This Week In Torture

The fight for justice and accountability for those who tortured in our name refuses to fade. Last week three progressive House members introduced a bill calling for a special committee to investigate torture, wiretapping, and other practices of the Bush regime. One of the sponsors, Robert Wexler, talks about it here:

This committee would have the authority to ask the hard questions – to look close – and deliver the truth about the proper role of our government that protects both our civil liberties and the safety of our citizens. We must do both.

The committee will investigate many of the outrageous policies of the Bush Administration to unearth and expose what happened during the past eight years. Witnesses will be subpoenaed and testify under oath. Based on what we learn, the committee will craft legislative recommendations that will be utilized as the Patriot Act and other critical national security legislation are renewed in the coming months and years.

We can't look forward without fully understanding what occurred. We must take a hard look at what went wrong in the last 8 years. We must continue to peel back the veil of secrecy that the previous Administration used as cover to undermine our system of checks and balances, and establish a clear line between what is necessary for our security and what is unlawful government intrusion and a violation of our civil liberties.

This legislation need only pass the House and therefore we have a terrific chance to enact it.

That's at least a start. And the Senate Judiciary Committee will seek testimony from Ali Soufan and Phillip Zelikow next week. Soufan was the FBI interrogator who got information from Abu Zubaydah through legal means, and Zelikow was the State Department official who wrote an alternative memo, sought by Democrats in the House, that dissented from the Bush regime line about the legality of torture (which Bush officials promptly tried to destroy).

These inside efforts are buttressed by outside efforts at accountability, like the Courage Campaign's action item asking their supporters to call Democratic House Judiciary Committee members from California (all 6 of them) and let them know of the state party's resolution to investigate Jay Bybee. The potential removal of Bybee from the federal bench is just an entryway into a larger accountability for the torture regime. A released FBI memo shows that George Bush himself signed off on interrogation tactics that could plausibly be construed as torture, so obviously this should go all the way up the ladder.

Senior FBI agents stationed in Iraq in 2004 claimed in an e-mail that President George W. Bush signed an executive order approving the use of military dogs, sleep deprivation and other harsh tactics to intimidate Iraqi detainees.

The FBI e-mail -- dated May 22, 2004 -- followed disclosures about abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and sought guidance on whether FBI agents in Iraq were obligated to report the U.S. military’s harsh interrogation of inmates when that treatment violated FBI standards but fit within the guidelines of a presidential executive order.

According to the e-mail, Bush’s executive order authorized interrogators to use military dogs, "stress positions," sleep "management," loud music and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." to extract information from detainees in Iraq, which was considered a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Bush has never before been directly linked to authorizing specific interrogation techniques at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib. Bush has admitted, however, that he personally signed off on the waterboarding of three "high-value" prisoners.

With even staunch conservatives like Ken Adelman backing away from the knee-jerk apologist defense of torture, and with enough experts in the field willing to discuss both the unreliability of evidence gained through torture and the general immorality of the practice, as long as Congress is pushed to action, it will be hard to stop the train once it heads down the tracks.

Phillip Gourevitch, who as a chronicler of the Rwandan genocide knows quite a bit about accountability for war crimes, explains why we could maybe take a different view, away from prosecution and toward a Truth Commission. I don't know that I totally agree, but it's worth noting.

America is now embroiled in a debate about how, or whether, to hold the true masterminds—the former President, the former Vice-President, the former Defense Secretary, and their top lawyers—to account for their criminal policies. Here, we are on uncharted ground. As a rule, the war-crimes prosecutions of the past century were conducted by a group of states, acting collectively, against the (usually defeated) leaders of another state. When states hold their own leaders to account, it tends to happen not after an election but after a revolution, when the very premise of the ancien régime is treated as criminal. Furthermore, prosecution and punishment are not necessarily the best means to eradicate the rot from a political system, because in adjudicating systemic crimes political compromise is inevitable. It is practically impossible, and politically intolerable, to contemplate holding to account every corrupted officer in the chains of command that ran between the White House and the guardhouse at Abu Ghraib or at Bagram Airbase. A full and public reckoning of the historical record might be less cathartic but would ultimately be more valuable than a few sensational trials.

