C&L welcomes Christopher Anders, ACLU's Senior legislative counsel to chat about the release of the torture memos
By John Amato Wednesday Apr 22, 2009 12:00pmI'm really delighted to have Christopher Anders with us today to live chat on what was revealed in the CIA torture memos, and what are the next steps to take now that we have these important memos: accountability efforts on the Hill, both for a select committee and an independent prosecutor. And just last night The Senate Armed Services Committee released their report:
Late last night, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) released its full report on the Department of Defense’s (DOD) role in the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody (PDF). (A summary of the report was released last December, but it was only until last night that the full report was released after the government declassified it.)
Christopher Anders is senior legislative counsel in the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office, where he represents the ACLU before Congress and the Executive Branch. His initial response to the SASC report was:
This report makes frighteningly clear that some of the darkest moments in our country’s recent past were choreographed at the highest levels of government… The people who were at the very top of the Bush administration and those at the top of the chain of command must be held accountable. Just as any other American would be investigated by a prosecutor for crimes committed, so must our government officials. We must ensure that our laws are impartially enforced against everyone.
Since joining the ACLU legislative team in 1997, Anders has represented the ACLU on a wide range of civil liberties and civil rights issues. For the past five years, Anders has led the ACLU’s legislative work on torture, detention, and Guantanamo issues. He also has served as a human rights observer at military commission proceedings held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
So please welcome Chris Anders to the pages of C&L.
Login or Register to post comments.
INTRO:
Hi, this is Christopher Anders from the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office. Thanks for having me, John. I look forward to your questions.
But see the following links for more on the SASC report and its methodology:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/...
So glad you could make it. Thanks for the great work the ACLU did to get those memos released!
John, thanks for having me. Quite a day on the torture issue!
It's pretty awful...
John,
I am very upset with both political parties.
The situation at Abu Ghraib did allow those "few bad apples" to do time for their crimes.
Jane Harman needs to resign in my opinion. This issue has me very upset, and I think members of both political parties who sat by idly have much answering to do to the American people.
It is. But a very promising statement from Attorney General Holder that they will follow the evidence wherever it leads. He hasn't committed to a full top-to-bottom criminal investigation of torture crimes yet--and hasn't appointed an independent prosecutor for torture crimes yet--but following the evidence wherever it goes is exactly what needs to happen. And it is good that Holder said it.
and why have laws or say we have such laws that this country "violates" and put that guy or gal in prison for this and that when government officials allow crimes to go on and get a free pass....we may as well free all the prisons in America today, going by the logic I have been hearing lately. If any government official knew these crimes existed and did nothing and allowed it to go on--well, they need to resign immediately and understand that they could be prosecuted. I am so tired of the law breakers in Congress. I know the Harman issue is different, but, she in my opinion needs to go. If they are not prepared to take action on this, then they ought to pardon the crimes of those GI's convicted for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and reinstate Janis Karpinksi's rank. This is ridiculous.
My dues return more than the thousands I've dropped in a collection plate.
Chris what do you make of the impeach Bybee movement? Is this the right road to take, or is he just low-hanging fruit?
Well, no one can say with a straight face anymore that the government's torture program was simply the work of a few bad apples. The decisions on who and how to torture were made at very high levels of the Bush Administration.
to get to the bottom of this abomination. How quickly do you think Holder will move to do so?
from McClatchy:
The Office of Professional Responsibility at DOJ is going to release a report on Bybee, Yoo, and Bradbury very soon. It should come out within a few weeks. It should give us all a very detailed accounting of his role.
But as important as it is for the top lawyers to be held accountable, it is even more important to hold their clients accountable--the people who asked for these opinions and made use of them. That's why a top-to-bottom criminal investigation is what is needed.
I am not that gullible to expect the right course of action will actually ever take place, either. I have seen too, too many crimes at the top levels go unpunished in my life.
..why it seems to be taking a long time to appoint a Special Prosecutor? Why would any branch of government delay appointing the one person who would hold these investigations?
Everyone ,even those that wiped up the blood smears E..V..E..R..Y..O..N..E
Y'all hiring?
Holder doesn't have to appoint an independent prosecutor today, but he can't waste too much time. The Anti-Torture Act has an eight-year statute of limitation, but Abu Zubaydah (who was waterboarded 80+ times in a single months) was captured in March 2002, and FBI agents who observed the CIA interrogating him from April-June 2002 described it as "borderline torture" and comparable to SERE tactics. The statute of limitations for those particular interrogations runs out in about a year. And that's a very important set of interrogations because they occurred before the OLC opinions were issued---so no OLC opinions there to complicate a prosecution.
in getting the CIA memos released?
