Only If You Ignore The Law

The LA Times prints the opinion of a few legal minds and decides that it would be impossible to prosecute lawyers for their legal opinions authorizing torture.

First, the lawyers would have to be shown to have deliberately misinterpreted the law against torture.

"It would be a real stretch. As long as they thought they were honestly interpreting the [anti-torture] law, they are not criminal conspirators," said Stephen A. Saltzburg, a law professor at George Washington University and a former prosecutor. "They may be bad lawyers who gave extremely bad advice," he said, but that is not a crime [...]

In this instance, a prosecutor would have to show that Yoo or Bybee intentionally misstated the anti-torture law. "Given the somewhat subjective basis for almost all legal analysis, I don't know how you would ever prove that," said Stanley Brand, a Washington lawyer and onetime counsel to former House Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr.

"You would have to show they knowingly gave bogus advice," said Peter Zeidenberg, a former prosecutor in the Justice Department's public integrity unit. "Theoretically, you could do it, but only if you had evidence they knew that's what they were really doing."

Legal experts said they would see the matter differently if the focus was on war crimes and international law.

Except, you know, the focus IS on war crimes and international law, which these torture memo writers expressly disobeyed. Even in the Bradbury memo of 2005, he admits that this country condemns the use of these techniques when employed by other countries.

The United States condemns coercive interrogation techniques and other practices employed by other countries. Certain of the techniques the United States has condemned appear to bear some resemblance to CIA interrogation techniques [...]

The State Department’s inclusion of nudity, water dousing, sleep deprivation, and food deprivation among the conduct it condemns is significant and provides some indication of an executive foreign relations tradition condemning the use of these techniques.

The reason we condemn those acts of torture (and thank you John Boehner for finally calling it that) is because they are illegal, and when practiced by our own leaders we have an obligation to hold those who authorized and directed torture accountable.

many people, such as Scott Horton, have argued that prosecutions of Bush DOJ lawyers who authorized torture find precedent in the Nuremberg prosecutions (as part of the Justice Case) of German lawyers who also declared various war crimes to be legal. International law professor Kevin Jon Heller -- who questioned the applicability of that precedent -- today writes about a separate set of prosecutions by the Nuremberg Military Tribunal, as part of The Ministries Case, in which German officials were prosecuted for doing nothing other than stating, when asked, that they had no objection to the deportation of 5,000 Jews from France. Those officials, who were convicted at Nuremberg, did not order the deportation or carry it out; rather, they merely failed, when asked, to object to the policy on the ground that it violated international law. Professor Heller argues that this case provides an almost perfect precedent for holding OLC torture-authorizing officials accountable (emphasis in original):

The parallels between the Foreign Office’s role in the SS deportations and the OLC’s role in the CIA’s torture regime are uncanny. Nothing is lost if we simply substitute "Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury" for "Woermann and von Weizsaecker," "OLC" for "Foreign Office," and "torture" for "deportations."

Indeed, in one critical respect, the case against the authors of the OLC memos is even stronger than the case against von Weizsaecker and Woermann. The latter’s criminal participation in the deportations consisted solely of omissions -- failing to point out that the deportations violated international law. The former’s criminal participation in the CIA’s torture regime, by contrast, consists of both acts and omissions, because Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury not only failed to point out that the torture regime violated international law (and US law, as well), they crafted legal arguments to conceal the illegality of that regime.

Now, you can argue, like McCain, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, that poor legal advice is not a crime, but you would be at odds with international law and precedent. At the very, very least, kep architects of the torture regime shouldn't still have a job in the US Government, or as a federal judge with a lifetime appointment. But ruling out prosecutions as impractical just rules out the law itself.

I'll throw in a last plug for my petition to have the California Democratic Party pass a resolution to impeach Jay Bybee from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. I have 4,420 signatures on the petition already, and I will present them at the Resolutions Committee tomorrow.

More On The Torture Memos

I'm doing some crowdsourcing on the memos over at Daily Kos. You can read it there, but let me bring this to your attention:

On p. 15 of Memo #1, Bybee concludes that waterboarding "constitutes a threat of imminent death," because it creates the "uncontrollable physiological sensation that someone is drowning." NONETHELESS, it was approved, because "prolonged mental harm must nonetheless result to violate the statutory prohibition on infliction of severe mental pain or suffering." So, the Bush OLC approved a technique that they admitted constitutes a threat of imminent death. Wow.

