JAG Memos Revealed Discourse.net

Marty Lederman has an important post about the torture scandal, The Heroes of the Pentagon's Interrogation Scandal -- Finally, the JAG Memos
. As Marty says, "These memos reveal the JAGs as the real heroes of this story."

The memos are extraordinary. They are written by JAGs from the Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines. As Senator Graham put it on Monday, these folks "are not from the ACLU. These are not from people who are soft on terrorism, who want to coddle foreign terrorists. These are all professional military lawyers who have dedicated their lives, with 20-plus year careers, to serving the men and women in uniform and protecting their Nation. They were giving a warning shot across the bow of the policymakers that there are certain corners you cannot afford to cut because you will wind up meeting yourself."
It is fair to say that these accounts reflected sustained, uniform and passionate opposition to the OLC legal theories that were being foisted upon the military. Indeed, the tone of the memos is one of barely concealed incredulity, and outrage--disbelief--that a young legal academic from DOJ could sweep right in and so quickly overturn decades of carefully wrought military policy, using legal analysis that almost certainly would not withstand scrutiny outside the Administration and around the world. ...

In particular, these memos eloquently warn of the grave harms that could result from such a radical shift in policies and legal understandings--harms not only to the prospects for nation's efforts to stop terrorism, but also to military interrogators and officers who could face domestic and international prosecution for engaging in such conduct, and, most importantly, to U.S. forces who are themselves detained in this and future conflicts.

He's also got the text of six key JAG memos. Essential reading.

It is fair to say that these accounts reflected sustained, uniform and passionate opposition to the OLC legal theories that were being foisted upon the military. Indeed, the tone of the memos is one of barely concealed incredulity, and outrage--disbelief--that a young legal academic from DOJ could sweep right in and so quickly overturn decades of carefully wrought military policy, using legal analysis that almost certainly would not withstand scrutiny outside the Administration and around the world. ...

In particular, these memos eloquently warn of the grave harms that could result from such a radical shift in policies and legal understandings--harms not only to the prospects for nation's efforts to stop terrorism, but also to military interrogators and officers who could face domestic and international prosecution for engaging in such conduct, and, most importantly, to U.S. forces who are themselves detained in this and future conflicts.

He's also got the text of six key JAG memos. Essential reading.

Red Sox partner says CIA chartered his jet

By Gordon Edes

Phillip Morse, a minority partner of the Boston Red Sox, said Sunday that his private jet has been chartered to the CIA and confirmed that it had been flown to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where more than 500 terrorism suspects are held, as well as other overseas destinations.

But Morse said he was "stunned" by a report in Sunday's Chicago Tribune suggesting that the plane might have been used for "renditions," the controversial practice in which terrorism suspects arrested abroad have been forcibly returned to their native countries for interrogation...read on

It was rather sickening to listen to the high-and-mighty posturing of our 'representatives' browbeat ball players on the steroids matter while we are at war, the treasury is being bankrupted and unprecedented government corruption is happening right before their eyes. Listening to them sanctimoniously lecture baseball about its ethics and practices is especially ironic when one considers that their own ethics process has been de-fanged by the Tom Delay-led GOP.

One of these days, I'll get the chance to confront Fred Hiatt and ask him why he insists on misusing the Washington Post to continue his attacks against the Obama administration. This morning, he decided that it's really the Obama administration that ought to be questioned, instead of the Pakistani-American suspect it has in custody.

IN THE PAST two days, the Obama administration has released significant amounts of information about its arrest of Faisal Shahzad, the man accused of trying to detonate a car bomb in New York's Times Square. The most significant assertions: Mr. Shahzad, a Pakistani-born, naturalized U.S. citizen, received bomb training in Waziristan when he traveled to Pakistan late last year and has confessed to being responsible for making and trying to detonate the makeshift bomb.

But much is still not known about the administration's handling of this case. For example, how long was Mr. Shahzad questioned before he was read his Miranda rights? And what triggered the Justice Department's decision to suspend the "ticking time bomb" exception in case law that gives law enforcement officers an opportunity to gather information before advising a suspect of his right to remain silent? The administration has also not publicly addressed whether it consulted with intelligence officials on the best way to deal with Mr. Shahzad. Nor has it said whether its High Value Interrogation Group (HIG) -- a group of law enforcement and intelligence experts specially trained for terrorism cases -- was up and running and deployed in the Shahzad case.

