The Justice Department finally released their review of the conduct of the authors of the Torture Memos (Yoo, Bradbury, and Bybee, primarily). The Office of Professional Responsibility found that the lawyers were guilty of professional misconduct. However, that conclusion was watered down, as Eric Licthblau and Scott Shane report in the New York Times:
But David Margolis, a career lawyer at the Justice Department, rejected that conclusion in a report of his own released Friday. He said the ethics lawyers, in condemning the lawyers' actions, had given short shrift to the national climate of urgency in which Mr. Bybee and Mr. Yoo acted after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Among the difficulties in assessing these memos now over seven years after their issuance is that the context is lost," Mr. Margolis said.
Unless you were there in a position of responsibility after September 11th, you cannot possibly imagine the dilemmas that you faced in trying to protect Americans.
Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing. As the President has made clear, and as both CIA Director Panetta and I have stated, we will not use those techniques in the future. I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past, but I do not fault those who made the decisions at the time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.
Rudyard Kipling's magnanimous poem, If, begins,
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you
Once an Army is involved in war, there is a beast in every fighting man which begins tugging at its chains...a good officer must learn early on how to keep the beast under control both in his men and in himself.
Follow Matthew Alexander on Twitter: www.twitter.com/htbat
Some Democrats and others on the left may disagree but personally I think the problem became serious when President Clinton was acquitted by the Senate on a very partisan vote. His crime was not, as his defenders would have it, having a sexual affair but perjury and obstruction of justice and he should have been convicted. Only Democratic partisanship, not justice, saved him. Little wonder that Republicans reacted with partisan hostility in return. From this point forward it was broadly understood that politics trump law and both parties operated on that basis. When 9/11 occurred, the Bush administration then naturally opted for the politically popular, not lawful, course of action and Democrats where in no condition to object.
I am happy someone actually took the time to research something. Unfortunately you researched the wrong thing and so your post was completely unresponsive to my question.
What you call a rant is a real question.
Since you have taken over this argument I will ask you
1. What evidence do you have those arrested, renditioned, and held in the Boumediene case were illegal enemy combatants?
2. What evidence do you have that the other Guantanimo detainees were illegal enemy combatants?
When I was a kid and read about the Nurenburg trials I was really proud of this country. We stood for things including aplying the rule of law fairly to the lowest of our enemies. Now it seems like the excuse "I was just following orders" only is invalid for the side that loses. As for those who say "how will our intelligence personel function if they have to be looking over their shoulders" Well I WANT them to be looking over their shoulders. I want them to think twice before they torture someone and to protest, resign, do anything but commit war crimes.
'Unless you were there in a position of responsibility after September 11th, you cannot possibly imagine the dilemmas that you faced in trying to protect Americans.' "
Am I the only one who had to restrain themselves from smashing something when you read this? Condi Rice, the person who was the highest administration official responsible for preventing these attacks, the person who ignored countless warnings and even pleas to do something about Al Queda and to beef up US security, the person who told the people warning her that she wasn't interested in terrorism but missile defense. Then she has the gall to lecture us about the awful burden she faced with the responsibility of protecting americans. If she had any integrity even the slightest bit, she would have resigned after 9/11.
Please read the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Hague:
http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/EA9AEFF7-5752-4F84-BE94-0A655EB30E16/0/Rome_Statute_English.pdf
Article 7 defines crimes against humanity. Article 8 defines war crimes. Article 15 describes the process of prosecution.
You can contact the Prosecutor with evidence:
http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Contact
A link to last Sunday’s television performance by Dick Cheney would be an example of great evidence for the ICC.
Where is the outrage? Please take your keystrokes to places other than HP and make a difference. Feel free to cut & paste this post and share with your friends.
I would like to know what is the difference between the US and Germany We invade other countries, kill innocent civilians. . He has sat on his ass with this HCR reform that will do nothing to help poor Americans while millions lose their jobs. What happened to his Green Energy Job program he promised. Oh yeah. they were created with tax breaks then offshore the creation of parts to China. He gave 100 million to Haiti and you can bet we will stay there. Those people are left to fend for themselves. What happened to all the money donated? 33% went to the US military. From Democracy Now's program/
The US is morally bankrupt. 3,000 Americans died on 9/11. 1000 die each year from lack of insurance. Millions of people in this world die of hunger, and the US spends almost half of its budget on war.
One day, the US will get it come comeuppance.
Today, one year after we succeeded in electing the law-abiding decent president, things are bleaker than ever.
The Bush administration's decision to cover up the Bush-Cheney crimes is unjustified and inexplicable. Can anyone imagine another government covering up the kidnapping, torture, murder, and illegal wars started by their predecessor?
Being a decent and law-abiding president requires that all who break the law be held accountable. If there is no public forum at which testimony under penalty of perjury is taken and a final report issued as to each of the illegal acts and actors, then the harm done to our society will never be resolved.
As an aside, no one, no attorney, no government official has the power or authority to pronounce torture, kidnapping, murder, and illegal wars of aggression as being OK. But that is what is going on: they are telling us these things were OK. But they weren't. They were crimes.
The attorneys who advocated the crimes, the people who instructed the attorneys, who promoted the policy, or who carried it out should be indicted and prosecuted.
Without that, we are no longer a nation of laws. We are simply another two-bit dictatorship in which the rich can get away with anything, even murder.
You stated it is your opinion the detainees fit the definition of "illegal enemy combatants" under the Geneva Conventions.
Please enlighten those of us you claim are whiners.
1. What evidence do you have that the defendants in the Boumediene case were enemy combatants. What do you know that the US Supreme Court did not know? or
2. What is it that you know that allows us to discard the concept of evidence as the basis of proving guilt. Think of the billions we could save by eliminating the need for evidence in the criminal justice system. We could go from arrest to imprisonment without courts, lawyers, trials, appeals. Please help us. Have you found a secret that is not revealed to the entire justice system?
1. Unlawful combatant: pres has wide latitude in making the determination
2. Geneva Conv does NOT bestow POW status/rights on Unlawful combatants
3. Geneva Conv applies ONLY to war between two or more NATIONS.
4. Unlawful combatants: civilians, not in uniform, commiting acts and crimes in violation of humanitarian standards.
So, I appreciate good hyperbole as much as the next guy, but it took about 5 minutes to google Geneva Convention, unlawful combatant (which produced Geneva Conv's relevant sections). So, I don't know if you really believe your post or just felt like a good rant. If the former, use google. If the latter, yeah, what the heck, no need for facts just let her rip and enjoy.
See, for example, http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/AP-Guantanamo-Geneva-Conventions.html which not only lists this article verbatim but also observes that the Bush administration agreed that it applied. Next time you visit Wikipedia, make sure that you read its *entire* article, not just the first few paragraphs.
But, hey, no need to allow facts to stand in the way of a good rebuttal.