Legal Memos Were "Advance Pardons" for Lawbreaking (TPM)

[kpete]

Goldsmith: Legal Memos Were "Advance Pardons" for Lawbreaking
By Spencer Ackerman - September 4, 2007, 11:31 AM

Why did Dick Cheney's lawyer David Addington get so upset over rescinding this or that Office of Legal Counsel memorandum? The purpose of the OLC's review process is to collect legal guidance about courses of prospective policies an administration might want to pursue. Under the Bush administration, however, OLC review became a waiver of immunity for breaking the law. From Jeff Rosen's profile of Jack Goldsmith:

The office has two important powers: the power to put a brake on aggressive presidential action by saying no and, conversely, the power to dispense what Goldsmith calls “free get-out-of jail cards” by saying yes. Its opinions, he writes in his book, are the equivalent of “an advance pardon” for actions taken at the fuzzy edges of criminal laws.

Recall that after the news of the August 1, 2002 OLC torture memo broke, then-AG John Ashcroft testified to the Senate that "There is no presidential order immunizing torture." Maybe not from the president. But according to Goldsmith's account, immunization from prosecution is the elephant in the room when administration lawyers discussed in 2002 what CIA interrogators could lawfully do to al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees. John Yoo, the zealous OLC lawyer who helped pen the August 2002 torture memo, was a "godsend" to an administration fearful of eventual war-crimes prosecution, Goldsmith tells Rosen, as his memos provided tacit guidance on how CIA interrogators could violate the Geneva Conventions and the Federal Torture Statute.

Signing off on memoranda that appear to green-light lawbreaking is what sunk John Rizzo's nomination to become CIA general counsel. The lesson? Don't tap anyone to a position requiring Senate confirmation with a paper trail indicating the legality of torture. There's a reason, after all, why David Addington survives as senior White House staff and not as a chief of any executive agency.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004062.php

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

1. I just love seeing David Addingtons name in print. WooHoo!

K&R

[tanyev]

2. And when the advance pardon doesn't work anymore, then you go for retroactive protection.

Published on Thursday, August 10, 2006 by the Associated Press
Retroactive War Crime Protection Proposed
by Pete Yost

The Bush administration drafted amendments to the War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policymakers from possible criminal charges for authorizing any humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, according to lawyers who have seen the proposal.

The move by the administration is the latest effort to deal with treatment of those taken into custody in the war on terror.

At issue are interrogations carried out by the CIA, and the degree to which harsh tactics such as water-boarding were authorized by administration officials. A separate law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, applies to the military.

The White House, without elaboration, said in a statement that the bill "will apply to any conduct by any U.S. personnel, whether committed before or after the law is enacted."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0810-04.htm

[Trajan]

3. The church called them ....

Indulgences ... You can buy them prior to a sinful act, and then be absolved before the fact .....