West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
emptywheel puts together the timeline on the junior senator from West Virginia's work behind the scenes regarding torture and the connection to the torture memos:
Before I get to the May 30 memo, though, it might be relevant to point out that Jim Comey, who went on to predict we'd be "ashamed" when we got to see at least the May 10 opinions, but who didn't manage to convince Alberto Gonzales not to approve them, resigned on April 20. And, sometime in May, Jello Jay (Carnacki's note: Jello Jay was the moniker he was given by several in the blogosphere after his role in the warrantless wiretapping debacle) asked for a document dump of materials cited in the IG Report, which of course the CIA refused.
In May 2005, I wrote the CIA Inspector General requesting over a hundred documents referenced in or pertaining to his May 2004 report on the CIA's detention and interrogation activities. Included in my letter was a request for the CIA to provide to the Senate Intelligence Committee the CIA's Office of General Counsel report on the examination of the videotapes and whether they were in compliance with the August 2002 Department of Justice legal opinion concerning interrogation. The CIA refused to provide this and the other detention and interrogation documents to the committee as requested, despite a second written request to CIA Director Goss in September 2005.
It was during this 2005 period that I proposed without success, both in committee and on the Senate floor, that the committee undertake an investigation of the CIA's detention and interrogation activities.
(Yeah--right about now I'm wondering if I should make an exception to my use of the Jello Jay moniker in this post.)
emptywheel goes on to explain:
I don't know what the proper term is when aristocrats like Rockefellers attempt snark, disdain, or disgust, but I do believe this is an example of the form.
So that's one thing Jello Jay is trying to expose with his narrative: in addition to neglecting to inform Congress when the CIA got into the torture business, the Bush Administration basically responded to Congressional reminders about our Constitution by--first--ignoring their request for 10 months, and then, after that wait, stacking ridiculous argument on top of ridiculous argument to argue that the US can engage in whatever cruelty it wants so long as it's not in US jurisdiction (narrowly defined) and so long as it can be claimed to be effective and necessary.
Via dday at digby's place comes this report from Greg Sargent that U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler has joined the investigate and prosecute club on torture:
First up: Dem Rep Jerrold Nadler, who just told me in an interview that Obama's comments leave the administration only one legal option: Investigate, and if necessary, prosecute.
"President Obama said, `They used torture, I believe waterboarding is torture,'" Nadler said, speaking of Obama's comments about his predecessors. "Once you concede that torture was committed, the law requires that there be an investigation, and if warranted, a prosecution."
Nadler and other House Dems have already called on the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to look into potential torture crimes. Yesterday's comments from Obama, Nadler says, make it clearer still that this is the only legal path open to the administration - in part because Obama seemed to acknowledge that his predecessors had violated "international law."
Those who would condone war crimes at this point look increasingly foolish. We are a nation of laws, and if you don't want a law prosecuted, you repeal it, but you cannot ignore it. I would refer these apologists to Sen. Robert Byrd, who knows a thing or two about the Constitution:
The recently leaked report from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), as well as the four released memorandums from the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), confirm our worst fears. These documents point to brutal, inhumane acts which were repeatedly carried out by U.S. military personnel, and which were authorized and condoned at the highest levels of the Bush Administration. These acts appear to directly violate both the U.N. Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions. Spain and the United Kingdom have already initiated investigations of Bush Administration officials who approved these acts. The United States needs to investigate as well. To continue to ignore the mounting evidence of clear wrongdoing is a national humiliation [...]
The rule of law is not just a lofty concept to which we should aspire only when convenient. It is a fundamental principal upon which our Republic was founded, and it is the foundation of our free society. I understand the desire to look forward and to forge a new path on high ground instead of on the low road of the past eight years. But to use the need to move on as a reason not to investigate basic human rights violations is unacceptable. Excusing individuals at the highest levels of government from adhering to the rule of law, whether in wartime or not, is a dangerous precedent, for it undercuts the principle of accountability which permeates representative democracy.
