You Can Forget Prosecutions For Torture Orders Now
By Steve Hynd Monday Feb 09, 2009 3:00pm
Graphic via Caribdude at The Agonist.
As I wrote over the weekend, progressives who really hoped the Obama administration would roll back the Bush years' secrecy over illegal renditions and torture were waiting with intense interest to see what would happen in a key court case today. Five men were suing Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen Dataplan, accusing the flight-planning company of aiding the CIA in flying them to other countries and secret CIA camps where they were tortured.
One of those men is Binyam Mohamed, who was illegally kidnapped and had his penis sliced to bits because he read a spoof online about how to make an H-bomb and who is now still held at Gitmo, where he is on hunger-strike, even though he is no longer accused of any crime. He made headlines at the end of last week because two British judges accused the Bush and Obama administrations of threatening the British government to keep evidence of torture supressed. Two other plaintiffs are in jail in Egypt and Morocco, both countries known to practise torture, after being sent there by the US and the other two are free after being held for years.
Last year, the case went nowhere because the Bush administration invoked a special defense of state secrets, as it always did to prevent any cases brought by victims of illegal rendition and torture from even getting to word one. But the ACLU had filed an appeal which was held today.
The Obama administration announced that it would keep the same position as the Bush Administration:
A source inside of the Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of the Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn't changed, that new administration stands behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The DOJ lawyer said the entire subject matter remains a state secret.
...Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU said of the decision: “Eric Holder’s Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same. Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama’s Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again.”
Ben Wizner, a staff attorney with the ACLU, who argued the case for the plaintiffs said, “We are shocked and deeply disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to continue the Bush administration’s practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture. This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course. Now we must hope that the court will assert its independence by rejecting the government’s false claims of state secrets and allowing the victims of torture and rendition their day in court.”
A spokesman for Holden says the AG is going to conduct a "review" of state secrets defense to ensure that "the privilege is being invoked only in legally appropriate situations". How much of a review is needed to decide that invoking state secrets to bury Binyam Mohamed's attempts to seek justice is "appropriate" ferchrissake?
Many progressives are going to be upset by this. Glen Greenwald, for example, writes that "Obama fails his first test on civil liberties and accountability -- resoundingly and disgracefully". Based on his conversation after the case with the ACLU's Ben Wizner, Glenn continues:
This was an active, conscious decision made by the Obama DOJ to retain the same abusive, expansive view of "state secrets" as Bush adopted, and to do so for exactly the same purpose: to prevent there from being any judicial accountability of any kind.
You can forget the notion that those who ordered torture and those who wrote legal opinions for them will ever see the inside of a US court on those charges. If Holden is continuing to invoke state secrets in cases such as today, no prosecution of Bush administration criminals will ever get to the satge of even hearing evidence. Thus, the Obama administration collectively become accessories to the Bush administration's crimes. In my opinion, any cabinet member who had an ounce of spine and an ounce of belief in the rule of law for all would resign over this travesty of justice. Watch for an utter lack of that.
Crossposted from Newshoggers
Login or Register to post comments.
is both saddening and maddening, much like this news.
Obama voted to keep spying on us with his FISA vote...Why not keep all the Bush regime's executive excesses in place?
Are you really surprised??
Really?
The worst part really is, I think, no one hear is really surprised. I'm not. that says something right there.
Obama will fail ALL his tests on civil liberties and accountability -- resoundingly and disgracefully.
I guarantee it. 9/11 is all the proof you need.
many of us are not surprised.
and now he is proving that he is exactly the same as most people who claim to be Christians.
John 13: 34...
"My last and final commandment, more important than all the others, is to LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS I HAVE LOVED YOU. Therefore will ye become my disciples".
I do NOT see Obama walking the walk or talking the talk. Nor do we hear a "Christian" peep out of his wife Michelle...our esteemed "First Lady".....the lawyer???
And to think Obama was a Professor of United States Constitutional LAW??
Here's a memo to "ricky":
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article2...
Though disgusting, I don't see how this could come as a surprise to anyone who was paying attention.
I happily voted for Obama over the Republican, and would have over ANY Republican... but too many people imagined an Obama with traits and positions they wanted him to have versus those he actually had.
a BUSH HOLDOVER... HE IS NOT AN OBAMA APPOINTEE
..for those of use who had hoped "change" included NOT doing things the Bush way (i.e. lawlessly).