There have been tons of books and articles written about the Bush administration's use of torture, and still, there has been little recourse other than going after those "few bad apples." In my opinion, and with all due respect, until I see actual action on these crimes, I would have to argue that this is political posturing.
Despite my deep feeling over this issue, I want to extend my great Thanks to John Amato and to Christopher Anders for providing us with this forum today.
I just received a survey from you guys, and will be sending it in with a small donation. Wish I could do more, but money's tight these days.
Good luck, and keep fightin the good fight.
Later folks!
See ya tomorrow.
While we have pointed out that "if torture is so effective, why did they have to do it 183 times?"
The latest Conservative defense is that "this wasn't torture" if it could be performed that many times without killing him.
Translation: "It's only torture is he dies."
The first 182 times didn't take for this guy whereas it would only take showing me the waterboard to get me to say anything.
If the doctor revives him did he die?
Dialogue that took place regarding "torture" several months ago.
It had something to do with waterboarding and a "near death experience".
Unless the "detainee" experienced a "near death" experience, it could not be translated as "torture".
This is what we will see in the future with all the various "lawyers" yacking in the Senate and House Committee Hearings.
What defines, "near death". What defines, "torture". What defines, "near death experience".
Oy.....vey.....
(Snark).
Is.
Here we go.
I mean if someone robs a bank, it's illegal, and they are pursued, arrested and brought to trial.
Torture is a crime. It's assault, it's grievous bodily harm. Why are there even arguments for? Why do any legislators and the President need to take counsel on prosecution? Is there a dearth of admissible evidence?
It was pretty clear when the Japanese who tortured in WWII were prosecuted, that torture was and is illegal.
This argument (and others opposing human and civil rights) retards or forward movement as a society.
All of us here at the ACLU can't thank you enough for your support, especially with the bad economy. A lot of people forget that we are a membership organization, and depend on contributions from our members to keep us going. And there's lots of work to do!
they haven't issued any proof of that, but that still doesn't justify torture. Bill O'Reilly's been using the "24" defense as an excuse for a president to order torture.
..and considering they're the authority who determines that, what pressure can they bring to bear, if any, on the Government to act?
Now that I think of it, isn't 24 a FAUX production?
Best Bugs Bunny cartoon ever made about terrorism.
We have the pinnacle argument.
It's outlawed and illegal or can I have a few slaves?
I get the impression that booshco is trying to tie this one into a morass of policital opinions, fine tooth combed legal definitions, semantics and intent.
Do they have a snowballs chance in Texas?
Or Bill Clinton's chance in a convent?
Thanks so much for taking the time to do this.
My question is can Obama appoint a special prosecutor or has the statute allowing this expired? Does the appointment have to be approved by Congress?
Thanks again.
It is amazing that there's much debate on whether there should be a criminal investigation. There certainly may be challenges in getting the evidence together and putting together all of the pieces to actually convict, but there certainly is a growing mountain of evidence of actual crimes. And despite the garbled words games of the Justice Department lawyers from the last administration, the Anti-Torture Act is fairly straightforward, as federal statutes go.
for being here today. It's great to hear from someone at the ACLU.
I find it shocking that some, including President Obama, are basically bringing up the idea of the Nuremberg Defense as being supportable in the case of the Bush administration's torture policy. Have we really sunk so low as to dismiss the role of conscience, and say that if someone ordered such horrendous conduct, we won't punish the ones who carried it out?
Is this a supportable argument, and do you think we'll see it used to protect those involved in this most un-American of activities?
I try not to compare with this solely on the base of past crimes from different eras because people often digress away from the matter at hand.
The right wing are very effective at digressing from the matter at hand. For example in the Iraq case, it was a war which is vastly different from the interpretation of rounding up terror suspects after 9-11-2001. The civilians in Iraq should have all been accorded rights under the Geneva Conventions whether the Bush administration or Congress agreed. It is pretty simple when going to war against a country that the Geneva Conventions be followed. In every UN Resolution that followed and went before the Iraq War, adherence to the Hague Convention and the Geneva Conventions was mentioned. The U.S. is also bound under treaty with the Convention to Ban Torture Treaty which would have implications even for suspects under U.S. custody.
before the memos were written? I almost forgot Rumsfeld's notations:
The old Independent Counsel Act, that gave Bill Clinton his Ken Starr, expired at the end of the Clinton administration. Prosecution decisions are entirely in the hands of the Attorney General--which is why the Bush people didn't have much to fear from their cronies who ran the Justice Department then. But there is a regulation that allows the Attorney General to appoint an independent prosecutor to lead a criminal investigation and prosecution--and allows that person to come from outside the still-tainted Justice Department.
Fizpatrick.