As Senator Byrd points out, other nations are already moving ahead with their investigations. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said (hat tip to Big Tent Democrat):
Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means -- to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal -- would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.
By all means, start the investigation of torture and violation of the Geneva Conventions at the top, but investigation must be done.
A senior FBI agent stationed in Iraq in 2004 claimed in an e-mail that President George W. Bush signed an executive order approving the use of military dogs, sleep deprivation and other harsh tactics to intimidate Iraqi detainees.
The FBI e-mail -- dated May 22, 2004 -- followed disclosures about abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and sought guidance on whether FBI agents in Iraq were obligated to report the U.S. military's harsh interrogation of inmates when that treatment violated FBI standards but fit within the guidelines of a presidential executive order.
According to the e-mail, Bush's alleged executive order authorized interrogators to use military dogs, "stress positions," sleep "management," loud music and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." to extract information from detainees in Iraq, which is considered a violation of the Geneva Conventions ban against cruel and unusual punishments.
Iraq war Army veteran and author Brandon Friedman has an excellent post on how the Bush ordered torture and mistreatment of prisoners directly harms the military in combat.
(Images are graphic and so I put them below the fold)
In President Obama's inaugural address, he declared that "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake."
The President's statement referenced false and disingenuous choices of the Bush Administration. As the facts continue to come to light about exactly what happened at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, and other U.S.-run secret prisons around the world, it is increasingly impossible to ignore that the U.S. government violated the basic human rights of prisoners. Not only did these insidious tactics sacrifice our national integrity, but they may also have compromised our security as well.
The recently leaked report from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), as well as the four released memorandums from the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), confirm our worst fears. These documents point to brutal, inhumane acts which were repeatedly carried out by U.S. military personnel, and which were authorized and condoned at the highest levels of the Bush Administration. These acts appear to directly violate both the U.N. Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions. Spain and the United Kingdom have already initiated investigations of Bush Administration officials who approved these acts. The United States needs to investigate as well. To continue to ignore the mounting evidence of clear wrongdoing is a national humiliation.
snip
The rule of law is not just a lofty concept to which we should aspire only when convenient. It is a fundamental principal upon which our Republic was founded, and it is the foundation of our free society. I understand the desire to look forward and to forge a new path on high ground instead of on the low road of the past eight years. But to use the need to move on as a reason not to investigate basic human rights violations is unacceptable. Excusing individuals at the highest levels of government from adhering to the rule of law, whether in wartime or not, is a dangerous precedent, for it undercuts the principle of accountability which permeates representative democracy.
Sadly, the world will discover more and more about the acts committed at Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, and elsewhere around the world. There is no avoiding that eventuality. It is our choice as a nation whether to pursue the path of truth ourselves, or leave the details of the abuse to be painfully revealed by others. Releasing the OLC memos was a courageous and admirable first step. But we must not stop there.
Since the start of the Iraq war I have been trying to tell anybody that thinks analytically that fear mongering to the cowardly nature of people is what allowed Bush to drag so many people into supporting his Iraq war.
I mean come on now. One terrorist attack and people are ready to drop bombs on the heads of innocent children in Iraq....................... Even though Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 911 and the 911 highjackers all came from Saudi Arabia on the main. A large segment of the American population was scared after 911. Shaking literally with fear. The media went on and on. ........................ What if they blew up a school next? ........................... Or a Mall? Heaven help us good Americans out celebrating consumerism and these people blow up the mall. People were scared .
Quite frankly Americans cowardly side came out. Never mind that it's immoral and unethical to kill people that had nothing to do with 911. If dropping bombs on innocent children's heads in Iraq could save some cowardly Americans skin, by all means drop those bombs.
Just as it was cowards fearful for their own skin that supported Bush after 911, it was also the cowards that supported Bush's torture of detainees. Water Board them, torture them.................. anything to save the cowards own skin.
All highly immoral, and the mindset of unthinking people.
I am pleased to start to hear this fact being spoken about in the mainstream media lately. Somebody with some clout needed to ask these questions.