TheWalrus
Bingo! This is what makes Obama's actions so egregious in that he campaigned specifically in claiming that he was going to be an agent of change as well as an agent of hope. It is extremely doubtful if the families of those Afghans and Pakistanis who had had their loved ones ripped apart by 500 lb. American bombs and drone missiles will believe that Obama is any different than Bush or that Obama will, despite all his [alleged] good qualities, be able to raise their dead children from their graves in order to rejoin their families in their respective countries.
Barack Obama-another war criminal just like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.
This makes me sick.
I suppose you may as well tell Obama what you think over at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Change meant from one shitty coward to another.
Obama may have nice pecs but he's got no balls.
I think from this point forward every Administration may consider itself beyond the reach of the law after it leaves office. It's as if there now exists an unwritten code that the incoming Administration will not investigate criminal activity that may have occurred in the Administration that preceded it. The Administration that follows this one will return the favor.
Congratulations Obama you just lost me. I can not and will not ever support you again. Just another political hack!
Oh, calm the hell down, you have no idea what is going on in his legal department. You think everything is going to take a couple weeks to get sorted out? Of course he is going to stay mum for nw, HE SAID HE WOULD, probably for at least his first term, there are way too many other problems to deal with. Obama's job is to get this country back on track, unraveling all of BushCo's crimes would take too many resources at the moment and would be heralded as a witch hunt. But most of all you need to realize this is the stance he said he would have to take, reluctantly, i don't know, but he said as much. To open all the wounds of the last 8 years and expose America for way more crimes than is already known is not going to help one iota. No one would like to see BushCo convicted for the war crimes they so obviously broke more than me, but you probably underestimate the amount of legal walls Bush erected, it will take years to dismantle them. Stay fast in your strength and give Obama more than a 3 week chance.
... and I can't believe how many people here would throw Obama under the bus.
Has any president, in history, come to power in the middle of such a mess as Bush left us? Not just one mess, but dozens upon dozens. I can't think of anyone who took the reins in the midst of this much chaos.
There's a limit to what one president can do in three weeks.
I disagree, Obama also said he would not interfere in the workings of the DOJ and now he has and in the worst possible way. This case is about giving these victims a voice. All humans deserve that after being stripped of their dignity. There is never a bad time or a good time to act on these types of crimes. You must fight the fight when and where you find it and root it out or you lose the fight. That's the way it is, it is the way it has to be. Obama does not have the right to be passive on this issue.
Also I was not aware that Bush was being charged in these proceedings... oh ya HES NOT!
because it was not Obama who interfered.
The president has no business interfering with the Justice Department, and so far as I can see, he has not interfered.
And, we don't know who the judge was (Bush appointee?) ... nor which DOJ lawyer was prosecuting the appeal (Bush sycophant?) ... we don't know much of anything. Except that the headline of this thread was overly inflammatory.
I want to see torturers prosecuted as much as anyone. But this single case doesn't prove anything yet.
Oh, and did you catch that it was an appeal? The case was decided over a year ago -- and whatever principals of law applied then, also apply now. That's why the ACLU was foolish in this instance. I don't think the people here understand what an appeal is all about.
Well I hope you are right. You are correct about the appeal, it had not registered properly with me. I don't mind being set strait on this one at all. We'll see, but from where I stand tonight all signs point to -> HACK! Obama has very little breathing room here he has to do something to counter this and fast.
DOUG LETTER IS A BUSH HOLDOVER
OBAMA NOR HOLDER APPOINTED HIM... SO IF YOU WANT TO BLAME SOMEONE KEEP BLAMING BUSH...
HOW DOES HE KNOW WHAT OBAMA WANTS.
it was recently reported on Reuters that the u.s. threatened the u.k. if they disclosed info. regarding the torture of a british citizen held in gitmo. the u.s. told the u.k. if diclose they would NO longer share intelligence. wow Obama has been in office about three weeks. this is NOT going to be solved immediately. the BUSH administration covered their tracks to make it very complicated. let's give him sometime.
The Obama administration thanked the UK government the very same day for giving in to that threat.
Regards, C
do you have a link. i didn't realize that Obama said thanks/thank you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7...
