Who should be going to jail for torture?

[WilliamPitt]

My list:

Yoo
Bybee
Rumsfeld
Cheney
Bush (if it can be proven that he actually made any decisions, which is dubious imho)
Gonzales

I'm leaving off the CIA interrogators for the time being, not because I think they should get a walk for breaking the law, but because any prosecution of them would be DOA. Legally, they were following what they construed to be lawfully executed orders from their superiors. Yes, "I was only following orders" is the bullshit Nuremberg defense, but in a US court of law, it's enough to sustain the inevitable motion to dismiss from the defense.

So I don't think we can get those guys even if we want to.

Who can we get? Who should we get? Who gave the orders to and crafted the defense for torture?

[ananda]

1. And don't forget Kindasleezy.

nt

[babylonsister]

2. If Gonzo is on there, shouldn't Addington be also?

I say yes!

[EFerrari]

3. Haynes. He was a major player who set this in motion at the Pentagram.

He was the one that started trolling for torture techniques and who made the overture to the SERE people. And Richard Meyers who lied his ass off at the Taguba hearings. In fact, all of those people who lied at those hearings should go to jail, including Feith, Gambone and Addington.

[hlthe2b]

4. Rice doesn't get a pass. She approved waterboarding

The Associated Press reports that the highest Bush administration officials signed off on waterboarding:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice verbally OK'd the CIA's request to subject alleged al-Qaida terrorist Abu Zubaydah to waterboarding in July 2002, a decision memorialized a few days later in a secret memo that the Obama administration declassified last week.

Rice's role was detailed in a narrative released Wednesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee. It provides the most detailed timeline yet for how the CIA's harsh interrogation program was conceived and approved at the highest levels in the Bush White House.

[stillcool]

20. Her name came up several times..

in the Armed Services Report.

(U) Mr. Haynes was not the only senior official considering new interrogation techniques for use against detainees. Members of the President's Cabinet and other senior officials attended meetings in the White House where specific interrogation techniques were discussed. Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice, who was then the National Security Advisor, said that, "in the spring
of2002, CIA sought policy approval from the National Security Council (NSC) to begin an
interrogation progTam for high-level al-Qaida terrorists." Secretary Rice said that she asked
Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet to brief NSC Principals on the program and asked
the Attorney General John Ashcroft "personally to review and confirm the legal advice prepared
by the Office of Legal Counsel." She also said that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
participated in the NSC review of the CIA's program.
(U) Asked whether she attended meetings where SERE training was discussed, Secretary
Rice stated that she recalled being told that U.S. military personnel were subjected in training to
"certain physical and psychological interrogation techniques." National Security Council (NSC)
Legal Advisor, John Bellinger, said that he was present in meetings "at which SERE training was
discussed."
***********************888

(U) NSC Legal Advisor John Bellinger said that, on several occasions, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General Bruce Swartz raised concerns with him about allegations of detainee abuse at
GTMO. Mr. Bellinger said that, in turn, he raised these concerns "on several occasions with
DoD officials and was told that the allegations were being investigated by the Naval Criminal
Investigative Service." Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said that Mr.
Bellinger also advised her "on a regular basis regarding concerns and issues relating to DoD
detention policies and practices at Guantanamo." She said that as a result she convened a "series
of meetings ofNSC Principals in 2002 and 2003 to discuss various issues and concerns relating
to detainees in the custody of the Department of Defense."

***************************
(U) Abu Zubaydah was captured by Pakistani and CIA forces on March 28, 2002.
According to former CIA Director George Tenet, once Zubaydah was in custody, the CIA "got
into holding and interrogating high-value detainees" (HVDs) "in a serious way."Then National
Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said that "in the spring of2002, CIA sought policy
approval from the National Security Council to begin an interrogation program for high-level alQaida
terrorists."lll Then-NSC Legal Advisor John Bellinger said that he asked CIA to have the
proposed program reviewed by the Department of Justice and that he asked CIA to seek advice
not only ~om DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) but also from the Criminal Division. 112 Ms.
Rice said that she asked Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet to brief NSC Principals on
the proposed CIA program and asked Attorney General Ashcroft "personally to review the legality of the proposed program. ll3 She said that all of the meetings she attended on the CIA's
interrogation program took place at the White House and that she understood thatDoJ's legal
advice "was being coordinated by Counsel to the President Alberto Gonzales.,,114