Because 911 terrified the cowardly in the US does that give us the right to kill and bomb innocents to protect ourselves? Because 911 had the cowards shaking in their boots does that give America the right to lay down it's morals and ethics and torture people? .....................
I believe the answer to both questions is NO!
No, cowardice and fear do not give Americans the right to lay down their morals, ethics or values.
This week Lawrence O' Donnel said this very eloquently on the Keith Olberman show.............. Not just eloquently Mr. O' Donnel made his point with great passion. I will excerpt some of MR. O' Donnels comments here. But it's so much better to watch him say it on the video. A video of his comments is available at the link and I highly recommend watching it.
""O'Donnell: The reason Sean Hannity thinks torture is a good idea. The reason Sean Hannity thinks it works is because it would work on him. There are two different kinds of people out there in the world. The warriors which are a very, very tiny minority, less than 1% of our population is ever going to face combat and then there's the rest of us.
I am like Sean Hannity, one of those cowards, just like Dick Cheney who has refused throughout my life to enter the military and ever subject myself to anything dangerous occupationally where I might lose a tooth. That is exactly Sean Hannity's approach to life and he has exactly the same cowardly fear that I do of combat or submitting myself to anything of the kind of risk the American military does. And so people who live where Sean Hannity lives and those safe places and the safe Cheney home where no one in the Cheney family would ever submit themselves to military service, ever submit themselves to the risk of torture. They think torture works because it would work on them.
Because they are soft. They are weak people compared to our military service people and they would crack under torture. ""
Bravo Mr. O' Donnel you summed up the mindset of the cowards who advocate for unjust wars and torture. ............... Mr.O'Donnel America needs all the outspoken patriots like yourself we can find. ..................... Bravo
Open mouth insert foot. And that is exactly what Sean Hannity the loud mouth liar from FOX news did about a week ago.
Sean a major propagandist for the war , bush and all other things immoral . Is fond of claiming we have to torture people to keep the nation safe. .................. Guess it never occurred to Hannity that people will lie and tell you anything to make torture stop . Anyhoo . The other night on his show Hannity was as is typical on one of his rants trying to defend torture and water boarding. Charles Grodin a actor was on the program and he disagreed with hannity and asked Hannity had he ever been water boarded ? Hannity said no . Groden suggested that perhaps if hannity was to be water boarded he would stop advocating that it's all right to do.
And the race is on from there. Keith Olberman offered to pay $1000 per every second Sean Hannity lasts during the water boarding. The money goes to charities that help troops families.
Petitions and pledges to give money to the cause are popping up all over the country. ............................. Oops I think Sean Hannity opened his mouth and stuck his foot in it this time.
So okay here is my prediction on this.
A- hannity will back out ................. producing some statement from his doctor saying water boarding would be a health hazard for him. .......................... showing what a loud mouthed sissy he is.
Or
B- Public support will be so great for this that Fox will end up telling hannity he has to do it if he wants to keep that lucrative TV contract he has.
So my prediction is there is a good chance along about June of this year Hannity will be water boarded.
In the meantime much to do will be made of this. Many people will pledge money per the seconds hannity lasts. The pledges will be up in the millions of dollars . ........................ So hannity the loud mouth will be forced to try to endure at least 2 minutes of water boarding for charity.
I predict hannity lasts about 40 seconds before crying like a little girl and giving up.
I also predict after that nothing will have changed with Hannity. He will still continue with his immoral constant lies.
While I am sure Hannity's lies about others will continue . WE can bet after this that hannity will be a bit more careful about what he volunteers himself for.
Here are some links to the gathering storm coming Hannity's way.
How far do we go with prosecution? How much are we in need of asking ourselves hard questions as this debate goes forward? Guardian USA editor Michael Tomasky posed one of those critical, heart-of-the-matter questions yesterday.