That Telegraph article about the scalpel tortures.
The spin in the Daily Torygraph, the most rightwing newspaper in Britain, says otherwise. The judges were quite explicit in their judgement that they were bowing to a US threat. Now the UK government is spinning like a top to say it wasn't America's fault really and their greatest rival is happily piling on to make the Labour Party look even worse.
Regards, C
The UK should return the favor.
...because many sitting in office right now are complicit and any reasonable investigation will reveal that.
We torture, as a matter of policy. We've been doing it for decades. Gitmo is especially blatant, but we've had no problem with rendition or supporting governments who "disappear" dissidents.
We torture. We use torture to advance our foreign policy. We do it to terrorize.
We'll probably do it less under Obama. May even be a moratorium.
But no one will ever, ever, be held accountable for committing acts of torture except in cases like Abu Gharib and Mi Lai.
With sufficient public outrage, we'll assemble a kangaroo court and court martial a few enlisted henchmen. That's the most you'll ever see.
Because we torture. We torture. We. Torture.
While what happened today is disgusting and disheartening, I remembered a story from a week or so ago about how files on everyone at Gitmo either has disorganized files, missing data in their files or have no file at all!
Here's a good source for details: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blo...
I would have preferred the Justice Department to have used today's hearing to put on the record the nasty pile of s--t left by the prior administration. I'll keep the faith that sooner rather than later the current Administration will get the records straightened out then finally clean this up.
.
Did they explicitly keep to the Bush admin's defense instead of asking for a delay to review?
The ACLU lawyer told Glenn Greenwald this was no accident, that the Obama admin. lawyer told the court it was now administration policy.
Regards, C
It was a DOJ lawyer. HUGE difference.
remember the Gonzales hearings? Monica Goodling? Those hearings were all about why the White House should not have direct control over the DoJ.
Remember how the Justice Department is riddled with Bush loyalists, with Addington and Yoo loyalists? Who was the DoJ lawyer in this case? We don't know.
We simply have no idea what's going on here yet.
That a lawyer stood up in response to a direct challenge and said there was no change in the DOJ's "state secrets" defense, even when asked if new administration policy made a difference.
That in that respect the guts of the case have no relevance - the US government is still asserting state secrets as a blanket defense before evidence can be heard or the merits of individual cases considered.
That the Obama White House thanked the UK government for preserving that defense as asked to by the Bush White House, and noted that this would keep intelligence information flowing.
That one of the plaintiffs is still in Gitmo, on hunger strike, even though no longer charged with a crime. That the evidence for his original detention amounted to his reading an online satire and a subsequent tortured confession that he intended making a dirty bomb. That all evidence against him has been thrown out and yet that two successive administrations have invoked state secrecy to prevent his seeking redress.
You can parse that all you want.
Regards, C
IT IS IN THE SALON ARTICLE... AND HE IS A BUSH HOLDOVER
Not that it makes a difference since this is a matter of overall DoJ policy as was made clear today by questions the judge asked.
(And typing in all-caps is rude)
Regards, C
I got your attention finally...
And I beg to differ... I think it makes a HUGE difference. It has been proven already that they have lied in other places about policy, why not there?
This guy lied in open court, before senior justices and on public record about whether administration officials had approved the defense?
So why hasn't the DoJ fired him or put out a rebuttal of his lying yet?
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Regards, C
The more they remain the same... welcome to the neo dark ages.
"Thus, the Obama administration collectively become accessories to the Bush administration's crimes."
Thanks netroots for helping to foist this phony upon us.
You had a better idea?
tell me, which candidate did you have in mind that was actually ELECTABLE?
Will someone please tell me what people are afraid of? WE are a nation of laws! We believe people innocent until proven guilty. We think that laws have been broken, treaties violated, etc.; why can't this go to a special prosecutor?
Mr. President, you had all of my support! You are going to lose it!