According to President Bush, the agency developed an "alternative set" of,"tough"
interrogation techniques, and put them to use on Zubaydah and other HVDs. 115 Though virtually
all of the techniques that were used on Zubaydah remain classified, CIA Director Michael
Hayden confirmed that waterboarding was used on Zubaydah. 116 Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) Steven Bradbury testified before Congress that the "CIA's
use of the waterboarding procedure was adapted from the SERE training program.,,117 When
asked whether she was present for discussions about physical and/or psychological pressures
used in SERE training, Secretary Rice recalled "being told that U. S. military personnel were
subjected in training to certain physical and psychological interrogation techniques." 118 Mr.
Bellinger, the NSC Legal Advisor, stated that he was "present in meetings at which SERE
training was discussed.,,119
******************************

(U) According to the DoJ Inspector General's report, FBI Counterterrorism Assistant
Director Pat D' Amuro gave the instruction to both FBI agents to "come home and not participate
in the CIA interrogation." The first FBI Special Agent left immediately, but the other FBI agent
remained until early June 2002.133 The report said that around the time of Zubaydah's
interrogation, FBI Director Robert Mueller decided that FBI agents would not participate in
interrogations involving techniques the FBI did not normally use in the United States, even
though the OLC had determined such techniques were legal. 134 Then-National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice said that she had a "general recollection that FBI had decided not to
participate in the CIA interrogations" but "was not aware that FBI personnel objected to
interrogation techniques used or proposed for use with Abu Zubaydah." 135

[tekisui]

5. Tenet, Addignton, Feith, Haynes added. Myers for blocking an inquiry.

So far, Bush seems out of the loop---SO FAR. And, on this case.

[NNN0LHI]

6. US Major General Geoffrey Miller

[EFerrari]

8. And Sanchez, both for lying through their teeth

and for scapegoating those kids.

[TahitiNut]

21. Amen to both.

The senior command is DEFINITELY culpable, without a shadow of a reasonable doubt.

[mike_c]

7. I think prosecutions should BEGIN at the bottom, with CIA and contract...

...interrogators. I know this is unpalatable but there's a solid legal reason. Actually, more than one.

First, prosecuting the interrogators will firmly establish the actual crimes against humanity that were committed, making them part of the public and judicial record, and most important, ending any possibility that higher echelon perps can create the impression that they're being pursued for "writing memos" or "giving legal opinions." The real crimes that resulted need to be foremost in everyones' mind, and prosecuting the interrogators first will put the focus firmly upon the real crimes rather than the bureaucratic maneuvering.

Second, putting the interrogators in legal jeopardy gives the DOJ (or whomever prosecutes-- I'd rather see the ICC do it, frankly) considerable leverage to compel their testimony against the boss thugs from the Bush administration. Without having their own necks in the noose, those loyal operatives will be mostly hostile witnesses against their own organizations and chains of command, but with their own skins in need of saving, they're much more likely to be cooperative.

[TahitiNut]

22. ONLY as long as those at the bottom, especially enlisted folks, are given immunity for testimony.

The fact of the matter is that the "illegal order" facade isn't worth shit EXCEPT in "Victor's Justice" and CANNOT be relied upon in a self-regulated nation where the HIGHEST available legal 'authority' proclaims those orders 'legal.'

The prosecution and conviction of Graner and England et. al. WITHOUT vigorous prosecution of people in the chain of command, ESPECIALLY with the testimony from Karpinski, was a total abomination, imho.

[mike_c]

23. on edit (conditionally) agreed....

Prosecuting Graner and England was intended to circumvent prosecutions up the chain of command, IMO. Although their actions warranted prosecution, and prosecuting them was the right thing to do, they were nonetheless scapegoated to protect their leadership.

What I'm proposing is exactly the opposite: prosecute the interrogators in order to establish and strengthen the case against their superiors, then cut them sentencing deals in exchange for cooperation with prosecution of the higher ups.

Ultimately, if those higher ups are pursued, the chase will lead all the way to the VP and several cabinet officers. Getting the interrogators to cooperate against folks with that kind of power isn't going to be easy unless prosecutors can appeal to the interrogators' own self interest.

on edit: I favor reduced sentences in exchange for cooperation rather than immunity. We're talking about war crimes and other crimes against humanity. I'd hate to see anyone given absolute immunity for such crimes.

[DearAbby]

25. I believe Obama is right

about one issue, those who acted in faith these memos were legal, we should not go after them. We go after those who acted outside the bounds of the Memos, clearly waterboarding a suspect 83-183 times is outside the bounds outlined in the memos. They should be prosecuted.

Then travel up the chain of command.

[puebloknot]

29. Sorry. This is like our Dems and Repubs who were given false information ...

... leading up to the vote for the war in Iraq. Information given to them by an administration that had just been installed by a rogue Supreme Court.