In any event, President Obama, who has taken a courageous lead in bringing the issue of torture to light, and in insisting on recriminalizing it, appears to have no interest in taking any of the policymakers to court—though he has not precluded doing so. Still, to date the only Americans who have been prosecuted and sentenced to imprisonment for the criminal policies that emanated from the highest levels are ten low-ranking servicemen and women—those who took and appeared in the Abu Ghraib photographs, and embarrassed the nation by showing us what we were doing there. Charles Graner is the only one remaining in prison, serving ten years. His superior officers enjoy their freedom, and C.I.A. interrogators, who spent years committing far worse acts against prisoners than Graner did even in the darkest days at Abu Ghraib, have been assured immunity.

But, if full justice remains impossible, surely some injustices can be corrected. Whenever crimes of state are adjudicated—at Nuremberg or The Hague, Phnom Penh or Kigali—the principle of command responsibility, whereby the leaders who give the orders are held to a higher standard of accountability than the foot soldiers who follow, pertains. There can be no restoration of the national honor if we continue to scapegoat those who took the fall for an Administration—and for us all.

The Washington Post covered those Abu Ghraib guards this week as well, noting the absurdity of Charles Graner and his buddies on the night shift, while legally culpable, being the only people held to account for this systematic Administration policy of torture.

Whether you agree with Gourevitch that a public airing of the full architecture of torture is more desirable, or whether you agree with me that accountability necessitates prosecution or else the precedent of no accountability will be set in stone, we can all agree that doing nothing, while still trying to use our moral authority to castigate others who employ torture, makes a mockery of the rule of law. The "torture videos" from a sheikh in the United Arab Emirates are somehow hurting the country's relationship with the United States, as if we have no short-term or long-term memory whatsoever:

The U.S. is a very tolerant nation, but the one thing we simply cannot abide is when a government fails adequately to investigate allegations of torture on the part of key officials and fails to hold them accountable. That's where we draw the line.

The UAE royal family claimed that they had investigated and resolved the matter and made sure that it would not happen again -- but when it comes to torture, we have made clear that such a "look-forward-not-backwards/reflection-not-retribution" mentality is morally outrageous and unacceptable -- from the UAE [...]

What kind of primitive, brutal country knows for years that its own powerful government officials participated in torture and then fails even to investigate what happened, let alone impose meaningful accountability on the torturers? The international community simply cannot tolerate acquiescence to that sort of evil.

Will anyone recognize this unbelievable juxtaposition, and give this country the cleansing they need through real justice?

Shanda

This McCain campaign attack on Barack Obama for being "soft on genocide" on the same day he's visiting the Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem is, as Robert Wexler says, pretty shameful. Especially because the comment they're using to attack him simply recognizes the limits of military capability to deal with genocide, and the need to build multilateral coalitions and use all the tools of diplomatic pressure to bear. This is why Obama actually has a better score on legislation about the CURRENT GENOCIDE happening in Darfur than McCain; because he understands it in a global context.

I thought J Street's response was a good one:

We are shocked and dismayed by today’s exploitation by aides to Senator John McCain of the memory of the Holocaust while Obama was visiting Yad Vashem in Israel.

It is one thing to have a legitimate disagreement over keeping American troops in Iraq for sixteen months or a hundred years.

It is another to shamelessly exploit the sacred memory of six million victims of the worst crime in human history to score political points in the heat of a partisan election campaign.

There is definitely an "Obama is an anti-Semite who isn't committed to Israel" undercurrent to all of this. I mean, this ridiculous flap over Obama making fliers in the language of the city in which he's appearing and appearing on the flier in profile - just like Hitler! (because imitating Hitler is a surefire vote-getter) fits into the narrative as well. While McCain's people make outrageous remarks about his commitment to stopping genocide, the fever swamps on the right compare him to a genocidist. Meanwhile, the one figure to invoke Hitler's name favorably this election cycle, radical right pastor John Hagee, just appeared on the same stage as key McCain surrogate Joe Lieberman.

One of John McCain's most prominent supporters on Tuesday praised an evangelical leader whom the Republican presidential candidate repudiated after a string of controversial remarks were made public.

Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent who frequently campaigns with McCain, said pastor John Hagee's support for Israel outweighed the remarks that led McCain to reject his endorsement [...]

McCain, in an effort to reach out to evangelicals who are among the most loyal Republican voters, accepted Hagee's endorsement in March but rejected him in May after learning that the Texas preacher once said that God allowed the Holocaust to happen because it led to the creation of Israel.