SHAME on the OBAMA ADMINISTATION
This is just like in 2006 when Democrats were elected to stop the war in Iraq and impeach Bush, which they threatened to do on the election trail but as soon as they were elected, Pelosi declared impeachment off the table and the Dems gave Bush all the money up front for Iraq so that he didn't have to go back to them just before the last
fraudelection we had.I'm sorry, I voted for Obama thinking these guys had been revealed enough that someone would be able to, would have to, implement honest policies or be totally discredited out the gate. It seems Obama has chosen the latter course meaning he is just the new salesman for the same old empirist policies we thought we just got rid of. I am totally disgusted now and anticipate this guy's honeymoon period is going to be short indeed. My back hurts from all the times this guy has plunged a knife in it already (FISA and Banker Bailout votes, no prosecution of Bush crimes, extended Iraq presence and the ramping up of the "war" in Afghanistan -- and possibly going into Pakistan -- to name but a few lies.)
People say give him a break, he hasn't been in office all that long, but the first 100 days sets the tone for what is to follow. So far change only refers to what will be left in most people's pockets.
I know the Repugs aren't going to save us either. We have to same ourselves it seems. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
This is how our Empire works. Millions of dollars are spent to get a puppet elected who can take the punches from one side of the political spectrum, and placate the other side. The beauty of Obama is that he sold "change" to the electorate so well. Presidents don't work for the common people. Bi-partisanship is Obama's code word for tax breaks for the rich. Afghanistan is a tip of the hat to the military industrial complex.
he can't sort everything at once.
Well, it looks to me like the final card has been played in this 'Hope/Change/Believe" rhetorical drivel that was fobbed off on the teeming unwashed during the last campaign. The jury is in. The rule of law is a now a quaint,whimsical notion of days past. The corporatocracy has moved on and the middle/working class ain't invited to join in. Justice is now a free-floating abstraction. So, given the suspension of habeus corpus, the government-supported surveillance, the acceptance of torture, the murder of its own citizens (9/11) and its leaders (JFK), the shredding of the constitution, the attempt to "privatize" social security, the expenditure of 50% of federal government revenues on the empire's military, the destruction of the 4th estate and -- THE LAST STRAW -- the targeted annihilation of the middle class/working wealth and financial security/independence by the cabal of failed elites (e.g., fat, white, old, male politicians, bankers, lawyers (SCOTUS), media moguls) under the guise of terrorism, globalism and 19th century laissez-faire capitalism, it would be, I think, a wise and rational strategy to consider seriously securing citizenship in either the Scandanavian countries, Canada or South America. Your odds for a fear-less, productive and compassionate (read "government for the public good") life for you and your family are a fuck of a lot better than with the now dead (unfortunately) experiment of Philadelphia circa 1789. The male primate powermongers have once again thumped the humanist ideals of the Enlightenment. Best wishes if you give it a shot. It sure as hell couldn't be any worse..
They are above the law.
When I read this, my heart sank and I felt an empty feeling in the pit of my stomach, same as I felt when bush stole his second term. FUCK!
.
Still looking forward to the day when I can be proud of our flag again though.
Not the kind of America I was looking forward to after your election.
until it's over.
The ACLU was foolish to plunge ahead just days after Obama took office. You don't do that immediately after the changing of the guard -- you let the new guards get accustomed to the new turf.
So the ACLU muffed it. A pity, but this case was a just a minor skirmish in a much larger campaign. I'm not gonna blame it on Obama, just yet.
Daphne Eviatar:
Regards, C
Even though the ACLU may have jumped the gun, they ostensibly did so in order to keep the new president's feet to the fire - and as a harbinger of things to come if Obama fails to reinstate the rule of law, habeas corpus, etc.
In reality, Obama's been a canidate for 2 years so he is well aware of what's been occurring in Gitmo. Even though he's only been in office for several weeks, he's had 2 years to wrap his mind and his agenda around these illegal renditions, etc. So, in that sense, it's unfair to say that he's just had a few weeks and the ACLU jumped the gun.
It's clear that Obama is not a liberal in the true sense of the word - this some of us knew and recognized during the campaign. However, the concept of restoring the rule of law and our constitution is hardly a partisan issue for one so educated in constitutional law, as Obama happens to be. For him, there should be no quandry. For him, there should be no confusion or mixed messages emanating from his administration.
If he doesn't clear this one up in a hurry, he's going to notice that that same liberal left is going to become disgusted and desert him just as fast as we rallied to his support.