The administration rightly came under fire for its handling of the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian citizen who tried to ignite explosives on a Detroit-bound plane on Christmas Day. In that case, the Justice Department failed to adequately consult its intelligence partners and rashly embraced a law enforcement approach without fully considering other options, including holding Mr. Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant.

The Shahzad case is different, primarily because Mr. Shahzad is an American citizen. The decisions the administration has made in this case may have been well considered by all responsible parties and well founded. But the public is entitled to understand in greater detail what choices the administration made, through what process, and why.

Fred, you ignorant slut. For years you stood by and watched the Bush administration subvert democracy, taking away our civil rights and writing over the Constitution. All of a sudden, you're the concerned citizen watching for abuses of power and looking for a better government. The story here is, no one got hurt, and law enforcement officials correctly handled the situation. No one had to be interrogated at Gitmo. No one was stripped of their habeus corpus rights. We do in fact have a process that doesn't require Jack Bauer to rescue us from Teh Terrorist Threat.

So please, please consider leaving the Washington Post and going somewhere else, anywhere else. Hey, I hear the Washington Times is in need of some assistance. I'll bet they'll like you there.

DOWNLOADS: (1222)

PLAYS: (1839)

Embed

According to President-in-his-own-mind McCain, Faisal Shahzad should not have been read his Miranda rights, despite his standing as a US citizen.

The Hill:

McCain, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a longtime leading Republican on national security issues, said he expected the suspect in the case could face charges that might warrant a death sentence if convicted.

"Obviously that would be a serious mistake...at least until we find out as much information we have," McCain said during an appearance on "Imus in the Morning" when asked whether the suspect, 30-year-old Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen from Pakistan.

"Don't give this guy his miranda rights until we find out what it's all about," McCain added.

It all comes down to this:

Republicans say that suspects like Abdulmutallab and potentially Shahzad should be classified as an "enemy combatant," which gives authorities more leeway in seeking intelligence through interrogation and other methods.

The Arizona Republican, however, said he expected the criminal justice system to play itself out in such a way that Shahzad would face the death penalty, if convicted.

"There's probably about 350 different charges he's guilty off -- attempted acts of terror against the united States, attempted murder," said McCain, cautioning that he's not privy to the charges with which Shahzad might be charged. "I'm sure there's a significant number to warrant the death penalty."

Here's the problem with this twisted logic. This man is a United States citizen. Unless we have declared war on ourselves, it would be a bit difficult to have him classified as an enemy combatant. Even more fundamentally, where does that line fall? Should any US citizen arrested for what appears to be an act of violence against another person be stripped of his or her constitutional rights?

If McCain dreams of a day where this guy is executed because he tried and failed to turn a Nissan Pathfinder into a supercharged Molotov cocktail, he ought to be demanding that his Miranda rights be read to him immediately on videotape in order to survive any and all challenges to his arrest on Constitutional grounds.

McCain and his pals make a lot of noise about returning to constitutional fundamentals, but they don't have the first clue what those fundamentals are. Perhaps he should take a refresher course.

Funny how this hasn't shown up on any American news show--not one mention on the Sunday shows--isn't that interesting?

According to the complaint filed against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as summarized by Judge Anderson in his order refusing to dismiss the case, two men employed in Iraq by Shield Group Security (SGS) allege that their employer bribed Iraqi Sheiks and trafficked in weapons, activities they worried were illegal. The men allege that on a visit back home, one (with the knowledge and cooperation of the other) contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation and became informants, giving regular reports and copying computer files as directed. SGS started questioning their loyalty and took away the identification cards that allowed them to access Baghdad's Green Zone. As a result, their lives were placed at risk; the only safe place to be was the SGS compound. When the men contacted their law enforcement handlers, they claim they were told to barricade themselves in an SGS room and await rescue by the U.S. military. They were in fact rescued and brought to the U.S. embassy, where allegedly they explained their undercover corruption- exposing work, and turned over their laptops, which corroborated what they said.