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
The vice president's lawyer advocated what was considered the memo's most radical claim: that the president may authorize any interrogation method, even if it crosses the line of torture. U.S. and treaty laws forbidding any person to "commit torture," that passage stated, "do not apply" to the commander in chief, because Congress "may no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield."
That same day, Aug. 1, 2002, Yoo signed off on a second secret opinion, the contents of which have never been made public. According to a source with direct knowledge, that opinion approved as lawful a long list of specific interrogation techniques proposed by the CIA -- including waterboarding, a form of near-drowning that the U.S. government classified as a war crime in 1947. The opinion drew the line against one request: threatening to bury a prisoner alive.
Here's a bit of personal background so you know where I'm coming from: I grew up on a small farm, baling hay, picking corn, playing in the woods and the creeks, swimming in the pond. I played football and had a reputation as a hard-hitting defensive back and I played pickup games of basketball with a hoop nailed to the side of the barn. I had a childhood straight out of a Norman Rockwell painting. I grew up believing in the United States.
From early on, I knew the country was not perfect. I was a youngster during the Vietnam War. Some of my earliest memories are images of that dreadful conflict.
People who love with a blind eye to flaws do not truly love, but instead fall for illusions. Let me be clear on this point, I had no illusions about the United States. Yet I still grew up loving my country. I watched the fireworks with awe during the Bicentennial in 1976. I wept when the USA Hockey team performed a miracle in 1980. I don't say the Pledge of Allegiance at events because I took that pledge and I've never broken it and I think it is wrong to repeat these words by rote until they become meaningless: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all." Those words should mean something instead of just mindless utterances before a public event. "Justice for all" means not only people have a chance at justice when wrong, but all are held accountable to justice and not above the law.
That's why I found officially sanctioned torture by our highest officials so shocking. This was not the activity worthy of a great nation. Torture was conducted by totalitarian regimes that we viewed as pariah nations.
Yet there is no doubting that our nation did torture people. It certainly was not to gather information. The traditional interrogation methods worked. Those conducting the interrogations did not want to use torture. Torture was approved by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for sadistic reasons so could feel they were "tough" leaders to overcompensate for the fact they both evaded the Vietnam War even though they supported it.
There can be no compromise in torture. I do not care if people believe President Obama risks too much politically. What is the value of winning politically if we lose our soul as a people?
This is not a political fight. This is about doing what is right. This is about defending the United States of America.
Every schoolchild knows that Gen. George Washington made extraordinary efforts to protect America's civilian population from the ravages of war. Fewer Americans know that Revolutionary War leaders, including Washington and the Continental Congress, considered the decent treatment of enemy combatants to be one of the principal strategic preoccupations of the American Revolution.
"In 1776," wrote historian David Hackett Fischer in "Washington's Crossing," "American leaders believed it was not enough to win the war. They also had to win in a way that was consistent with the values of their society and the principles of their cause. One of their greatest achievements ... was to manage the war in a manner that was true to the expanding humanitarian ideals of the American Revolution."
The fact that the patriots refused to abandon these principles, even in the dark times when the war seemed lost, when the enemy controlled our cities and our ragged army was barefoot and starving, credits the character of Washington and the founding fathers and puts to shame the conduct of America's present leadership.
Fischer writes that leaders in both the Continental Congress and the Continental Army resolved that the War of Independence would be conducted with a respect for human rights. This was all the more extraordinary because these courtesies were not reciprocated by King George's armies. Indeed, the British conducted a deliberate campaign of atrocities against American soldiers and civilians. While Americans extended quarter to combatants as a matter of right and treated their prisoners with humanity, British regulars and German mercenaries were threatened by their own officers with severe punishment if they showed mercy to a surrendering American soldier. Captured Americans were tortured, starved and cruelly maltreated aboard prison ships.
Washington decided to behave differently. After capturing 1,000 Hessians in the Battle of Trenton, he ordered that enemy prisoners be treated with the same rights for which our young nation was fighting. In an order covering prisoners taken in the Battle of Princeton, Washington wrote: "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren.... Provide everything necessary for them on the road."