The very last thing the citizens of this country can accept right now is "hypocrisy" and the same "above the law" attitude which has destroyed this democracy from within. The people will rush to judgment this time much quicker than ever before - people's nerves are frayed and they've been duped so many times, that they will take out their frustration and anger on Obama - particularly if he appears to be waffling on restoring the rule of law.
some people are ready to run Obama over. this is very complicated in my opinion. the BUSH administration made this complicated ahead of time as a strategy. he wants to close gitmo and investigations continue. three weeks in office wow maybe i need to re-evaluate but it seems to be premature ejaculation to expect Obama to fully solve this unlawful act(s). oh yeah he is trying to solve maybe the biggest financial crisis the planet has experienced in modern time.
This is the fastest way for Obama to go down in flames.
The people have given him a buy since he inherited this economic disaster from Bush; they will absolutely NOT do so if he fails to uphold the law and reinstate the Constitution. This means bringing Bush to trial for his crimes. It also means departing from those same "crimes" himself.
If Obama doesn't reject this, he, too, will share in Bush's notoriety as "a war criminal" and he won't have even been in office two months.
His numbers may be high now; they will sink like the Titanic if he gives any signal that he plans to continue Bush's hijacking of our constitution, the rule of law, and international treaties.
i hate being proved right all the time!
You and Alice Chomsky and a number of other C & L regulars were on the mark all along. Kinda sad but congrats anyway.
thnx it was a team effort!;]
So now it's time to lawyer up and make change happen -- just like the people out in California are digging in to turn around the idiotic DEA policy against medicinal herb! Change the damn policies to conform to what the voters chose.
This shame over our entire country cannot stand!
This case was NOT about continuing extraordinary rendition. This case was about whether an abductee could sue the AIRPLANE COMPANY for his abduction. As Obama has indicated, he does not want to hold individuals responsible who were following what they thought were lawful orders from the freaking US Government. He wants to get at the people who GAVE THE ORDERS. If and when he caves on that, then pile on. Until then, are you seriously saying that the pilots, the company that charters the plane, the mechanics who maintain the plane are all responsible for what turned out to be an illegal abduction? Let's get real here. We need to go after the top officials involved, not the grunts.
That's true. You've got to go for the heads.
... that some of us "get it."
A premature lawsuit against the fricking AIRPLANE COMPANY?
Then everyone collapses in tears, with pee running down their legs ... that damn Obama, going back on every word he ever told us ...
C'mon people, get a grip.
Awesome image of the Statue Abu Ghraiberty.
i wonder if the perceived consequences are too damaging to innocent people. sometimes i think beyond the obvious embarrassment of several countries/governments these entities are very concerned about the potential consequences by so-called radical groups. i believe the torture was a strategy to aggravate the hornet nest (taliban/al queda/others) to help justify the invasion/war(s). my thoughts relate to the "blowback" explaination. NOW maybe they're very concerned about "blowback". if certain groups aren't satisfied about the way these unlawful acts are treated they make take matters in their own hands. it's another Catch-22 for Obama.
There will be no justice for any of these cretins. It would open up a can of worms that would be uncontainable. If the past administration was investigated for war crimes, then the one before would have to be, and the one before, and the one before, etc, etc. The rule of law would not differentiate between a Dem and a Rep if applied logically as the masses want. Nobody would do that. That would be committing suicide. And they sure as heck wouldn't want to weaken the US even more by airing their dirty laundry publicly worldwide. Besides, just how many Dems do you think would be implicated and face prosecution as well?
Civilizations and nation-states are built on ethical principles. "The ends justify the means" isn't one of them. In your view, the "end" is some mix of fear, inertia, despair and convenience. The "means" is to ignore the ethical foundation of the US consitution -- a.k.a., the separation of powers and the rule of law. Courage is a rare quality and it doesn't allow for short-term expediency.
I'm just looking at it the way that they probably are. You cannot punish one guilty party, without punishing all, if you are going to follow laws.
I recall during the primaries, not sure who, but someone mentioned that they would be beyond shocked if the next government repealed anything BushCo brought in (Patriot Act, FISA, Extra Executive Privileges). Now what we are seeing seems to be exactly that.
I always knew Obama would never repeal the Patriot Act...Because he freakin' voted for it!!!
Sorry if I worded it wrong. What government ever has given away any of it's powers willingly? So, Bushie increased the government's powers, and people thought the next government would repeal those increases? I didn't think so either.