If they're smart enough to get a law degree and/or make it to Congress, they're smart enough to make independent judgments.

Anyone who rises to the level of interrogator in the U.S. of A. (assuming they grew up here, and are citizens), knows damned well what torture is, and doesn't need a legal opinion. And when such opinion is handed down, they can decide not to engage.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[mike_c]

31. we've hung foreign soldiers who "acted in good faith..."

...because crimes against humanity are crimes against humanity, no matter what legal coverage politicians try to give them. Saying so cannot make it legal. It just can't.

[Fool Count]

34. The memos are just personal legal opinion of those who wrote

them, and as such have only advisory value to anyone. They do not in any way
supersede the laws, the legislature or the courts. Most certainly, they do not
absolve anyone who acted on their advice from responsibility for their actions.
Maybe those memos were, in fact, a good legal advice. The only way to know is
to test them in the courts. If they are sound, there is no reason for anyone to
fear prosecution, and those lawyers did earn their keep. And the only reason
not to prosecute is to judge that conviction will be difficult to obtain.
If there is a reasonable chance of conviction, it's the prosecutor's duty
to uphold the law.

[EFerrari]

36. People who tortured other people with their hands need to go to jail.

I don't care whose approval or okay they thought they had.

[xiamiam]

9. anyone who defends it on national tv..i dont know what the charge would be but its got to be illegal

encouraging the degradation of a society or something..i dont know..but they are guilty of suggesting its ok..it is NOT

[WhiteTara]

10. Rice

Powell, Armitage, Feith, Wolfowitz, Cambone (the one who set up the systems in all prisons), and Miller. Don't forget Addington, Rove and Libby.

[dynasaw]

11. All of the Above

including Condi.

[riverwalker]

12. Condi and Feith

and Wolfowitz.
Hell, I'm adding Al Dershowitz because he was the first to publicly discuss torture as a viable option, something to banally discuss on my dinnertime TV, along with taxes and the weather. I will never forget that, Al, NEVER.

[Beetwasher]

13. Why Does It Matter If Bush Actually "Made" The Decisons????

He was the boss. He wasn't "supposed" to be clueless about what was going on. Yes, he may have been clueless, but ultimately, he was responsible for the actions of his underlings and would have had ultimate sign off on these decisions.

[WilliamPitt]

16. That was a joke.

He's on the list.

[Beetwasher]

18. Cool

:thumbsup:

[hlthe2b]

17. I used to imagine Bush* in that scene from "Judgement

at Nuremberg" watching while Cheney is hauled up to face justice.... I dare say he'd drop of an MI on the spot-- after soiling himself, of course.....


Mandatory Disclaimer: 1. I believe in Justice and am not promoting harm to anyone--besides the fact that I am prodoundly anti-death penalty; 2.. I am recounting the well known scene from the Academy Award-winning movie of that event dating to 1961.

[Supersedeas]

14. you might want to consider William Haynes, Eliana Davidson, Daniel Dell'Orto and Bradford Berenson

look at what Haynes says on p.146 of the Senate Armed Services Committtee Report.
Haynes, Davidson, and Dell'Orto worked out of Rumsfeld's office.


Key to the development of the Torture Program was the bootstrap initiated by the WH Counsel's office of AVOIDING Geneva. See p. 2 FN 10 of the Senate Report. So much of what followed was development out of developing a legal work-around to avoid Geneva (now we know with CERTAINTY the workaround was UNCONSTITUTIONAL - see Hamdan v. Rumsfield).

Bradford Berenson was also party of that the UNCONSTITUTIONAL effort. Consider this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/interviews/berenson.html


Was it a crime? Holder ought to consider all of the evidence.
Was it a sanctional offense to be considered by State Bar Associations? Let's see what the OPR Report (the one that Mukasey withheld until after the transfer of power) has to say about it.

[Cleita]

15. Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are on the very top of my list because I think

they were mainly responsible for hatching and then setting in motion the execution of the crimes of the past eight years. If they can be nailed with the torture crimes, I think it will be enough to bring in the rest of those who were complicit, even GWB. Instead of starting from the bottom and then trying to snare those on the top, I think we should start at the top and then maybe many of those who were only following orders can be identified.

[seemslikeadream]

19. Cambone

[WhiteTara]

24. Asscrap, Hadley

I'll think of more soon.

[DinahMoeHum]

26. The partners of Mitchell Jessen and Associates (private citizens)

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/21/the_story_of_mitchell_jessen_associates

They were not CIA employees; they were a private business who had a contract from the CIA.

They're the assclowns who took a completely legitimate teaching tool for our first-line military personnel (SERE) and "reverse-engineered" it to teach torture techniques to the CIA and the military.

