Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Holder cautious on U.S. interrogations probes

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-07-09 07:01 PM
Original message
Holder cautious on U.S. interrogations probes

Holder cautious on U.S. interrogations probes

07 May 2009
Source: Reuters

By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON, May 7 (Reuters) - Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday vowed to move cautiously and avoid partisan politics in deciding whether any Bush-era officials should be prosecuted for justifying harsh interrogation techniques.

<...>

PROBES POSSIBLE

Human rights advocates have called for prosecuting those Bush officials who wrote legal analysis used to justify interrogating terrorism suspects with tactics such as waterboarding.

Amid a mounting outcry over interrogation methods that critics have called illegal torture, Holder told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing that he intended to proceed cautiously.

Holder said he had not yet read the draft report from a review by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility conducted during the previous administration of lawyers who wrote the Bush-era interrogation legal opinions.

"I have not reviewed it. It is not in final form yet," Holder said. "It deals, I suspect, not only with the attorneys but the people that they interacted with, so I think we'll gain some insights by reviewing that report."

He said the review could lead to probes of other officials.

A Senate Intelligence Committee report last month said top Bush officials, like then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney, had approved the CIA's interrogation program, including waterboarding, in 2002.

more





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-07-09 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. He has to "proceed cautiously" - and follow the law carefully.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ananda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-07-09 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. He's afraid of Cheney.
They all are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-07-09 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Who wouldn't be? He's a man without a conscience. :/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-07-09 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. That wasn't cool. Ugh. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-07-09 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
5. Leak, leak, leak...
a memo here, a memo there. When are the pictures coming anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-08-09 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
6. what is the hold up on the OPR Report!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-08-09 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
7. . . .and his statement, once again, promotes pro-torture propadanda.
Edited on Fri May-08-09 01:59 PM by pat_k
Gathering evidence and prosecuting under the Rules of Criminal Procedure IS the means by which this nation strips partisan passions from the search for justice. To claim some special effort is required just promotes the beltway fantasy that dealing with crime through the criminal justice system would be (or could be) "politicizing policy."

This adminstration's refusal to acknowledge the fact that the evidence at hand mandates immediate prosecution is bad enough. But as they seek to escape duty, Obama and Holder keep parroting pro-torture propaganda.

The proposition that any CIA agent who participated in the "bush program" actually believed, in good faith, that slamming a captive's head against a wall 30 times; keeping them awake for a week and a half; or subjecting them to water torture did not constitute cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, is absurd on it's face.

But, even if it were not absurd, it is the role of the court, not the prosecutor (let alone a pre-judging president), to be the finder of fact on such matters. While "just following orders" might conceivably be a defense in a given case, it mustn't be allowed to be institutionalized as a blanket "get out of jail free card" by either prosecutorial discretion or presidential fiat.

The devastating consequences of their dereliction isn't limited to the mockery they are making of criminal justice.
  • It makes Obama a benevolent dictator who can "take away" or "give us back" the Constitution. For the moment he has "banned" torture, but when he arrogates unto himself the power to "ban" that which is ALREADY "banned," he confirms the fascist fantasy that he has the power to resurrect the "bush program." (When high officials violate law, the required response is to prosecute to enforce the law, not issue executive orders that duplicate the law.)

  • It puts the men and women of our armed services at risk. (They are stripped of the protection from mistreatment afforded by our adherence to treaty.)

  • It makes ALL CIA agents war criminals in the public mind. (Even if a vast majority opted to "just say no," the assertion that suspending and prosecuting those who participated would somehow destroy the CIA's ability to "protect us," implies that most were either involved or approved.)

  • It validates Cheney's "position" that their criminal program was (or could be) "legal." (If it were so clearly a crime, bush and cheney would certainly be in the dock by now -- and would have been impeached years ago.)

  • It politicizes criminal justice (a very real consequence), while legitimizing the meme that prosecution would (or could) "criminalize policy" (an outcome our criminal justice system is designed to eliminate.)

  • It promotes the torturers' propaganda that prosecution would be "retribution." (Which requires one to believe that the rules of criminal procedure are a joke and incapable of producing a verdict that is free of passion and prejudice.)