Rights that are lost... are almost never regained (exept through revolution)
Don't get me started. We may be heading there. And if it comes, I get first dibs on the Hiltons and Kardashians.
war criminals (Bush, Cheney) would be a good place to start. Go ask the families of the 300,000 dead Iraqis as a result of the 2003 invasion. Then do a little reading of the 1939 invasion of Poland and the invasion of the Soviet Union in WWII (27,000,000 dead) and then get back to us on exactly what the difference might be.
i respect your ideals. you and i both know your ideally correct. i still say the PERCEIVED consequences may harm many innocent people. i don't know that but i wonder if it's a possibility.
i'm speaking on a global/regional perspective. i still believe torture was used and revealed to prolong continue/justify the war(s).
On behalf of every thinking, caring American: quo warranto time!
That's what I am right now. They won't prosecute Bush and his henchmen ever, but they'll threaten England? WTF?
Ok, maybe I'm going nuts or overreacting. Maybe there will be justice. Maybe Obama and Biden do have a plan and this is just a smokescreen. Maybe this is the calm before the storm. Am I right? Anyone?
nah!
I wanna easter egg! ...footage from 50 years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gFL7FBe_PA
... we shouldn't believe everything we read on the internet?
Maybe we shouldn't believe every bit of hearsay that republicans (or even C&L) puts in front of us?
I'm still willing to suspend judgment, and wait for more and better info.
heard from any source even a hint the DOJ is considering laying criminal charges against any member of the Bush/Cheney criminal cabal? If not, then keep your head in the sand. Not a lot of light down there.
...isnt going to be part of the DOJ, but it looks like Leon isnt interested in prosecuting anyone within the Pentagon, ....and if you can't even prosecute some of the people lower on the totem pole...there seemingly would be little chance of anyone else higher up coming under the "butter knife" of Obama's "A" team....
Panetta: no charges to be filed....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29054393/
and the American citizens don't need nor deserve another William Calley/Ollie North travesty of justice.
maybe Obama and Biden need more than 3 weeks or so to solve every fxxking problem BUSH and his legal teams Yoo/addington gave us. there are a lot of potential consquences regarding this issue.
Why anyone really believed Obama would do what he said he would is beyond me at this point.
Obama now owns the scalpel and the blood is on his hands. He's made himself just another war criminal in the Whitehouse. Disgusting, sickening and shameful.
at fault/war criminal all in three weeks.wow...... can we please have a little more time to resolve this. thanks. easy on the drama.
There is a case being brought in UK by Binyam Mohamed in which state secrets was argued and the evidence edited. " The 25 lines edited out of the court papers contained details of how Mr Mohamed’s genitals were sliced with a scalpel and other torture methods so extreme that waterboarding, the controversial technique of simulated drowning, 'is very far down the list of things they did,' the official said." So it looks like the state secret is that Mr Mohamed was badly tortured. If this report is correct, perhaps justice will be served in Britain. The case in SF is still before a judge. He may be independent enough to hear the case. Don't give up the fight. Too much is at stake to not stand up for what's right. Coca Cola="The real thing" 7-UP="Never had it never will" President Obama is looking like he might be 7-UP
that I cam forget about.
I voted for him - to keep the repuklicans out.
I thought that there was a difference...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/po...
I know it's the Telegraph, but if these are all truthful statements, waterboarding is just the tip of the torture iceberg.
Glenn Greenwald http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/0...
Andrew Sullivan
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_dai...
Brian Beutler
http://www.brianbeutler.com/2009/02/change_i_...
FDL
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/09/...
Regards, C
Been browzing a couple of those links already. It is a sad day in history.
HE IS A BUSH HOLDOVER...HE IS NOT A HOLDER OR OBAMA APPOINTEE.
PLEASE...
that it was DoJ policy.
Regards, C
I admit I haven't read the link yet; I'm on my dial-up.
But is it possible the prisoner sliced up his own genitals?
There is a class of obsessive compulsive disorders called cutters.
Usually they're teenaged girls who cut themselves with razers.
It could even be done to claim torture.
But then it raises the question, how did he get the cutting instrument?
And could it be a form of insanity at his inprisonment?