One of the other techniques included putting insects into a small box with Zubaydah. It's really quite sick. I don't know how these people live with themselves.

In addition, here's part of Eric Holder's statement which states that DoJ would foot the bill for any CIA officers prosecuted:

Holder also stressed that intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and relied in good faith on authoritative legal advice from the Justice Department that their conduct was lawful, and conformed their conduct to that advice, would not face federal prosecutions for that conduct.

The Attorney General has informed the Central Intelligence Agency that the government would provide legal representation to any employee, at no cost to the employee, in any state or federal judicial or administrative proceeding brought against the employee based on such conduct and would take measures to respond to any proceeding initiated against the employee in any international or foreign tribunal, including appointing counsel to act on the employee’s behalf and asserting any available immunities and other defenses in the proceeding itself.

To the extent permissible under federal law, the government will also indemnify any employee for any monetary judgment or penalty ultimately imposed against him for such conduct and will provide representation in congressional investigations.

"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Holder said.

Just sayin', but that violates the Nuremberg principles:

Article 7. The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.

Article 8. The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.

UPDATE: John Conyers:

"I highly commend the President, Attorney General, and Director of National Intelligence for their decision to release Office of Legal Counsel memos concerning techniques used in the interrogation of terrorism suspects between 2002 and 2005. This release, as well as the decision to ban the use of such techniques in the future, will strengthen both our national security and our commitment to the rule of law and help restore our country's standing in the international community. The legal analysis and some of the techniques in these memos are truly shocking and mark a disturbing chapter in our nation's history. Hopefully these practices have been ended for all time. Critical questions still remain, including the role and legal culpability of high-ranking officials in the former Administration in directing and approving the use of these troubling techniques. I urge the Administration to continue to ensure that the rule of law is upheld concerning this matter."

UPDATE: From Memo #3:

Walling "is one of the most effective interrogation techniques because it wears down the [detainee] physically, heightens uncertainty in the detainee about what the interrogator may do to him, and creates a sense of dread when the [detainee] knows he is about to be walled again."

Reads like a proud papa describing his son the star running back.

It occurs to me that this is entirely actionable. You have the US government releasing specific information about specific techniques used on specific prisoners. No wonder the CIA wanted it buried. Obama definitely deserves credit for releasing it, if not for protecting everyone from prosecution. He pointedly did not mention higher-ups in his statement, however, and while he wouldn't work hard to start an investigation he may not get in the way of one occurring.

Greenwald has this amazing bit from Memo #2:

They explicitly recognized that the techniques they were authorizing were ones that we condemned other countries for using -- including as "torture" -- but nonetheless approved them, explicitly saying that the standards we impose on others do not bind us in any way:

Absolutely astounding. At the very, very least, it is time for Congress to impeach Jay Bybee.

...Read Digby.

The First Salvo In The Next Nuremberg

A Daily Kos diarist and several other citizens were able to question John Ashcroft last night on the subject of torture. His denials were outright revealing and show the nervousness these people feel.

TOM: This story was made public by ABC a few weeks ago. It claims that you, Rice, Tenet and others met in the White House to discuss different methods of "enhanced interrogation," is that correct?

ASHCROFT: (angrily) Correct? Is what correct? Is it correct that this story ran on ABC? I don't know that. I don't know anything about it! Is it a real story? When was this story, huh? Huh?

TOM: Um, early April, April 9th, I think...

ASHCROFT: (interrupting) You think? You think? You don't even know! Next question!

TOM: The article says that you discussed "whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning"...

ASHCROFT: I said, next question!

So when confronted with the fact, Ashcroft deliberately misinterprets the question, asks an irrelevant technicality, (which the kid answered correctly, it was April 9, and uses the technicality to wiggle out of the question. Here the lack of follow-up on the ABC story is crucial, as Ashcroft is able to sow confusion about the story itself because it just hasn't been widely reported.

Next:

Another student asked if Ashcroft's position on torture violated the Geneva Conventions or other international laws:

ASHCROFT: No. No it doesn't violate the Geneva Conventions. As for other laws, well, the U.S. is a party to the United Nations Convention against Torture. And that convention, well, when we join a treaty like that we send it to the Senate to be ratified, and when the Senate ratifies they often add qualifiers, reservations, to the treaty which affect what exactly we follow. Now, I don't have a copy of the convention in front of me...