  • It endorses the fascist fantasy that cruel, degrading, and inhumane treatment is not worthy of judicial determination, and should rather be left as a matter of political opinion (open to "discussions" and "debate" and "agreements to disagree").

  • It tells the victims of torture -- or for those who died in the process, the families they are survived by -- that we don't consider the horrors they were subjected to in our name to be worthy of the "distraction" of a full public accounting. It extends their ordeal.

Given the destructive consequences of their immoral and irrational refusal to even acknowledge that the crimes are crimes, it's hard (impossible?) to imagine what horrible consequences they imagine would result from prosecution. And like with Saddam's WMD, the "Chicken Littles" describe no mechanism by which this "political mushroom cloud" would "tear the nation apart."

The Obama administration's attempt to protect the perpetrators from prosecution doesn't even accomplish that goal -- it merely shifts the obligation to the other parties to Article III of the Geneva Conventions and the U.N Convention against torture.

If our so-called "leaders" don't wake up to reality, the ordeal of having to watch in shame as other countries deal with "our war criminals," is a disgrace this nation may never fully recover from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-08-09 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Sorry, I don't buy that. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-08-09 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Under the rules of criminal procedure where's the "partisan polictics" trap. . .
Edited on Fri May-08-09 11:15 PM by pat_k
. . .he must be so cautious to avoid?

It doesn't exist.

Holder's statement is based on a pretense that such a non-existent trap exists.

And that pretense feeds right into the squawks of "partisan witch hunt" and "tear the country apart" and "criminalize policy," which are all part of the irrational beltway fear of "divisiveness" (as if there is some problem with dividing Americans who demand justice from those who defend the torturers).

So, which part don't you "buy"? There are so many ways in which Holder's purported "caution" promotes pro-torture propaganda.

It would be nuts for a prosecutor to tell us he needed to move "cautiously" to investigate whether a gunmen who robbed a bank in plain sight committed a crime or had effected a lawful "alternative method of cash withdrawal." To refrain from making any sort of determination on the conclusive evidence of war crimes that's public record until his "task forces" secretly do whatever they do for the next 9 months (or more, as Holder has previously "cautioned"), is just as nuts.

If he actually had a desire to avoid politicizing the egregious crimes committed in our name, he would stop pussy-footing around, acknowledge the fact that the crimes are crimes, acknowledge the fact that we know who the principle perpetrators are, and commit to ensuring that those perpetrators are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

If he actually had a desire to move the crimes out of the realm of politics, he would move them firmly into the realm of criminal justice. He would point out that judicial determination is the means by this nation "avoids partisan politics" in such matters. The parrots squawking "partisanship" would have a choice: keep squawking and besmirch our time honored judicial procedures, or shut up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-08-09 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Caution
also avoids stupid mistakes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-08-09 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. What "mistakes" are avoided by denying reality?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-08-09 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Oh please, this has nothing to do with "denying realilty"
See Ted Stevens. There are any number of legal mistakes and missteps that could materialize, and apologists will happily jump on them. You can bet they will spend every moment trying to cast any investigation as a political witch hunt.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. I see beltway blindness is not limited to the beltway
Pretending that confessed crimes may not be crimes is not "caution," nor is it a way to avoid "mistakes."

And FWIW, Ted Stevens may well be innocent.

--

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-08-09 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. All of those things may be happening in the background, which is exactly
where they should be happening. Let me say one thing--110. It hasn't been that many DAYS yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
masuki bance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-08-09 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
14. How many renditions did he approve?
Posted: Thursday, May 07, 2009 12:16 PM by Domenico Montanaro


From NBC's Pete Williams
At a hearing today with Attorney General Eric Holder, Republican members of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee suggested that any potential criminal investigation into the CIA's harsh interrogation methods might not easily be contained.

Both Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Richard Shelby of Alabama pressed Holder on the CIA's "rendition" program that moved terrorism suspects from one country to another.

Didn't that happen during the Clinton administration?
Yes, Holder said.

"How many did you approve?" they asked.
Holder said he'd check the record. ....
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/07/1925394.aspx
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC