Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced late last week that the Administration had finally fulfilled the promise of President Barack Obama when, soon after taking office, he promised CIA employees that no one would be charged with torture despite his acknowledgement that water boarding is clearly torture under domestic and international law. Holder announced that the final investigation into deaths of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2002 and 2003 respectively would not result in a single charge of any kind. Recently, John Cusack published an interview with me where we discussed the abandonment of core civil liberties principles as well as the expansion of unilateral executive power under President Obama. Now, just before the uncontested Democratic nomination convention, the Administration is reminding civil libertarians that it stands firmly on blocking the prosecution of what is widely viewed as war crimes by the U.S. After the creation of a comprehensive and premeditated torture program, not a single person will be charged despite acknowledged waterboarding and deaths of detainees. The Department did say that it was uncertain of the “propriety of the examined conduct.” War crimes is now a matter of uncertain “propriety.”
Thus, with little more than a whimper, a three-year investigation of torture came to a predictable and disgraceful end. The Justice Department simply announced “Based on the fully developed factual record concerning the two deaths, the department has declined prosecution because the admissible evidence would not be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The latest questions of propriety involve the deaths of Gul Rahman in 2002 after he was shackled to a concrete wall in near-freezing temperatures in the famous CIA-ran “Salt Pit.” He was suspected of being a militant. The other case is Manadel al-Jamadi who died in 2003 at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
In a truly spellbinding moment, Holder blames the “statutes of limitations and jurisdictional provisions.” Of course, it was the Justice Department that delayed prosecution and the military that botched an investigation in a way that made prosecution difficult.
However, there is going to be one prosecution. Former CIA official John C. Kiriakou, is awaiting trial on criminal charges after disclosing information on the torture programs and those who committed the torture.
Source: NY Times
I Googled the name John Cusack and found the following article about him and some rant he made in 2010:
“Actor John Cusack went on a caustic Twitter rampage Sunday evening, attacking former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Fox News.
“I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES ORDICK ARMEYAND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS,” Cusack tweeted.
Cusack has long been outspoken about politics. He supported Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election and has contributed to The Huffington Post, but this is the first known time he has stooped to the level of making threats.
And while the U.S. Constitution protects Cusack’s right to speak his mind, some critics say he should be more careful about what he says, since he has more than 200,000 Twitter followers.
“His provocative tweets could easily incite a rabid fan to commit violent acts against Fox News Headquarters and others he names,” said Dr. Carole Lieberman, a Beverly Hills-based psychiatrist and author of “Coping With Terrorism: Dreams Interrupted.”
“Fans could not only be influenced because of their devotion to Cusack, the man, but also because of their love for one of the characters he plays,” she told Fox411.
Cooper Lawrence, the author of “Cult of Celebrity” told Fox 411: “The fear isn’t that a celebrity will influence someone to do something violent or out of character due to the sheer devotion to the celebrity, the fear is that someone who is already vulnerable, mentally disturbed, already considering something dangerous, may be encouraged to do so if it is advocated by their favorite star,”
Lawrence explained that while celebrities don’t make healthy people do things they wouldn’t normally do, they could impact someone who is on the fence or mentally unstable.
“John Cusack has to know that his words carry weight because he is an actor beloved by many generations of folks who may not get his humor and might think he is calling for something more sinister. The responsibility is on him to not abuse his fame to influence something negative on the off chance that even one person takes his words to heart,” Lawrence said.
Cusack could also be doing his career some damage. Image consultant Michael Sands says that Cusack should be worried that his vituperative words could turn off some of his fans.
“I think his fans will not appreciate his tone. They will be turned off to his rhetoric,” Sands told Fox411. “John Cusack is taking his fame too seriously. He is having delusions and his anger towards Fox News may get him arrested!”
Ironically, Cusack has just been signed to play Edgar Allen Poe in “The Raven”, a movie about a serial killer who uses Poe’s stories as inspiration for his killing spree.
Cusack’s publicist did not reply to calls and emails for comment.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/31/actor-john-cusack-calls-satanic-death-fox-news-gop-leaders/#ixzz25W1bQokA”
When I saw squirrelly boys photo on this blog with Turley yesterday I could not place him as a movie actor. But I recall him being on some news show a month or so back and he was ranting about Hollywood. It seemed odd to me that Turley would have this dialogue about civil rights with some second generation Hollywood brat who knows nuthin bout birthin babies. The so called discussion in the “interview” yesterday was akin to someone knocking tennis balls against a garage wall.
You idiots who vote for The Willard will likely regret it. It would be worse than voting for Dewey over Truman or Bushie over Gore. The Willard will give this country a Koch Brothers enema. But, dont listen to me, I am just a complaining female dog itchinbay (Turley censor wont let me say the word here).
My tenure as dog pack contributor on this blog is up today and TalkinDog is taking over again. He is much less critical of the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness afforded us in this dog world we live in.
When The Willard wins the election, in part because of so called self described “civil libertarians” who berate Obama, he will appoint a guy like Lindsey Graham or some tired old angry white male to be attorney general. The Lee Atwater Strategy of 2012 is directed to the white old farts who are retired and living in Florida or North Carolina and they have deep seated veins of bigotry which can be stroked. Those that have had strokes are a bit more outspoken but the Southern Strategy of Lee Atwater (the late Lee Atwater) has morphed into this new angle. Guys like Turley and Curson are employed to tear off some so called Liberal supporters– those who might say: “come on Granpa quite talking like a Good Ol Boy out of the Randy Newman album that you always play.” Some of the readers here might recall the song: Rednecks. There was a seminar at the RepuliCon Convention last week on this strategy. That is where good ol boy from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham got his words of wisdom which appeared on this blog. The seminar was in room 206 and there is a secret recording of it which will soon hit the streets. Thats right, quiet some voices who might have been strong for Obama by criticizing his ability to prosecute Bushie’s war criminals. Lee Atwater is smiling down on us from his seat in RepubliCon Heaven.
Running out the clock is the official policy of DOJ. They did it for Wall St. specifically the tax liability for MBS’s and CDO’s. This is no surprise. In fact it’s quite predictable. Maybe some other country will prosecute under a sealed indictment and get these scum when they cross a border.
Mr. Erb, thanks for such a reasoned reply. It does speak to why the higher ups and their lawyers should not be prosecuted.
This is so dangerous because, once again, something totally reprehensible and illegal has been de facto “legalized”. The govt. continues to torture and will continue to torture under Bush’s 4th term, whomever holds that term of office. That is what is scary.
The powerful of this and other nations know they are accountable to no one. This greenlights behavior. There is another way and it is for citizens to speak out, right now, clearly against this decision and against torture.
“For years it seems impregnable, then suddenly the citadel collapses. An ideology, a fact, a regime appears fixed, unshakeable, almost geological. Then an inch of mortar falls, and the stonework begins to slide. Something of this kind happened over the weekend.
When Desmond Tutu wrote that Tony Blair should be treading the path to The Hague, he de-normalised what Blair has done. Tutu broke the
protocol of power – the implicit accord between those who flit from one grand meeting to another – and named his crime.”
ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/03/tony-blair-the-hague-iraq-war
Bishop Tutu spoke up against both Bush and Blair. We need to follow this example. Speak clearly and unequivocally against that which is wrong. Name the crime and do not tolerate it.
Someday Obama and Holder can stand in the dock at the Hague next to Cheney, Boy Blunder and Yoo
rafflaw, Learn how to read and then apologize for shooting from the hip.
While I think that unquestionably torture was practiced, I have some reservations about the culpability of the low level people who actually did it. There were numerous memos and findings by LAWYERS who stated that such things were NOT torture, and that it was legal for them to do such things. Under Bush and now Romney, they made no bones about the use of torture. So the question is, can the people who conducted the interogations be prosecuted while the principals get off?
If we do prosecute those low level folks, then it would mean that with a change of administrations, a US civil servant could be sent to prison when the incoming administration takes the opposite views. I do think that Cheney and Bush, and then if Romney does likewise should be charged with war crimes for their actions. I do not think that the low level troops should suffer for the decisions that were made above them, and which in many cases do not have a bright line as to what constitutes torture. The international standards are absurd to the point that calling names is considered a war crime.
So I can see the point and reasoning behind this. Also, much of the evidence was obtained by confessions in which the accused were NOT afforded their 5th Amendment rights. That is the reason for the lack of useable evidence.as well. So it is a can of worms, and I can see no graceful way out in answering there questions. ALL sides will be pissed off no matter what.
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.
– Thomas Jefferson
Swarthmore mom,
You are blind to the problem that is right in front of your eyes and Mr. Turley is trying to enlighten you. Yet, you reserve your concern for the possibility of what Mr. Romney might do instead of expressing your outrage over what Mr. Obama is actually doing.
The person who should be questioned, and questioned hard, is Obama.
If you are connected with Swarthmore, you are probably pretty smart. But you are utterly clueless.
This was the plan all along. We don’t prosecute our own war criminals. We prosecute whistle-blowers–the people of conscience. It is indeed a sad day for America.
This is a sad day in America. My hopes for this country continue to be dashed. Politics trump the Rule of Law.
Nick,
once again, you suggest that you can only obtain valuable intelligence from torture. Of course, the FBI disagrees with that, but don’t let those facts get in the way of your argument.
Francois,
I think it is evident from their non-action that the DOJ don’t want to take action or as Prof. Turley states, they delayed the prosecution so that statute of limitations would prevent a prosecution. As I suggested on another thread, maybe if we all proclaim that waterboarding is not toture, we cannot be placed on the kill list?
Obama really didn’t need to sign an executive order forbidding EIT’s. He just blasts them from above. The practical problem w/ that is you aren’t able to gather valuable human intelligence using legit interrogation techniques. There is no intelligence more valuable than human intelligence and we’ve fallen behind because of the all drone all the time tactics.
It’s me again. I have a question, which won’t be from a legal eagle. (I fix people, not laws.)
The DOJ has gotten into this habit of ending their press releases with the following boilerplate:
“admissible evidence would not be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Again, I’m no legal eagle but…by its very nature, isn’t it impossible to even PREDICT the outcome of a prosecution, unless we have a rigged trial? I mean, people go to the court to SETTLE a matter of law, which cannot, a priori, portend a guaranteed outcome.
Am I totally far off the left field here? Or is the DOJ simply broadcasting to us, the rubes, that “we just don’t want to do it and you can all take a hike on Pluto for all we care!” by holding itself to such an impossible standard as a guaranteed outcome?
Thank you!
Disgusting decision by the DOJ and AG Holder. The evidence is/was there out in the open. President Bush and VP Cheney admitted on television that they waterboarded detainees. What else do you need? Sad. And add to the sad news, Sheriff Joe’s investigation has ended without charges?? Very distrurbing.
We have gone to the dark side, as Jane Mayer chronicled in her book of the same name. Religion everywhere and not a drop of morality to squeeze.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/would-mitt-romney-revoke-obamas-executive-order-banning-torture/2012/05/03/gIQARTfGzT_blog.html Since Romney does not believe that waterboarding is torture, Will he bring it and other forms of enhanced interrogation back? Someone needs to ask the question.
“that the Administration had finally fulfilled the promise of President Barack Obama”
Let me help you put in words how you really feel Professor Turley: 😉
“Eric Holder finally obeyed the diktat of his boss while compromising, once again, the integrity of his office.”