| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
17 April 2009
Bradbury And Bybee Memos Are Released In Response To Long-Running ACLU Lawsuits
(4/16/2009)FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view itNEW YORK – In response to litigation filed by the American Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Justice Department today released four secret memos used by the Bush administration to justify torture. The memos, produced by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), provided the legal framework for the CIA's use of waterboarding and other illegal interrogation methods that violate domestic and international law.
The ACLU has called for the Justice Department to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate torture under the Bush administration.
"We have to look back before we can move forward as a nation. When crimes have been committed, the American legal system demands accountability. President Obama's assertion that there should not be prosecutions of government officials who may have committed crimes before a thorough investigation has been carried out is simply untenable. Enforcing the nation's laws should not be a political decision. These memos provide yet more incontrovertible evidence that Bush administration officials at the highest level of government authorized and gave legal blessings to acts of torture that violate domestic and international law," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "There can be no more excuses for putting off criminal investigations of officials who authorized torture, lawyers who justified it and interrogators who broke the law. No one is above the law, and the law must be equally enforced. Accountability is necessary for any functioning democracy and for restoring America's reputation at home and abroad."
Reader support is crucial to this mission. Weekly or monthly recurring ‘subscription’ based support is the best, though all are greatly appreciated. Recurring and one-time donations are available through PayPal or Authorize.net.
To send a check or money order:
Michael Yon
P O Box 5553
Winter Haven, FL 33880-5553
I will continue to do my part in telling the stories that are not being told. Readers must also do their part by keeping the cash flowing. Cash is essential .
Thank you!
Michael








Comments
Evidence to the Contrary
By J.G. Thayer - 04.18.2009 - 11:37 AM
Critics of the Bush administration are doing handsprings over the release of detailed memos that outline the interrogation techniques used by the CIA on captured terrorist suspects. We now know about such techniques as ƒ??dietary manipulation,ƒ? ƒ??attention grasp,ƒ? ƒ??walling,ƒ? ƒ??facial hold,ƒ? ƒ??facial slap,ƒ? ƒ??cramped confinement,ƒ? ƒ??wall standing,ƒ? ƒ??stress positions,ƒ? ƒ??sleep deprivation,ƒ? ƒ??insects placed in confinement box,ƒ? and the infamous ƒ??waterboardin g.ƒ? This is the anti-Bush crowdƒ??s Holy Grail, the virtual confession of horrific misdeeds. BUSH LIED!!!!! BUSH TORTURED!!!!! and all the rest.
But between the evidence and the conclusion lies a great gap that critics cheerfully leap over: do these techniques constitute ƒ??torture?ƒ?
Oh, absolutely, theyƒ??re unpleasant. I wouldnƒ??t want to undergo any of them. But do they constitute ƒ??torture?ƒ?
The problem with leaping to that conclusion is that while ƒ??tortureƒ? is an ancient word with many associations and definitions, only one really matters in this context: United States law. And the law seems pretty clear: no, they do not constitute ƒ??torture.ƒ?
One of the key elements of the law is the word ƒ??intent,ƒ? and intent is a terribly difficult thing to prove. One often has to infer intent from circumstantial evidence, and in this case there is a great deal of that showing the interrogators desperately wanted to remain within the letter of the law:
ƒ?› They repeatedly sought out legal advice from the Justice Department on interpreting the laws.
ƒ?› They had medically-train ed personnel on hand who could veto or end any interrogation techniques that they thought ran the risk of causing serious injury or lasting harm.
ƒ?› They thoroughly documented their techniques, including how they considered them legal under the letter of the law.
These are the actions of people trying to meet the demands of their superiors while obeying the letter of the law.
For millennia human beings have been finding new and inventive and horrific ways to inflict pain and suffering on each other. Genuine torturers would look at the techniques plied by our CIA against these terrorist suspects and laugh in derision.
If there were violations of U.S. laws regarding torture the documents released this week donƒ??t show it at all. On the contrary, they add to the evidence that the U.S. interrogators acted responsibly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture
Or even understand the difference between torture and murder.
If Lawyers could be held responsible to wrong assesments and interpretations of the law most.....no, ALL, Lawyers would be in jail. The ACLU regularly puts forth opinions on the legality of acts like murder, rape, child molestation, and every other vile act commited by the worst criminals in the world. Their wrong opinions are responsible for many such murderers and child molesters being given tiny sentences then committing the same crimes upon release.
And what about our current Attorney General whos lame legal advise to Clinton led to the release of criminals and terrorists? Where is the ACLU outcry? It's non existant because they believe criminals and terrorists are a good thing.........i f they were all in jail they couldn't hire the ACLU lawyers.