ME: (holding up my copy) I do! (boisterous applause and whistling from the audience) Would you like to borrow it?

ASHCROFT: (after a pause) Uh, you keep a hold of it. Now, as I was saying, I don't have it with me but I'm pretty sure it defines torture as something that leaves lasting scars or physical damage...

A STUDENT FROM THE AUDIENCE: Liar! You liar! (the student is shushed by the audience)

ASHCROFT: So no, waterboarding does not violate international law.

Well, that's just not true. The UN human rights chief has said waterboarding should be prosecuted as torture. The definition of the UN Convention Against Torture is right here.

"severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession...."

And members of the UN Committee Against Torture have agreed that waterboarding falls under it.

Now, watch the sleight-of-hand here, remembering that Ashcroft brought up the UN Convention Against Torture in the first place.

ME: First off, Mr. Ashcroft, I'd like to apologize for the rudeness of some of my fellow students. It was uncalled for--we can disagree civilly, we don't need that. (round of applause from the audience, and Ashcroft smiles) I have here in my hand two documents. One of them, you know, is the text of the United Nations Convention against Torture, which, point of interest, says nothing about "lasting physical damage"...

ASHCROFT: (interrupting) Do you have the Senate reservations to it?

ME: No, I don't. Do you happen to know what they are?

ASHCROFT: (angrily) I don't have them memorized, no. I don't have time to go around memorizing random legal facts. I just don't want these people in the audience to go away saying, "He was wrong, she had the proof right in her hand!" Because that's not true. It's a lie. If you don't have the reservations, you don't have anything. Now, if you want to bring them another time, we can talk, but...

Well, actually, he WAS wrong, because he tried to claim that the UN Convention was strictly defined as physical harm, that being wrong, he retreated to the idea of reservations and qualifiers. I have those reservations right here (scroll down for "United States"), and here's the key line:

(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

Waterboarding simulates drowning. That would fall under the intentional inflicting of suffering and the threat of imminent death.

So, you know, Ashcroft was wrong again.

Now watch Ashcroft try to muddy a clear precedent.

ME: Actually, Mr. Ashcroft, my question was about this other document. (laughter and applause) This other document is a section from the judgment of the Tokyo War Tribunal. After WWII, the Tokyo Tribunal was basically the Nuremberg Trials for Japan. Many Japanese leaders were put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including torture. And among the tortures listed was the "water treatment," which we nowadays call waterboarding...

ASHCROFT: (interrupting) This is a speech, not a question. I don't mind, but it's not a question.

ME: It will be, sir, just give me a moment. The judgment describes this water treatment, and I quote, "the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach." One man, Yukio Asano, was sentenced to fifteen years hard labor by the allies for waterboarding American troops to obtain information. Since Yukio Asano was trying to get information to help defend his country--exactly what you, Mr. Ashcroft, say is acceptible for Americans to do--do you believe that his sentence was unjust? (boisterous applause and shouts of "Good question!")

ASHCROFT: (angrily) Now, listen here. You're comparing apples and oranges, apples and oranges. We don't do anything like what you described.

ME: I'm sorry, I was under the impression that we still use the method of putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water down their throat...

ASHCROFT: (interrupting, red-faced, shouting) Pouring! Pouring! Did you hear what she said? "Putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water on them." That's not what you said before! Read that again, what you said before!

ME: Sir, other reports of the time say...

ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read what you said before! (cries of "Answer her fucking question!" from the audience) Read it!

ME: (firmly) Mr. Ashcroft, please answer the question.

ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read it back!

ME: "The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach."

ASHCROFT: (shouting) You hear that? You hear it? "Forced!" If you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring...does this college have an anatomy class? If you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring...

ME: (firmly and loudly) Mr. Ashcroft, do you believe that Yukio Asano's sentence was unjust? Answer the question. (pause)

ASHCROFT: (more restrained) It's not a fair question; there's no comparison. Next question! (loud chorus of boos from the audience)

Well, if Ashcroft thinks he can bully an international criminal court the way he tried to bully a few college students last night, he's going to come off looking just as foolish. Because Ashcroft had the foresight to say "History will not judge us kindly" during the Principals meetings on torture, some have made the effort to rehabilitate him to a degree. I think we can end that now. He's guilty and he knows it, that's why his arguments were so very shallow. A court of law would convict in a matter of minutes.