No he didn't do it to himself. It was done to him and the evidence that it was done to him was surpessed in the British case because the USA(Pesident Obama) threaten the legal system in Britain with ending intelligence cooperation. This is going to come out in Britain before here because the Brits seem to value law more than we do.
Col. Kilgore:
Obama appointed Holder and he was confirmed by Congress. The DOJ is, by mandate part of the Executive Branch and a Cabinet department, and therefore will be referred to quite frequently as the 'Obama DOJ'.
While the POTUS can take a neutral and hands-off approach to much of the DOJ's dealings, Obama and Holder are most definitely in agreement on this issue, and it is completely in line with Bush's State Secrets practices.
Obama has just thrown himself under the proverbial bus, and Glen Greenwald did a great job of explaining this today in his post as well as in response to commenters.
See his blog entry or this comment:
http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/20...
so we don't have the court's actual decision yet.
And yes, I'm damn upset about what was apparently said in today's hearing. However, I don't believe that one statement, on a very narrow issue (suit against the airplane company), that hasn't even been incorporated into a decisive opinion, is the end of Obama.
You say Obama has thrown himself under the bus? If anything, the DoJ has thrown him there. And it's impossible to say that "Obama and Holder are most definitely in agreement on this issue." So far as I know, Holder wasn't given a specific litmus test on this specific use of the State Secrets doctrine.
In other words, the issue is not even close to being fleshed out, as yet.
If you wanted justice done, you should have backed Kucinich for President. He was the only candidate (except maybe Dodd) with the courage and integrity to hold these criminals accountable. The Obama position on Justice, Iraq, and even Health Care, are practically Republican. Behold more tax cuts in the stimulus package. The only comfort I see is knowing how much worse McCain would have been.
After W, the Democrats could have put forth an old sponge as nominee and had a good chance of winning. It was, as a group, their chance to put forth someone who could really do something different, and stand on their principles. Too many people would still simply have to vote for whomever they nominated.
Kucinich, who on his own is (sadly) not very electable (due to being physically unimposing and having a few wacky facts easily trotted forth) finally had a chance, after the last 8 years. But, as usual, the establishment won by 'playing it safe'.
Too many people really wanted Clinton, Romney, Obama, Huckleberry, or any of the other candidates on both major sides. When it came down to choosing on 11/4, most of 'em went with their party's nominee, because it was the lesser of two evils. Dems could have nominated Kucinich, or Dodd. And, while lots of Dems would have been unhappy about it -- when it came down to election day, how many of us would have stayed home because it was Dennis instead of Barack? Was another 4 years of Republican rule worth it? No.
Still, it's kind of pointless, now. It's unlikely there'll be another perfect progressive storm anytime soon -- and if one does come along, who says anyone in power will truly take advantage of it? Besides, it's not one president's decision. It's a president, his party, his (and others') departments, and pressures from all sides. So much so, that maybe even Dennis would have faltered.
The story, of course, is sad. These are issues Obama should have addressed on his first day. An assigned special prosecutor would have taken the burden of investigation off him. It also would have sent a strong message that this IS important, and not just a witch-hunt. Every day that goes by gives legitimacy to BushCo's crimes and validity to "let's look forward" and "let's not reopen old wounds" arguments.
The lovefest begins a new in a couple new threads. *smacks head*...why does this seem like Bush the 3rd, the sequel, except with a used car salesman as the leading actor this time, instead of a washed up paperboy?
The bane of every political system is human nature.
The happy toads that populate our airwaves see the world as prey for our coercive machinations.
I see a world that knows we are corrupt.
Actually, I've heard that outside of politics the world welcomes American tourists more than Brits, who are seen as drunken, rowdy and demanding.
those same tourists when compared to evil invading green martians, would prefer otherwise too. LOL! Something must be wrong with the Brits, Rupert Murdickkk made billions off them!! And let us not forget Maggie Thatcher. Blech.
The Handbagger got short shrift from us North of the border.
Regards, C The Scotsman :-)
Why are those that see, so damn blind?
I believe the expression is:
There are none so blind, as those that will not see.
Congressional republicans who are focused only on obstructing or denouncing such bills as the stimulus program should consider this truism.
Just spending massive amounts of cash with absolutely no checkpoints is wrong in my view. But then, what would I know. I'm just an unemployed bum that governments loathe.