These ACLU morons would have us all bowing to murderous thugs if they had their way. After we prosecute them I might consider prosecuting Bush Administration attorneys...... .....well, no, actually I wouldn't
In fact, there is nothing in the post about "torture".....z ero.
So dudley, what gives? Are you Mr. Yon's web site superviser or what?
Also, in one of your previous posts you made the most ignorant comment in this thread. You said waterboarding never works (or something to that effect) and that there is no evidence we ever got any "actionalble" intel from it. That is so wrong. You must have your head burried in the dailykos if you have not heard of the intel gathered from the 3 waterboarded terrorists. Just yesterday former Vice President Cheney said he has personally seen memos describing the evidence gathered from the harsh interogations of those head lopping off less than human creeps. No you may not believe Cheney, just like some don't believe the ice in the Antarctic is growing...but that just makes you ignorant, which of course most of us already knew.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949
ƒ??The ƒ??waterboard,ƒ ?? which is the most intense of the CIA interrogation techniques, is subject to additional limits,ƒ? explained the May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo. ƒ??It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has ƒ??credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminentƒ??; ƒ??substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attackƒ??; and ƒ??[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.ƒ??ƒ?
ƒ??In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including KSM and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques,ƒ? says the Justice Department memo. ƒ??Both KSM and Zubaydah had ƒ??expressed their belief that the general US population was ƒ??weak,ƒ?? lacked resilience, and would be unable to ƒ??do what was necessaryƒ?? to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals.ƒ?? Indeed
After he was subjected to the ƒ??waterboardƒ? technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.
NO FURTHER DISCUSSION IS NECESSARY. If anyone reads this and still says waterboarding is "torture" and doesn't work they are worse than ignorant, they are fools.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=1&hp
Now, can we dispense with the claims that enhanced interrogation techniques never work?
Your personal attacks indicate a weak mind. There are tons of current and former military (and CIA) that disavow "enhanced techniques" as a productive or acceptable method of obtaining information. KSM was waterboarded 183 times in one month. How is that effective? At some point, maybe after 125 times, doesn't it seem a waste of time? Would not another approach be considered?
I lean toward the Israeli model. Their policy is that torture is illegal. On the other hand, if it is used, those doing it must prove, in a court of law, that it was absolutely necessary, given the dictates of the situation. It is an extremely troubling subject that should transcend rhetoric. What values do we stand for as America?
Carol, I agree.
sl
ƒ??The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,ƒ? Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. ƒ??The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
You are not fooling anyone here. Saying there are "tons" of whoevers that do whatever is typical of the type of argument you "weak minded" liberals make. First of all "tons" is a unit of weight. Did you mean "many"? How many? Who are they? All the evidence points to the vast majority of interogators believing these techniques worked in this case. You are worse than ignorant if you continue to deny this fact.
Your agreement with the "israeli model" is a joke. The israelis regularly assasinate their enemies. They also make terrorists disappear to who knows where. So every terrorist taken into custody by the israelis knows that if they don't give intel they may well be let go then blown to bits, or worse, placed in some unknows location with the world famous israeli interrogators.. ...that "don't exist".
I try not visit this site to often becasue it smells of liberal agenda ever since the new president came on board. Well I'm not sure if he is "on board" or working with the enemy (i say that in jest, knowing what damage he is doing to us).
It does appear Scott that you have very thin skin. We have cahtted on a different thread and you always seem to get offended easily. You may be a very smart person, but your pompous and pious tone really gives you less credibility. The wiki "site" was pretty humourous and agree that no professor worth his salt would allow you to use wiki as a source.
All that being said, I doubt the MMS well ever tell us, nor the government release information that waterboarding or sleep deprivations or wearing panties on prisoners heads works or doesn't. But I would venture to say that if you walked into VA hospital and asked some of our bravest and posed the the following question they would have said "Hell Yes!"
"If you thought there was a remote possibility that torturing a suspect could have saved you from being here would you condone it?"
Chances are Scott you would as well, maybe you would say "Hell yes" if was your son, daughter, grandchild, niece, nephew. You see I make no exceptions. I say torture them all if all I have to do is make them feel like they are drowning to get information to save lives.
To the liberals, your going down in 2010.
Scott Dudley - I have no idea how you managed to keep a straight face through this interaction.
My theory is that some people just watch too much Bauer and play too much Modern Battlefield 2.
Hey guys you're talking to real people, with real world experience, be respectful and write something that makes sense.
BlueJammy - you're a piece of work - "To the liberals"? that's how you sign off? - what's a liberal? somebody that doesn't like torture? well in that case YOU are a liberal - because I bet you wouldn't like torture if it was done to you.
RSS