Think Progress caught the following from the Christians United for Israel event:

In response to what he termed the "pretty aggressive campaign," Lieberman said in his speech, "The bond I feel with Pastor John Hagee and each and every one of you is much stronger than that and so I am proud to stand with you here tonight." Lieberman again drew a parallel between Hagee and biblical figures, this time saying biblical heroes, unlike the demigods of Greek mythology, "are humans — great humans, but with human failings." Lieberman said that Moses had his shortcomings, too. "Dear friends, I can only imagine what the bloggers of today would have had to say about Moses and Miriam."

Yes, he just compared John Hagee to Moses. This is why nobody, not even Jews, like Lieberman any more.

What a shanda.

Impeachment Moves Forward

I agree with Chris Bowers that this should have gotten a full floor vote instead, but Rep. Dennis Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush was referred to the House Judiciary Committee today, as per the Ohio Congressman's request. Impeachment is absolutely warranted, though as Bowers says, without a compliant Congress we wouldn't have any need for it (which is also why we'll never see it happen):

My basic feeling on impeaching Bush and Cheney is that if we had a Congress that was capable of impeaching and convicting those two, then we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. A Congress that was willing to impeach and convict Bush and Cheney over Iraq would have already stopped the Iraq war. A Congress that was willing to impeach and convict Bush and Cheney over FISA would not have passed a bad FISA bill last August. A Congress that was willing to impeach Bush and Cheney would never have allowed Bush and Cheney to take office, and would have overturned the 2000 election results. A Congress that was willing to impeach Bush and Cheney over signing statements would have, well, impeached Bush and Cheney a long, long time ago. A Congress that was willing to impeach bush and Cheney would have at least conducted more thorough and effective investigations of administration wrongdoing since the start of 2007.

Indeed. But nevertheless, Congress should be on the record about the crimes of the Administration. Robert Wexler is the first colleague of Kucinich's to co-sponsor the bill, and he's a House Judiciary member, and really I hope they keep pushing (Kucinich has vowed to do so). Having someone stand up in the Congress for progressive principles and values is vital, no matter the outcome. some fights are worth waging.

The most interesting thing about the vote was that 24 Republicans joined all Democrats in voting to refer it. This included the usual suspects like Ron Paul and Wayne Gilchrest, but also a number of threatened Republicans who are in tough re-election fights. In California, David Dreier, he of the House leadership, voted to refer. I guess he doesn't want to be seen as such a Bush rubber-stamp after all.

For What Noble Cause

Three years on from Cindy Sheehan, we're still asking the same questions.

And if I will, when Mr. Burton asks for a definition of what is failure, we get a litany of items. But when Mr. Ackerman asks what’s the definition of victory, we get little. Please tell us, general, what is winning?

This isn't a question that Petraeus or Crocker should have to answer. It's a question for George Bush and Dick Cheney and John McCain. It's the fundamental question that lies at the heart of this occupation. And the only answer they've had so far is to just wait six more months.



We never get a serious assessment of the consequences of staying, just wait and trust us and give us some more time. There is no strategy for the endgame in Iraq except for procrastination. And in the interim, Americans and Iraqis die while the policymakers in the White House muddle through.

We can talk about how the idea of progress in political reconciliation becomes less clear when you actually look at the laws passed and how they're implemented. We can talk about how the mess in Basra proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iran's power was greatly strengthened by the war and occupation. And we can talk about how these ridiculous analogies and parallels mean nothing when you look at the facts. But the real question is very simple. Why are we in Iraq, and what does winning mean? This is what Barack Obama asked yesterday. It's what Hillary Clinton asked yesterday. It's what Robert Wexler asked today. Saying that Iraq is in the national interest is meaningless and not enough. Saying that Iraq can be a peaceful and democratic republic as a result of a surge that hasn't realized its goals is completely pie-in-the-sky. But there needs to be a direct answer. And the person who can provide one will be given the keys to the White House.

Milquetoast Democratic Action Expands Globally

Looks like the world is taking lessons from the Democrats:

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon conceded Wednesday that the United States had succeeded in achieving one of its key objectives at the climate conference here, blocking a proposal that called on industrialized nations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40 percent by 2020.

Having jettisoned the idea of incorporating specific emissions targets in the framework that will guide international climate talks over the next two years, participants were hoping to find other ways to make meaningful progress here in the two-week-long meeting of nearly 190 nations.

The world is figuring out that an obstinate, ornery, obstructionist party of NO wields a lot of power. The Bush team and the Republicans in Congress don't play by the rules. And nobody's ever changed the rules on them to outmaneuver them. I agree with Rep. Wexler, impeachment hearings would be a chip the Congress could use to force compliance.