John Adams argued that humane treatment of prisoners and deep concern for civilian populations not only reflected the American Revolution's highest ideals, they were a moral and strategic requirement. His thoughts on the subject, expressed in a 1777 letter to his wife, might make a profitable read for Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld as we endeavor to win hearts and minds in Iraq. Adams wrote: "I know of no policy, God is my witness, but this - Piety, Humanity and Honesty are the best Policy. Blasphemy, Cruelty and Villainy have prevailed and may again. But they won't prevail against America, in this Contest, because I find the more of them are employed, the less they succeed."
There are ideals worth fighting for and even dying for. Many of our brethren have died throughout our history from Valley Forge to Pickett's Field to the beaches of Omaha to the sky above Shanksville, Pa., for our nation. A nation that condones torture is not a nation worthy of their sacrifices.
There is no other issue more important than this. We DO NOT TORTURE. Those who claim we risk too much cannot point to a single attack thwarted by torture. We risk much more as a people by performing torture than by not resorting to such barbarity.
We are a nation of laws. This is not about retribution. This is about justice. I see that President Obama, despite earlier statements by his staff this week, is open to that. We need the appointment of a special prosecutor and thorough investigations of the crimes.
No offense to President Obama, this is not his decision to make, but rather that of the chief law enforcement officer of the land. Politicization of the Justice Department was one of the biggest failings of the previous administration and President Obama should not be prejudging the issue.
Though administration officials declared that CIA interrogators who followed Justice's legal guidance on torture would not be prosecuted, that does not mean the inquiries are over. Senior Justice Department lawyers and other advisers, who declined to be identified discussing a sensitive subject, say Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. is seriously considering appointing an outside counsel to investigate whether CIA interrogators exceeded legal boundaries-and whether Bush administration officials broke the law by giving the CIA permission to torture in the first place. Even if Holder takes a pass, Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is still pushing for a "truth commission." In a democracy, the wheels of justice grind on-and the president, for good reason under the rule of law, does not have the power to stop them.
I am not in favor of the Lynndie England's being punished as scapegoats for those who drafted the policies. The people who drafted the policies should be the ones to pay for their deeds.
The assertion that "most Americans" don't want investigations -- whether made by media stars to argue against investigations or Obama supporters to justify the immunity the President wants to extend to everyone involved -- is factually false.
A USA Today poll from February -- headlined: "Poll: Most want inquiry into anti-terror tactics" -- found "two-thirds of those surveyed said there should be investigations into allegations that the Bush team used torture to interrogate terrorism suspects and its program of wiretapping U.S. citizens without getting warrants," and "four in 10 favor criminal investigations." A Gallup poll from mid-February found that between 60 to 70% of Americans favor investigations for torture, warrantless eavesdropping and DOJ politicization, and that majorities of Democrats (and more than 40% of all Americans and independents) favor criminal prosecutions. Only small percentages of independents -- between 25-38% -- oppose investigations for each of the three lawbreaking allegations. A Washington Post/ABC News poll from January similarly found that a majority of Americans (50-47%) -- and an overwhelming majority of Democrats (69%) -- believe that the Obama administration should investigate whether the Bush administration's treatment of detainees was illegal. While polls can vary based on how the questions are asked, every poll shows substantial percentages favoring investigations.
Sign the petition here to ask for the appointment of a special prosecutor.
...
More of the many posts in long opposition to torture on this site can be found here.
In other words, the interrogators were dumping water on AZ's and KSM's faces and repeating that treatment over and over and over.
Without any legal authorization to do so, no matter how bogus.
It's time this torturer faced some "poignant and convincing" consequences for his actions.
And note, this is precisely why the torture tapes were destroyed. CIA has admitted that the guys waterboarding Abu Zubaydah broke the law. That tape was the irrefutable evidence of who did what.
How will anyone be held accountable if immunity is already guaranteed? What's the argument again for carte blanche immunity?
I've been too upset to write in detail this week about the recently release torture memos. I've been equally upset about the insinuation by the Obama administration that those "following orders" "in good faith" will be immune from prosecution.
