The Justice Department today released four internal memorandums that supplied the legal basis for the program of torture and aggressive interrogation techniques used at so-called CIA "Black Sites" during the Bush administration and, at the same time, granted legal safe harbor for officers who participated in the program.
The memos include highly classified guidance given to the Central Intelligence Agency in 2002 by Justice Department official Jay Bybee, and three issued to the agency in 2005 that expanded the parameters of the interrogation program. The names of CIA case officers and agency officials who participated in the interrogations were blacked out, a concession, government officials said, to the national security officers who acted in good faith. Other redactions seem to include the details of other intelligence community collection programs and the names of some detainees.
Two senior administration officials said that the Department did not intend to rule out prosecuting officials who failed to act in accordance with the OLC guidelines.
The memos make clear that the Bush administration relied on a fairly simple principle: the believed that the methods used by the interrogators did not cause intense or severe or lasting physical pain, did not meet the threshold for torture, and did not violate the law.
There are many revelations and details buried in the banal, technical language of lawyers:
Among the revelations:
Before the memos were released, the
administration circulated them to members of Congress who had been critical of
the Bush administration's approach. A
few minutes after Air Force One landed in
He said their extraordinary nature compelled their release. But, in a juxtaposition that will rankle many of his civil libertarian allies, he then defended his administration's court arguments favoring the executive branch's right to protect classified information.
"While I believe strongly in
transparency and accountability, I also believe that in a dangerous world, the
Obama said that the memos release should assure "those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution."
Eric Holder, the attorney general, echoed Obama's message. "At a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."
Administration officials said that Obama had relied on Holder's advice about the ill-wisdom of future prosecutions, but it is nonetheless unusual for a president to declare, independently, that certain practices or people are immune from prosecution because to do so would cause consternation in the land. As chief law enforcement officer, Holder would, in theory, have had to make that determination himself. The decision to announce immunity for officials was made on Wednesday, officials said, after a protracted internal debate that involved more than a dozen key officials.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, said that the memos' content "is as alarming as I feared it would
be." Breaking with the administration's
expressed desire to move along, he repeated his call for a "Truth Commission"
that would "take a thorough accounting
of what happened, not to move a partisan agenda, but to own up to what was done
in the name of national security, and to learn from it. This is another
step in that direction."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the Judiciary and Intelligence committees who has endorsed the Truth Commission concept, said he agreed with Holder that those officers who acted in "good faith" should not be prosecuted. He said that senior Justice Department officials who might be found guilty of misconduct should be disciplined by other means. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility is slated to release a report evaluating the lawyers and their conduct.







I don't consider these banal in any respect.
I think Marc was referring to the language used by and writing style of Bybee, Yoo, et al. I guess you can call it banal but the word I would us is sterile. It's legalese. And that makes them even worse. These guys are using legal technicalities and language to justify torturing another human being. It's sociopathic.
They are lawyers asked for a legal opinion. What do you expect them to write in, pig-latin? If they didn't write in legal verbage it wouldn't be a legal opinion.
As to technicalities, there is always more than one way to interpret a law until it goes to court. That is why there are at least twoopposing sides in every legal disagreement. What you consider torture I might consider interrogation.
Lets go with a simple hypothetical that I think gets to the crux of the matter...
A threat has been made against your family to potentially harm and even kill them. You are uncertain how or when the threat is going to be carried out but you are fairly certain you have someone under your control that does know the information. Are you willing to just sit by and do nothing in hopes that the threat is not made good, or are you willing to take steps to get the information, and if the latter to what degree are you willing to go?
You are making the same arguments as those who ran the Prinz Albrechtstrasse torture cellars in Berlin. They didn't work at Nuremberg.
Also--craftsmanlike lawyers also can recuse themselves if they feel the task at hand is morally repugnant or illegal. These guys didn't. They found personal loyalty to BushCheney was more important than their oath to support the Constitution.
Do you realize what a stain on our national reputation this whole matter is? At a time when our economy is wrenched by the results of 30 years of crackpot economics, and our infrastructure is crumbling, we need friends in this world more than ever. We sullied our reputation by torturing. Anybody with the moral center (also preached by these hypocrites who tortured, but not practiced) can see through this. The only way to atone is to punish the authors and those who ordered them to dump on the Constitution. Bybee, Yoo, and Addington exemplify the kind of moral turpitude that Bar admission panels consider when considering whether to admit someone to practice law. Disbar them, and prosecute Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the Project for the New American Century ("PNAC") who proposed the Iraq adventure premised on a "Pearl Harbor-like event".
Do you ever wonder why the PNAC pulled its website last May? It's as incriminating as "Mein Kampf."
I should add that the language used at the Wannsee Conference (30 January 1942), also considered "secret" at the time, was similarly banal and professional. The proceedings were dramatized on HBO. Not a single use of an anti-Semitic expletive in the detailed planning of the Holocaust!
"The banality of evil..." Does anybody read Hannah Arendt these days?
Those who ignore history will end up reliving it. We have. Does it please me to see BushCheney using the Nazis' playbook (albeit without organized anti-Semitism)? NO!!!!!
Well gee, that's comforting.
And from the Republicans outraged at "big government" and "fascism"? Crickets.
"The memos make clear that the Bush administration relied on a fairly simple principle: the believed that the methods used by the interrogators did not cause intense or severe or lasting physical pain, did not meet the threshold for torture, and did not violate the law."
Right there is the key to the whole argument. Under Article 1 of the US resolution torture is that which causes severe harm. There is no definition of what is meant by severe, but it is clear to me that the opinions attempt to determine that the techniques are NOT severe. In addition they discuss an escalating process of techniques to ensure the least drastic possible means are being used.
Oops, make that the UN resolution.
Mutatis Mutandi, the criminals at the Nuremberg trials acted also in good faith. They were following orders. What does "good faith" means in American jargon?