"The way we pass stem-cell research, the way we get implemented a children's health care plan, the way we get higher CAFE [corporate average fuel economy] standards to bring our energy debacle into a better condition for generations to come is to have impeachment hearings," Wexler said, appearing to nearly run out breath at one point during his speech. "Because that'll get the president's eye. That'll get the vice president's eye. That for the first time will show that the Democratic majority is here, and that in fact we have the courage of our convictions, and that we're not bound to be tied by conventional wisdom."

Somebody needs to change the game on these folks. There are too few leaders around the nation and around the world willing to do that.

UPDATE: Al Gore says what's needed to be said.

“My own country the United States is principally responsible for obstructing progress in Bali.”

The Libby Follies

So the White House asserted the desire to have the supervised release and probation stand for Scooter Libby, even though the law clearly denotes that such a sentence can only come after time has been served. Since all sides are in agreement and executive clemency is pretty absolute, it's likely that Judge Walton will rule that the probation can stand. Last week Jeralyn Merritt had some thoughts on what that probation can look like:

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the Judge finds Libby can be put on supervised release even though his prison sentence was commuted. What does it mean for him? How does it affect his life?

It means he’s under the supervision of a probation officer and he has to follow rules and conditions set by the officer and the court. If he’s charged with violating these rules, he gets a hearing. If the Court finds at the hearing that he was in violation of the conditions, he is subject to having his supervised release revoked and being sent to jail. Or, the Judge could continue his supervised release but impose additional conditions, like home detention and electronic monitoring [...]

Libby’s terms of supervised release were set and announced by the Judge on the day he was sentenced. The Order is here (pdf). In addition to the general terms applicable to everyone, the Judge added two special conditions:

He shall maintain full-time employment, the circumstances of which shall be in the discretion of the Probation Department, subject to the court’s review.

He shall perform 400 hours of community service, “as approved and directed by the Probation Department.”

The standard conditions Libby will have to abide by include these:

the defendant shall not leave the judicial district without the permission of the court or probation officer;
the defendant shall report to the probation officer and shall submit a truthful and complete written report within the first five days of each month;
the defendant shall answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and follow the instructions of the probation officer;
the defendant shall refrain from excessive use of alcohol and shall not purchase, possess, use, distribute, or administer any controlled substance or any paraphernalia related to any controlled substances, except as prescribed by a physician;
the defendant shall not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity and shall not associate with any person convicted of a felony, unless granted permission to do so by the probation officer;
the defendant shall permit a probation officer to visit him or her at any time at home or elsewhere
the defendant shall provide access to any requested financial information.

As you can see, supervised release is no walk in the park. It’s a lot better than jail, but there are significant restrictions on your freedom.

Given that there was no penalty for breaking the law the first time, I don't expect much of a penalty if any of these rules were broken. But it's something that everyone should be keeping their eye on as Libby no doubt hits the lecture circuit to whine and cry about his awful treatment.

Meanwhile, the House and Senate are ramping up efforts to investigate the commutation. John Conyers will convene a hearing on Wednesday, with Joseph Wilson and a host of attorneys with experience in the pardon process, to see if established rules were broken in association with the Libby decision (short answer: yes). Meanwhile, the Senate is setting its sights higher:

The Senate Judiciary Committee may seek testimony from controversial prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about the obstruction of justice case against vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby, two senators said on Sunday.

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican member of the committee, said he wanted to hear from Fitzgerald because, "I still haven't figured out what that case is all about." [...]

Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said that with Specter's blessing, Fitzgerald would likely be called.

"If he has no objection to Mr. Fitzgerald coming forward, I think you may very well see Mr. Fitzgerald before the Senate Judiciary Committee," Leahy said on the same CNN program.

Specter is lying through his teeth with the whole "no underlying crime" argument, lying to federal prosecutors is a crime in and of itself, and furthermore Libby's leaks and Armitage's (and Rove's and everyone else's in the excecutive and fourth branches) were concurrent and wide-reaching. AND, this came out in open court:

In his closing argument, Bill Jeffress (the DEFENSE lawyer) described the events surrounding Libby's July 8 meeting with Judy as a "secret mission" known only to Bush, Cheney, and Libby.