So far, so good. What happened next is when this made-for-TV patriotic movie goes off-message.

According to the complaint, after the men slept for a couple of hours, several armed guards woke, arrested, handcuffed and blindfolded them, put into a Humvee, and brought them to Camp Prosperity and ultimately Camp Cropper for detention and interrogation. The men were labeled "security internees" affiliated with SGS, a status that enabled the men to be detained indefinitely, incommunicado, without access to due process or an attorney, and interrogated with torturous techniques. This status was a direct result of policies enacted by Rumsfeld and others, and the interrogation techniques used were specifically authorized by Rumsfeld, the men allege.[..]

Based on this alleged treatment and Rumsfeld's alleged involvement, the men sued Rumsfeld in part for depriving them of their well established Constitutional Right to be free from torture.

What kind of torture you ask? The contractors allege that they were subjected to extremes of temperature, sleep deprivation, denial of food, water and medical care, prolonged solitary confinement and threats of violence as well as actual violence.

As would be expected, Rumsfeld's attorneys argued that he should be granted immunity since he was acting as the Secretary of Defense, but the judge surprisingly ruled against that motion.

If this case continues to trial, this may offer us the fullest account of the kind of crimes the Bush administration took so casually and set precedent for other similar cases.

The question is, will the media take notice?

darkblack: 5 Is The Magic Number

Faithful Progressive : George Lakoff on Obama, Tea Parties, and the battle for our brains

The Rude Pundit: What is enhanced interrogation tecnique number 12?

MAL Contends: Gates calls Europe's anti-war mood a danger to peace

James Wolcott: The lunatics have taken over the salon

Newshoggers: Joseph Stack, frustrated American

Susan Collins came out and attacked Obama like she was possessed by Lynn Cheney over the handling of the underwear bomber because he was treated by our laws.

"Because of that blindness, this administration cannot see a foreign terrorist even when he stands right in front of them, fresh from an attempt to blow a plane out of the sky on Christmas Day," she said.

"There's no other way to explain the irresponsible, indeed dangerous, decision on Abdulmutallab's interrogation. There's no other way to explain the inconceivable treatment of him as if he were a common criminal."

Most conservatives are taking this point of view and are suddenly saying that even their hero, George W. Bush, made mistakes handling terrorists. Of course they were never heard from when Bush was actually in charge, but the media ignore this fact.

Eric Holder, the AG shot down all republican arguments today about their complaints.

Attorney General Eric Holder today basically accused Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and 10 Republican senators of playing politics with national security by criticizing the administration's decision to try Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in civilian court.

You know, the Villagers are so uniformly self-centered and oblivious to larger reality that it's too much like shooting fish in a barrel to go after them -- too easy and not quite sporting.

But the bed-wetting Richard Cohen takes it to higher levels than almost anyone else:

There is almost nothing the Obama administration does regarding terrorism that makes me feel safer.

Because it's all about you, isn't it, Richard?

Whether it is guaranteeing captured terrorists that they will not be waterboarded, reciting terrorists their rights, or the legally meandering and confusing rule that some terrorists will be tried in military tribunals and some in civilian courts, what is missing is a firm recognition that what comes first is not the message sent to America's critics but the message sent to Americans themselves. When, oh when, will this administration wake up?

What, you mean the concept that we all have equal rights under the law? Yes, I can see where that idea might cause some problems.

[...] No doubt George Bush soiled America's image abroad with what looked liked vigilante justice and Dick Cheney's hearty endorsement of ugly interrogation measures. But more is at stake here than America's image abroad -- namely the security and peace of mind of Americans in America. Bush stands condemned by the facts for Sept. 11 -- his watch, his responsibility -- and in all likelihood he bent over backward to ensure that nothing like those attacks would happen again.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, seems to have bent over backward to prove to the world it is not the Bush administration and will, almost no matter what, ensure that everyone gets the benefit of American civil liberties.

As one of those who have been watching as Obama rubberstamps numerous Bush terrorism policies, I can only shake my head. Can it be that Cohen simply doesn't know how to read?

