going to be raped and then killed right in front of him, or when a power-drill and unloaded gun were being aimed at him. Somebody on this blog asked how I would feel to be that man. I would feel horrible, scared beyond belief, and desperate to spare my family of any pain. Yet, at the same time, seeing as I am the one who organized an attack on innocent civilians, I am, whether you want to admit it or not, getting what I deserve. But more importantly, the information I know but refuse to give up is vital to the protection of millions of innocent people. Whether it is legal or not, or whether it is moral or not, if I am threatening the lives of innocent men, women, and children, if the shoe were on the other foot I most certainly would use any means at my disposal to protect the greater good…including torture.
People seem to forget that we are fighting a battle where the enemy has no boundaries and has a resolve far greater then the average man or woman. They will resort to any and all means to flush out the existence of those they feel threaten their way of life. There is nothing you nor I can do to change their mind. Some say that we create their followers unknowingly by the “oppression” we force upon them. That is the same as saying society created Ted Bundy or Adolf Hitler. Might there be a point in that? Sure…but that is still no excuse to how they lived their life or how terrorists currently live theirs. Nor is there any excuse whatsoever to have our intelligence community exempt itself from using EVERY available measure to protect we the people of the United States of America, including the measures that were spoken of today.
One anonymous member of the CIA said in the report that was written of in the New York Times today, “Ten years from now we will regret this…but it has to be done.” Yes, it has to be done, and I applaud you for that. You might ask “how could you support them knowing what they did to that suspect?” May I kindly reply by asking you this:
What would you rather read on the front page tomorrow morning…that a killer of the innocent was threatened with brutality against both himself and his family, or that 3000 more innocent American lives were lost due to a tragic bombing outside of Chicago? Think about it.
Chris
to all that are for torture:
give up you cant win this argument.
SB:
“How much latitude does Holer have in limiting the scope of a special council’s inquiry?”
*************
If a true prosecutor worthy of the name and willing to follow the evidence wherever it might lead (and John Durham appears to fill that bill), I’d say he’d have more control over a tethered Bull Elephant.
C,
O.k. so about that Constitution of the United States that says “…and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…”
So what we’ve got is a treaty that we signed saying that something is illegal, and the U.S. Constitution saying that any treaty the made under the authority of the U.S. (which this treaty was) is considered the law of the land. Therefor this treaty is the law of the land.
Article 2 of the treaty says “An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.”
So, care to explain why you think it makes one bit of difference who sanctioned it?
A couple of questions for the lawyers here: How much latitude does Holer have in limiting the scope of a special council’s inquiry? Could a special prosecutor ‘go rogue’ and follow the evidence where it leads? And who controls the budget for special prosecutors?
From the Center for Constitutional Rights:
“Responsibility for the torture program cannot be laid at the feet of a few low-level operatives. Some agents in the field may have gone further than the limits so ghoulishly laid out by the lawyers who twisted the law to create legal cover for the program, but it is the lawyers and the officials who oversaw and approved the program who must be investigated.
“The Attorney General must appoint an independent special prosecutor with a full mandate to investigate those responsible for torture and war crimes, especially the high ranking officials who designed, justified and orchestrated the torture program. We call on the Obama administration not to tie a prosecutor’s hands but to let the investigation go as far up the chain of command as the facts lead. We must send a clear message to the rest of the world, to future officials, and to the victims of torture that justice will be served and that the rule of law has been restored.”
(N.B. This is their statement in anticipation of Holder allowing only a limited inquiry.)
C,
The pragmatic path is to make totally clear that torture is wrong and that we do not torture by prosecuting the lawyers who perverted the law to legitimize torture and the people who ordered them to do so to the fullest extent of the law. This is the course of action that enhances the security of our nation the most. And if a bomb were strapped to my family and the only person who could disarm it was in my custody, there is no question in my mind that the best course of action would be to use standard interrogation techniques like rapport building instead of using slower ‘enhanced’ techniques that demonstrably generate bad intelligence. While I think that ’24’ is a good TV show, I’m aware that it has nothing to do with the way things work in real life.
Gyges,
To your point, I now agree that per international law torture is illegal.
When sactioned by a president however, in a country that for this very reason did not ratify the ICC, there is a rather large grey area.
Anyhow, thanks for the best argument I have heard so far.
C:
“Patrick Henry also said:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
I think I am more for pragmatism then expediency.”
***********************
Well, “principled” certainly never came to mind. I note Henry omitted the verb “torture” in his prescription to save liberty. Must be an oversight.
C,
So about that UN convention?
It says among other things, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”
I’m glad you realize this isn’t academic. There are real people being really tortured.
Jill,
I can agree with you that certain acts are evil, I just don’t think that people are.
Patrick Henry also said:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
I think I am more for pragmatism then expediency.
For those of you advocating the position that torture is sometimes necessary, please consider that by doing so you are giving al-Qaeda victory. Whenever we commit acts which violate our fundamental values we are fulfilling the goals of our enemies and essentially giving them aid and comfort. President Bush and Dick the war criminal have been Osama bin Laden’s greatest allies in undermining the United States of America.
SB,
I don’t worry about motives only actions. The actions of imprisoning the innocent and failing to prosecute those who ordered and “legally” tried to justify torture are evil, even if well intended.
Mike A:
Your cogency, eloquence, and psychological insight are lost upon those for whom expediency is the highest value. One wonders how a Country founded on the following words of Patrick Henry could have produced men such as C:
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
Henry had no dirty bomb to worry about, merely a Royal Army determined to secret him, and those like him, away in a dungeon for the balance of their lives. Not quite so dramatic as a “24” episode but just as terrifying-excepting only it was real.
Jill,
You lose me when you start saying that our leaders are evil. When you go from attacking peoples actions to questioning their motives, you deny the possibility of reasoned debate and things usually degenerate into shouting matches. I believe that everyone’s motives are like mine – some better, some worse, some more or less selfish, but ultimately qualitatively the same. Almost everyone believes themselves to be the good guy – I have no doubt that Dick the war criminal honestly believes that what he did was necessary to protect the country (that doesn’t change the fact that it was unconstitutional, morally repugnant, tragically misguided, and in violation of international treaties). Questioning his motives are irrelevant and counterproductive. Similarly, I don’t believe that President Obama is secretly pro-torture. I think that the most likely explanation is that he is a very pragmatic politician who has staked his entire presidency on health care reform and he wishes the whole torture debate would go away, at least until a health care bill is passed. I still have hope that the special prosecutor that we both want will be appointed after that happens. You clearly care very deeply about this and your passion does you credit, but I think that when you start questioning people’s motives you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.