Meanwhile, stronger voices than I have come to the rescue. While I'm still sorting through all of this here's some food for thought.
What is torture?
First, on this I am quite clear. I've long stated Clem's simple definition of torture.
I hereby propose this simple litmus test for what should be acceptable interrogation techniques:
Would you allow a school principal to do it your daughter or son? If your kid was picked up by a city cop for staying out after curfew--or just for driving a little bit funny--do you give them permission to use the technique on your kid?
So, for me, it's rather cut-and-dry that what was done was morally and ethically wrong.
Also, it is clear to me that under our obligations to the Geneva Convention (obligations that are legally binding by Federal Law), what was done is also legally wrong.
What did the Obama administration do?
One plus: Obama followed through on a campaign promise and released the memos with minimal redaction.
One huge negative: accompanying the release of the memos, Obama also embraced the the Nazi's Nuremberg Defense. (I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, that just happens to be the correct legal/political science name for "just following orders" defense.)
The CIA is a civilian agency, and that means its employees are not subject to prosecution for refusing to obey instructions (not "orders") from superiors in the agency. They can quit, like anyone of conscience when asked to do something in conflict with their personal ethics.
[snip]
The point of all this is that for 60 years, Congress has been very deliberate in trying to maintain a strong level of civilian control over the process and activities of intelligence gathering. This is a vital wall of seperation, due to the great power an agency like CIA can wield.
[snip]
All of this was to both protect society from CIA, and to protect the CIA. CIA agents cannot be "ordered" to do anything in the legal sense, since they are mere civilian employees of a federal agency. They can quit and should do so when instructed to do things contrary to the Laws of War and numerous international treaties. These aren't scared 18 year old kids being intimidated into following Lt Calley into atrocity, nor do they go through months of indoctrination into a culture of rigid discipline as is done in the military. They are independent moral agents, and should not get any kind of pass for this.
What happens next?
First off, we can all push back strongly against the unfounded claims that of torture apologists. These are false claims and attempts to change the topic away from who broke the law.
Second, we can insist those responsible be held accountable.
Here's one place to start. Did you know that one of the authors of the torture memos is now a sitting Federal judge?
The obvious truth about our torture policy is coming out finally. From The Washington Post via John Cole:
When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.
The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.
In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.
Moreover, within weeks of his capture, U.S. officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed.
For a long time, we called for public investigations of our torture policies when Sen. Jay Rockefeller was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Rockefeller could have led the charge and been a hero to many by bringing badly needed sunshine to this nefarious time in our nation's history.
Tuesday, March 31 7:15 PM
Robert C. Byrd Center for Legislative Studies Auditorium
213 N. King St. Shepherd U, Shepherdstown, WV
Co-sponsored by the Robert C. Byrd Center for Legislative Studies and Amnesty International Upper Potomac Chapter.
Former CIA Senior Analyst & Briefer of Presidents, Co-Founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), Ray McGovern will talk about:
*how those who press for flexibility to abuse prisoners have forsaken both effectiveness and values on the misguided belief that abusive treatment yields vital intelligence
*why we shouldn't sweep US torture and lawlessness under the rug why "moving on" must include holding accountable ALL those responsible for torture and other war crimes
There will be opportunities after the presentation to write postcards which will be hand-delivered to our members of Congress in early April.
Her awesomeness leaves me speechless.
John Yoo:)Orange County Something about Berkeley being a hippie magnet.
Update: (by Clem G.) Money quote from Harpers article:
But Yoo musters some defense nevertheless:
These memos I wrote were not for public consumption. They lack a certain polish, I think-would have been better to explain government policy rather than try to give unvarnished, straight-talk legal advice.
Of course, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, OLC memos fix government legal policy and are binding on all government agencies. The Justice Department has made a practice of publishing them for more than a century. But Yoo does not feel constrained by these facts when he speaks with the popular media; the facts might complicate things.
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