Yeh, he did such a great job before- snark
Mr. Anders,
How many critical Bush officials are still holdovers at the Justice Department as well as the CIA? I have herad that the guy under Panetta at the CIA is a very loyal Bush-Cheney hand.
I also heard Wayne Madsen say in late January, and long before this latest wave of outcries against Cheney, that he (Cheney) was hanging around deliberately to cause trouble for the Obama administration as well.
about the courage of Holder? Will he "do the right thing" just because it's the right thing, or does he lack courage?
Good Job, and thanks.
The "relied in good faith on Justice Department opinions" argument that Holder has made is problematic because everyone is obligated to know the law--and certainly to use their own common sense. But even if Holder won't charge anyone who relied in good faith on those opinions, that still leaves people who went outside the opinions, people who knew or should have known that the opinions were incorrect, and people who ordered or conducted torture before the opinions existed (no one can rely on something that didn't exist). There is plenty left to do, even with Holder's limitation.
so good faith is just a re-wording of the "just following orders" meme.
My question is that if these lawyers gave an opinion about these techniques is it not only an opinion? Just because they gave an opinion, how and why could they be prosecuted. On the other side, if they gave an opinion and they can be prosecuted for just giving that opinion thqt gets the administration off the hook for something like torture, what is there to not let any administration to get a lawyer and MAKE that lawyer give an opinion that the administration wants?
It just seems to me that the people who acted on those faulty opinions are the ones responsible for the illegal deed.
Thanx for holding America to it's own standards.
My question is:
I don't often hear how the constitution requires the U.S. to honor treaties it signs and how that literally sets the requirement for investigation of the allegations of torture. We also have as legal precedent, both Nuremberg and our trials of the Japanese after WWII. I have only heard that in two places consistently. Though I may need to get out more, I'd like to know what your organization's legal argument is regarding the torture allegations and I'd like to read what you're able to say about it.
for the Bush administration.
Hi Chris. It has been asserted that the Obama admin is legally required under the UN Convention on Torture, given the facts on the public record, to bring prosecutions. If Holder declines to prosecute or appoint counsel, does that expose Obama or Holder to potential criminal liability? A related question is to what extent the Spanish court, possibly among other international fora (I read that someone from NATO asserted that NATO could bring actions) is really driving this process. Aside from criminal liability for failing to prosecute, it would be monumentally embarrassing for Obama if his admin declines to prosecute and then the Spanish court or some other entity takes on the job. Care to speak to these considerations? Thanks for coming by !
On holdover appointees from the Bush days, here is one that ought to get everyone on the phone to their member of Congress and the White House right now ---
Did you know that Panetta has kept John Rizzo as Acting CIA General Counsel? If you look at the newly released Justice Department memos, they were all addressed to John Rizzo. Truly unbelievable that he is still in charge of legal advice at the CIA.
His office staff has this portrait with a polished plaque beneath reading, "Our Boss."
http://www.quizilla.com/user_images/A/AutumnS...
I heard Ray McGovern and Phil Giraldi say something like that recently about Panetta's "new CIA." That the CIA is still highly tainted.
Cheney, according to Wayne Madsen, was hanging around Washington in an attempt to influence old Bush administration cronies still working in various agencies to obstruct the Obama administration. Perhaps, trailing Cheney may be a good thing too, to see what he is really up to besides giving Hannity "interviews."
I understand Rizzo's replacement is being blocked by Republicans.
A neighbor went to CIA counsel to protest his orders in the Castro Assassination era. While I am wary of the "we are all good nazis" line, I do see a big problem for any current CIA staff that may have disagreed with orders. They couldn't go to their counsel then, an still can't now. I read somewhere some had made "cya" statements to counsels in justice.
Do you feel Rizzo is a factor in Obama's decision not to go after rank and file CIA?
(disclosure - After the death of my neighbor in the 1970's, I have no contact with anyone in the CIA. I'm a nobody.)
. I gotta' go.
Is it true that some/most/all of the torture was done by independent contractors (Blackwater(?))?
CACI and Titan have also been implicated in torture.
In response to several different questions:
The US is obligated under the Convention Against Torture to prosecute torture crimes committed by its personnel. And if we don't do it, other countries are obligated to step in and fill the void by prosecuting US officials themselves. The Anti-Torture Act is the criminal law that Congress passed in 1994 to carry out its obligations to prosecute torturers. So, the legal obligation is there, but now there has to be the determination to actually do it.
What about Bush pulling us from the ICC, is that not legal?
UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
US Code CHAPTER 113C—TORTURE
Thank you
Do you think Yoo, Addington, Bybee, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush are in this? If the CIA (black sites) and the military (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo)had the OKs to do this stuff as the opinions , show, how can they not be accountable? Is the evidence good enough for these chumps to be found guilty, or at least be charged?