The prosecution has focused on this July 8th meeting with Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. They said, could Mr. Libby, how, if he was so busy, did he have two hours to go out and have lunch with Ms. Miller on July 8th. The reason he took two hours to have lunch with Ms. Miller is that Mr. Libby understood that the Vice President of the United States had directed him to go meet with Ms. Miller and that the President, President Bush was behind it too.

[snip]

I mean this is basically a secret mission that three people in the world know, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Scooter Libby. Because he goes and does what he is asked to do by the President and the Vice President and meets with her for two hours, suddenly they're trying to find something bad in that because, in Ms. Miller’s notes at the lunch, she’s got the word WINPAC. [my emphasis]

The President and Vice President directed Scooter Libby to meet Judith Miller and release her information that includes covert CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity, and there's no underlying crime? Mind you, that was the DEFENSE lawyer talking. There was other information in the classified NIE that was possibly leaked at that meeting as well, which Libby claims the Vice President declassified (for explicitly political reasons, mind you). But the nature of that declassification, indeed the nature of that meeting, was exactly what Libby lied about, claiming he only heard about Plame from Tim Russert. He was trying to cover up the details of a secret meeting, still not fully known, authorized by the President and the Vice President. He was throwing sand in the eyes of the umpire and deliberately obstructing the investigation at the highest levels.

Meanwhile, Rep. Robert Wexler is moving forward in the House with a motion to censure the President for his actions in commuting Libby's sentence. It's a feel-good measure, but Wexler is certainly being bold about it.

Finally, this is an all-timer of a quote, but not for the reason Fred Thompson thinks it is:

"If nothing else, we've apparently convinced the Clintons that it really is a bad thing to lie under oath."

So Fred Thompson just admitted that he spent a year of his life defending and raising money for a convicted felon named Scooter Libby, who he admits lied under oath. And he's proud of it. He is dumb as hell, isn't he?

"Who Put Him On The List?"

Robert Wexler gave a bravura performance in the House Judiciary Committee just now (and Tennessee's Steve Cohen is doing a great follow-up job). This entire US Attorney scandal comes down to one question that nobody can answer, and Wexler asked it over and over. Who put these US Attorneys on the target list to be fired? The Attorney General claims he didn't do it. No deputy or top official in the Justice Department did it. According to Abu G, the President or Vice President didn't do it - though Cohen made the great point that "Harriet Miers asked about whether to fire all 93, why should we be surprised if the White House decided to fire 8?"

So who did it? Who made this target list? Nobody seems to be owning up to it.

Gonzales has a cute answer for this, claiming that out of respect for the integrity for this investigation, he hasn't asked anybody who might have this information. Like I said, a cute answer, but it's information you would think the Attorney General would know BEFORE he would fire 9 US Attorneys. Essentially he's saying that he accepted the recommendations on federal prosecutors without knowing who made the recommendations or why. And Wexler hammered him.

Ultimately, that's what this entire thing is about. And there's a simple answer to the question, an answer that David Iglesias said just today.

In an interview with the Albuquerque Tribune today, ousted U.S. attorney David Iglesias states, “I think all roads lead to Rove. I think that’s why the president is circling some pretty major wagons around him to keep him from testifying under oath, which subjects him to criminal prosecution.”

Meanwhile, it's come out today that the Administration withheld emails about Rove's role with respect to the US Attorney for Arkansas Bud Cummins, and the installation of Rove oppo research guy Tim Griffin in that position.

The withheld records show that D. Kyle Sampson, who was then-chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, consulted with White House officials in drafting two letters to Congress that appear to have misrepresented the circumstances of Griffin's appointment as U.S. attorney and of Rove's role in supporting Griffin.

In one of the letters that Sampson drafted, dated February 23, 2007, the Justice Department told four Senate Democrats it was not aware of any role played by senior White House adviser Rove in attempting to name Griffin to the U.S. attorney post. A month later, the Justice Department apologized in writing to the Senate Democrats for the earlier letter, saying it had been inaccurate in denying that Rove had played a role.

The question that they won't answer is about Karl Rove. Scooter Libby was his firewall, and now it's Alberto Gonzales.

UPDATE: It is clear from the statements of Chairman Conyers that there is one central question in this entire scandal that remains unanswered: who generated the list of US Attorneys to be fired, and why? And it's clear that Conyers will not quit probing this scandal until he gets a satisfactory answer to that question. Referring to Republican derision that the scandal is based on mere "bread crumbs" and conjecture, Conyers said in his closing statement, "The bread crumbs seem to be leading to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."