[ThomWV]

27. "if it can be proven that he actually made any decisions" He called himself "The Decider"

As I recall he took great pride in being "The Decider", the guy who 'made the hard choices'. Well, let him face the consequences for his decisions. Now is the time.

[WilliamPitt]

28. See post 16

[B Calm]

30. The ones who knew the enlisted men were taking orders and were silent

when they were sent to jail. This would be George W Bush, Dick Cheney, and Rumsfeld!

[antigop]

32. Harper's: Straight to the top (and other names)

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/04/hbc-90004849
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-22/new-torture-report-details-bushies-role/

“ CIA’s Office of General Counsel met with the Attorney General , the National Security Adviser , the Deputy National Security Adviser , the Legal Adviser to the National Security Council , and the Counsel to the President in mid-May 2002 to discuss the possible use of alternative interrogation methods that differed from the traditional methods used by the U.S. military and intelligence community. At this meeting, the CIA proposed particular alternative interrogation methods, including waterboarding.”

The report continues to implicate more Bush officials: “On July 13, 2002, according to CIA records, attorneys from the CIA’s Office of General Counsel met with the Legal Adviser to the National Security Council , a Deputy Assistant Attorney General from OLC , the head of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice , the chief of staff to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation , and the Counsel to the President to provide an overview of the proposed interrogation plan for Abu Zubaydah.”

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/04/hbc-90004849

It makes clear that sign-off for torture comes from Condoleezza Rice, acting with the advice of her ever-present lawyer, John Bellinger. Another figure making a key appearance is an Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel named M. Edward Whelan III–presumably the same Ed Whelan who is presently melting his keyboard with defenses of the torture-enablers at National Review. (Update: Andrew Sullivan also reported on the appearance of Whelan in the memo, but Whelan responded with a categorical denial that he was involved. This suggests that the memo’s chronology is incorrect and requires some clarification.) The central role played by Rice and Bellinger helps explain the State Department’s abrupt about-face on international law issues related to torture immediately after Rice became Secretary of State and Bellinger became Legal Adviser. It also makes clear that Vice President Cheney and President Bush were fully informed of what has happened and approved.

[Fool Count]

33. Those who ordered it, those who committed it and those who new

about it being done and didn't act to stop it. Same as with any other crime.
But certainly not the lawyers who wrote the memos. The memos are just their
personal legal opinion and advice. It may have been a very bad advice, which
exposed their clients to possible prosecution, and as such may have constituted
professional misconduct on their part. However, getting a legal advice does not
absolve anyone of responsibilities for their actions. Now, soundness of this advice
can be tested in the courts. If that was a good advice from good lawyers, the clients
have nothing to fear from the courts. That's why good advice from good lawyers is so
expensive. I am sure the courts do a great job sorting that all out, if given the chance.

[Hekate]

35. Your list is a good start. Add Rove. nt

[Fumesucker]

37. The CIA is a civilian agency..

Following orders is not a requirement, you can just walk away at any time if you feel you are being asked to do something you find you do not wish to do, if you torture it is upon your conscience and morality, no handing off the responsibility to someone else.

So I basically disagree that the prosecution of the CIA interrogators would necessarily be "DOA".

Other than that I don't see much to argue with, carry on.

[mmonk]

38. Your list looks good.

As far as the interrogators themselves go, I believe we could give them immunity for testimony. That's why I was dismayed when they said publicly we wouldn't go after them. Now they might not feel compelled to testify. Using small fish to catch big ones isn't just a principle of fishing.

[deaniac21]

39. Rove was indicted first on May 12. He should be the first to go!

[sattahipdeep]

40. Buzzy The Magic Genie

Note: Chief of CIA's Counterterrorism Task Force durring Buzzys term
was Kofer Black. Black then was CEO of Blackwater.

Krongard's brother, Buzzy, made a fortune in crooked pre-9/11 stock trades which suggest he knew the attacks were coming prior to 9/11. In a perfect world both sleazebags would be arrested, tried and hanged for TREASON.

BUZZY KRONGARD, THE MAGIC GENIE OF THE CIA... WHERE IS HE THESE DAYS?

Commenting on PHH's new consulting relationship with Sites, Krongard said that "We are very pleased that PHH has been able to establish this important relationship with John Sites. We believe that John's extensive mortgage industry and other experience will prove extremely valuable to the Board and the Company."

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2260009/

http://corporate.phh.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=187859&p=irol-govBoardBio&ID=138347

Buzzy The Magic Genie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1xrQ-EGIfs

"Cookie" Krongard on the Tomlinson Affair

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0r1E3xotc