Torture: The Smoking Gun? (we simply can't let this slip under the rug)

[BigBearJohn]

Torture: The Smoking Gun?



As more details trickle out, we have the possibility of a http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/justice_departments_internal_memo_inquiry_reaches_pivotal_stage.php">real breakthrough in accountability for the torture and abuse techniques authorized by president Bush as illustrated above. AP story here. Ambers:

Ostensibly, Yoo, an attorney for the Office of Legal Counsel and Bybee, that section's chief, were tasked by Attorney General John Ashcroft with determining whether so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" violated U.S. law and treaty obligations. But a draft report, prepared by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Review, suggests that, at the direction of the White House, the OLC worked to justify a policy that had already been determined and did not begin their inquiry from a neutral position.

It is not clear -- and sources would not say -- who in the White House communicated with the two lawyers about the memos, and it is not clear whether Yoo or Bybee felt unduly pressured to provide a legal framework for a decision already made by senior administration officials.

Who in the White House ordered up these memos to provide phony legal cover for a plainly illegal torture policy already decided upon? That's what we need to find out. From the leaks, this OPR report could be the next critical step in finding out the source of the criminality. In the end, it's Holder's call; and he may decide to take his time. My concern, now that we have ended the torture program, is simply that we get to the bottom of its origin, however long it takes, and that those really responsible are held to account under the rule of law and under the judgment of history.

This is not about vengeance; it's not about partisanship; it's about the integrity of the rule of law, without which we are all lost.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/torture-the-smoking-gun.html">SOURCE

[babylonsister]

1. Agreed, and the sentiment has been shared.

Now, to see what happens. Eric Holder is the key.

[BigBearJohn]

2. you said it

[JDPriestly]

3. K&R

[Dragonfli]

4. K&R

[HCE SuiGeneris]

5. we are not worthy of any aspiration to espouse Democracy

until we have reigned in our own transgressions against its tenets...

[lala_rawraw]

6. Addington is the missing link

Cheney > Addington > Bybee > Yoo

[Amonester]

7. The new (old) rule is the rule of law is only good for the peasants.

The new (old) aristrocrats (the have's and the have-more's, as per dimson) don't have to follow the rule of law (and if a law "gets in their way" they'll buy votes to immune themselves "retroactively").

See a few (more) examples by yourself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5596795
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x64343

Is is clear enuf?

[rhett o rick]

8. As badly as I want to see Cheney in chains, I'd give that up to see the torture 7

go to jail. Addington, Bybee, Yoo, Gonzales, Rice, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld. Also I want justice from the rank and file like Ms. England. At least those that DIDN'T follow the memo guidance. That would include all who were involved in each death. And all that were involved in the torture of children.

[Senator]

9. K&R

[Kaleko]

10. Yes, massive shouting from the virtual rooftops is in order here.

That's our weapon, organized campaigns on every front. The net is where more and more people get ALL their news anyway. I, for one, haven't watched TV news in years. Instead, I bombarded Congress with what I thought was newsworthy for THEM to hear. ;)

[pleah]

11. K&R

[Psychic Consortium]

12. Obama knows how to build consensus, and that is the first step.

The legal net will begin to tighten on the criminals in due
time. They are slippery and dangerous and care must be taken
to do this right.

[pat_k]

13. We have known "Who in the White House ordered. . . ."

. . .persons in U.S. custody to be subjected to cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment for years.

It it not necessary to know where the "idea" originated or to know who "ordered the memos" in order to prosecute.

The only rational, moral, or lawful response to the facts that have been known for years is to indict and prosecute. When crimes are committed in plain sight of all, anything less is tacit approval.

The "bush program" (as it is named by Yoo) was implemented under the authority of George W. Bush. The conspiracy to violate Article III began when Bush usurped forbidden power to declare Gitmo a Geneva-free zone. A central crime of "the bush program" continues every day that Obama holds the persons formerly known as "ememy combatants" without a material change in their legal status.¹

Like every other participant -- the officials who issued the orders to abuse captives, who authorized and "passed on" the orders, who saw to it the orders were carried out, and who carried out the orders -- the producers of the memo are criminally liable for the war crimes committed.² Sure, evidence about motive can bolster a subsequent prosecution or defense, but prosecution only requires proof of criminal act.

While there are of certainly aspects of this unprecedented national crisis that call for something other than prosecution³, to refrain from acting on the facts at hand as we seek to "learn more" is a rationalization for dereliction that promotes the lie that there is some lack of evidence.

Related post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=445971&mesg_id=446081"> "They have all admitted to it. They even swear by it. "

_________________________________

1. Under Federal law and treaty, persons taken into custody on the field of battle are either lawful combatants (to be treated and eventually released in accord with the Geneva Conventions, and to be held immune from acts of violence under the Laws of Armed Conflict) or unlawful combatants (subject to prosecution for criminal acts). There is no category of persons to be held in indeterminate limbo without access to any court as long as we feel like it.
2. In addition, any government official (like Pelosi and members of congress who supported her "off the table edict") who had the duty to report and try to stop the crimes but chose not to, are likewise in violation of international law. While I have no desire to see Pelosi in the dock, any other party to the treaty would be well within their rights to seek to hold her criminally accountable for obstructing impeachment.
3. Congressional dereliction might be better dealt with in some sort of a truth commission (providing those who parroted Pelosi's rationalizations for blocking impeachment are ready to admit and express regret for their failure.) The same goes for dealing with other government officials who failed to use their power to stop the crimes in progress and even complicit media figures.