Hear how this funding will go down? No way possible with this system of funneling cash fast, is going to account for all the money. Be prepared for massive fraud.
They have strings attached to this one.
And since the bill/h-r hasn't been released yet, what provisions they have for fraud are speculative at this point.
Maybe we'll hear more during the conference committee.
Mixed Feelings
Mon, 02/09/2009 - 18:05 — ConcernedCanuck
_____________________________________________________
Did you ever think that part of the reason you're unemployed may be due to your country's or your business places having Americans stocks and investments going bad in their hands, and they're trying to save money somewhere?
President Obama's speech addresses that. This is an INTERNATIONAL crisis, not just our own, but we contributed greatly to it overall.
Hell, I've been chewed out on this site for making fun of various ailments and conditions thare are MY own. But then I directly contradict them to turn it into a guessing game and not a pity party.
Yet because you're miserable you attempt to bring down the site with you.
Yeah, I know, it sucks to be you.
patrick leahy is pushy to have a hearing to develop an independent panel that has subpoena power to look into these unlawful acts. the "truth" and "reconciliation" commission. i wish people would allow the process some time.
There will be no "truth" in any commission.
My name is Big John and I guarantee it.
Yes, and a john should know about trickle-down economics.
I don't know what you are trying to say, nothing probably, but I will say this: Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are the last two honest politicians in the entire country. I guarantee it.
Holder just got in as AG and is reviewing all the Bush stuff...give hime time.
Holder just got in as AG and is reviewing all the Bush stuff...give him time.
The waterboarding leak was a smoke screen and distraction to hide much much worse.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/09/mohamed-t...
Its not surprising that they cant find the case files for these prisoners, files which most likely contain the details of the tortures used against them, and names of the officials ordering/doing/observing the torture.
A lot of comments here urging patience, when it's not warranted.
If the AG was really considering anything other than continuing the Bush policy here they could have asked for a continuance, which would have been granted without question because of the obvious change in administration.
This move by the AG sends a clear signal to the career prosecutors below (we have to consider this the official position of the AG, just as the court did, unless or until it is repudiated by him).
Status quo maintained. No deviation from established policy. In other words, "Don't try being a (civil liberties) hero."
If the AG wants to prove us doubters wrong, he knows what he has to do.
No more excuses. You want me to believe in you? Earn it.
Obama has been in office only three weeks. This mess is going to take a while to get right. There is no quick and easy fix. Bush's minions left it messy to cover their butts. I don't blame Obama for shrub's sins and I understand him moving carefully in this legal swamp.
If Obama doesn't have the guts to put them on trial now, he never will. Let's see:
Can't do it later this year or anytime in 2010. We have the midterm elections coming up.
Can't do it in 2011 or 2012 -he's running for re-election.
Can't do it in 2013 or 2014 -more midterms!
By the time 2015 rolls around we'll be getting ready for another presidential election and we can't worry about war crimes that happened a decade ago, now can we?
I'm glad the people running the country back in 1945 weren't so gutless. Von Ribbentrop, Tojo and the others would have been allowed to retire to their mansions instead of being brought to justice.
Patience is given when Elected Officers ask for it. However, when in Office, if they comment and make a decision, no matter how right OR wrong, it must be acknowledged.
In this case, "do as the Bush did" is NOT in the interest of the Country, especially in light of the crime. TORTURE!
Obviously, if Obama was commenting and forming policy that is contrary to American principles, then it IS the duty of Americans to let him know. Sitting back and granting him a pass is what Congress and the (R)ushpublicans did. Look how well that worked out.
However, I can see that if supporting acts of torture are a good thing, then you are correct, SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL, YES?
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/u...
ACCESSORY TO THE CRIME!!!!
Now that Obama knows, he's obligated to act. NOT doing so leaves him as the get away driver.
.
.
C H A N G E
... Comes easy when it's nameplates and underwear.
But what's new? Same sh!t, different a$$hole, that's all.
.
Any person can refuse to obey any order. The problem is that insubordination and disobedience have consequences, including firing, jail, and even death. Who among you will hang your ass out in the wind when given an order you cannot in good conscience obey, knowing it might cost you your job, your freedom, or even your life? Fuck you, pussy.
Login or Register to post comments.