But the paramount civil liberty is a sense of security and this, sad to say, has eroded under Barack Obama. Repeatedly, the administration has shown poor judgment. Abdulmutallab's silence is a scream that something is wrong.

Really? Really, "the paramount civil liberty is a sense of security"? Your sense of security? I'm sitting here looking at the Bill of Rights and yeah, they do talk about security, all right - but not the way you mean:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...

Maybe you should go back and read the rest, you pathetic excuse for an American. Or remember the words of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

The Transportation Security Administration is announcing the implementation of "enhanced screening" for personnel coming in from nations that have been designated as terrorist havens. I wonder if "enhanced interrogation" comes with the package? Could they have picked a worse term?

Because effective aviation security must begin beyond our borders, and as a result of extraordinary cooperation from our global aviation partners, TSA is mandating that every individual flying into the U.S. from anywhere in the world traveling from or through nations that are state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of interest will be required to go through enhanced screening. The directive also increases the use of enhanced screening technologies and mandates threat-based and random screening for passengers on U.S. bound international flights.

File this under "things that would not have stopped Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from flying from Nigeria through Amsterdam to the United States." Nor would it have stopped the feared "liquid bombers" from the United Kingdom. And it won't stop al Qaeda cells operating in Germany. So exactly how is this security theater meant to protect us? Short answer, it won't. It's just movie drama theater. It will, however, piss off a lot of normal travelers who will decide that flying to America just isn't worth it anymore. It will also cost the airports a great deal of money and slow down security checks even further. So overall, yeah, great news, TSA.

The NY Times has a list of countries who will be affected by this directive.

Citizens of Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria, countries that are considered “state sponsors of terrorism,” as well as those of “countries of interest” — including Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen — will face the special scrutiny, officials said.

But it still won't stop "non-state actors" from flying to America if and when they want.

The Washington Post does the most insidious form of "journalism" today: they do an "on the other hand" story about torture. "Some say" it's wrong, but "others say" it works, so the implied conclusion is, how can it be wrong?

And therein lies the problem. Why does it matter? After eight years or so of deceptive leadership and an inbred corporate media corps eager to lend its imprimatur, we have gotten to the point where we're actually arguing that torture is okay if it works.

Life is full of challenges and dilemmas, but morally aware people don't take to the low road when they have to deal with them. For instance, I'm worried about paying for my COBRA coverage. If I could rob a bank and get away with it, would that be okay? Of course not.

And can I point out again that the most useful intelligence we got from detainees was because their interrogators were kind to them?

These scenes provide previously unpublicized details about the transformation of the man known to U.S. officials as KSM from an avowed and truculent enemy of the United States into what the CIA called its "preeminent source" on al-Qaeda. This reversal occurred after Mohammed was subjected to simulated drowning and prolonged sleep deprivation, among other harsh interrogation techniques.

"KSM, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete," according to newly unclassified portions of a 2004 report by the CIA's then-inspector general released Monday by the Justice Department.

The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result. But for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general's report and other documents released this week indicate.

Over a few weeks, he was subjected to an escalating series of coercive methods, culminating in 7 1/2 days of sleep deprivation, while diapered and shackled, and 183 instances of waterboarding. After the month-long torment, he was never waterboarded again.

"What do you think changed KSM's mind?" one former senior intelligence official said this week after being asked about the effect of waterboarding. "Of course it began with that."

Mohammed, in statements to the International Committee of the Red Cross, said some of the information he provided was untrue.

"During the harshest period of my interrogation I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop. I later told interrogators that their methods were stupid and counterproductive. I'm sure that the false information I was forced to invent in order to make the ill-treatment stop wasted a lot of their time," he said.

Critics say waterboarding and other harsh methods are unacceptable regardless of their results, and those with detailed knowledge of the CIA's program say the existing assessments offer no scientific basis to draw conclusions about effectiveness.

"Democratic societies don't use torture under any circumstances. It is illegal and immoral," said Tom Parker, policy director for counterterrorism and human rights at Amnesty International. "This is a fool's argument in any event. There is no way to prove or disprove the counterfactual."