Contractors certainly were involved, and should be held accountable. But the recent disclosures involved top White House, Justice Department, CIA, and Defense Department officials--as well as career people in the agencies. There is a lot to investigate. Contractors are a piece of the puzzle, but an investigation should go all the way to the top.
but at least prosecute those who made the decisions and then who bent the law to give them cover.
I know there is one congressional committee investigating, but that isn't public. Do you think there is any chance of a public congressional investigation?
Aren't we supposed to have Seperation between Church and State?
/snark off
A lot can happen in any criminal investigation. Just like any other investigation, it can certainly turn out that the evidence isn't there or can't be used--or that there are other reasons why a good, impartial prosecutor would believe that he or she shouldn't charge someone.
At the end of the day, a criminal investigation could result in no charges. But even if that is the result, it would be a better result for the country to know that a prosecutor looked and couldn't bring a case, and not that no one even investigated.
Where did the evidence go? It was just here, a little bit ago.
What a mess.
Is it just me or does it seem like conservatives, particularly the former vp, seem to be daring the government to investigate them? They go on TV talking against torture investigations (no surprise since what they don't say is they'll probably be the subject). Then they turn around and demand Obama declassifies all documents to prove their case that "enhanced interrogation techniques" worked.
And of course if the current administration releases the records they can be excoriated for endangering America's security, and if they don't that they're covering something up.
I guess if you are a black athlete like Michael Vick (dog fighting)---that you will be prosecuted faster than government officials who are obviously involved with torturing fellow human beings....I guess "justice" depends on who you are and who ya know and where your friends are...Cases like this make the general public very cynical about "true and real justice for all."
I am quite serious when I say we may as well free the entire prison population of America if we all allow this "logic" to be used at the highest levels of government.
I will end this post now, because I am getting very pissed off just thinking about the two sets of justice, which routinely goes on, here in America.
Tom DeLay hasn't even been tried yet, never mind sentenced.
His case proofs the adage about Justice DeLay's is justice denied.
IPS: CIA Director Asked to Preserve Secret Prisons
?
Who do you believe would make a good S P ?
Fitzgerald
any of the dismissed USAs. They are the best of the best.
the best of the best, just conscientious enough that they couldn't toe the wingnut line. Still, giants among lesser men.
always was. he makes a lot of noise. look more closely at his results
And it was one hell of an uphill swim, too. Got 2 governors in Illinois, and will probably get a third, too.
Yes, I agree. Blowing smoke, and covering is what he did the last time. 'Scooter', sacrifice the small-fry, protect the 1%. He did such a great job last time. snark
should act also?
Congress should definitely act. There is lots and lots of oversight left to be done. The Senate Armed Services Committee did a great job with its investigation, Senate Intelligence has started one under Chairman Feinstein, but there is a lot left to be done--especially with determining what happened at the White House itself.
Do you think you could get Kucinich involved he has collected a ton of evidence.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=18579...
His doctor told him that if he testified in front of the Church Commission it would kill him in his health. He testified, and died in the middle of the proceedings. Much of what we know about the Castro assassination stuff is from his cya memos.
The commission did bring new rules on CIA behavior, but they as well as NSA and the military went off and did things 30-35 years later that end up weakening US security - again.
What branch of government can ensure that neither the CIA, nor the NSA nor the Military violate laws and provide enough oversight to make sure this doesn't happen yet again another 30 years from now?
Thanks so much for inviting me to participate in this chat, John, and thanks to everyone for the great questions. The ACLU will continue to call for transparency and accountability. If you haven't already, please sign our petition to Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate those who authorized torture at www.aclu.org/investigatetorture.
Thanks to you and John as well...Have a nice day...
And all you do.
for coming.
great chat...
I have always felt that the law needs to be followed in this case and that anyone who engaged in acts of torture or provided legal justification for it should be prosecuted. But i was worried that any attempt at investigation would be readily characterized by the right and the MSM as a partisan witch hunt. Given the sheer audacity displayed by the Bush administration in authorizing torture, do you think that charges of witch hunting will gain any traction?
Thanks!
[Deleted. Off topic. C&L is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is not public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' point of view. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.-Sitemonitor]
From initial indications an awful lot of people in all branches of our government and the military, many still in place, were involved in one-way or another with the policy regarding torture of detainees. Investigation and prosecutions of those charged might wind up occupying a great deal of our national attention for some time to come. We cannot “just keep walking” as Peggy Noonan suggested this past Sunday, (I don’t know how many people now days remembers the phrase “I was just following orders”) but how do we proceed without risking the possibility of severely destabilizing our government?
currently possible
http://www.truthout.org/042009R
Your thoughts?
Login or Register to post comments.