The Torture Tape Library, Episode 51
Last week, in an attempt to claim it didn’t have to turn over any of the 3,000 documents in its torture tape library (or, for that matter, the list of witnesses who had viewed the tapes), the CIA told Judge Alvin Hellerstein that they weren’t going to produce any of their torture tape library to the ACLU.
There is no meaningful non-exempt information from the list of documents covered by Point 2, which identifies roughly 3,000 documents, including cables, memoranda, notes and emails, that can be produced at this time. All of the information on the list of witnesses covered by Point 3 is either classified or otherwise protected by statute. Accordingly, the CIA is not producing either list to Plaintiffs in redacted form.
On Thursday, Hellerstein reviewed a chunk of those documents and that list. After reviewing them, he has ordered the CIA to start putting together an index of what they’ve got and why they’re refusing to turn it over.
On March 26, 2009, I reviewed, ex parte and in camera, representative documents and information produced by the CIA relating to the destroyed videotapes that are the subject of Plaintiffs’ motion for contempt and sanction. I ordered the Government to create a work plan for production of this material to Plaintiffs, beginning with a Vaughn index within thirty days of my in camera review and production on a rolling basis thereafter, and to file this plan by April, 2009 for my approval.
A Vaughn index is a list of all documents withheld in a FOIA case, with individualized descriptions of why those documents can’t be turned over. Presuming this Vaughn index at least identifies the dates of the documents, we’ll see how widespread discussion of the torture tapes were in 2002, when the CIA and (presumably) its contractors were torturing Abu Zubaydah, in 2003, when CIA’s OIG viewed them, in 2004, when the 9/11 Commission started asking for the torture tapes, and 2005, when Jello Jay asked about them and–later–the CIA created plausible deniability for those who had warned against destroying them and destroyed them.We might see some of the recipients.
And I’m suspecting, given Judge Hellerstein’s continued skepticism after having reviewed the documents, we might see some of the documents.
Note, too, that judges are already holding the government to Eric Holder’s recent declaration on FOIA requiring agencies to lean towards openness. So if the CIA is making bogus claims about some of this stuff, we may well learn about that.
I am getting tired of waiting for things Vaughn related.
Hey, it gets nippy out here waiting night and day on the Streets of San Francisco!
“The waiting is the hardest part…” – Tom Petty
Hope you got a good 8-track player in the jalopy you’re waiting in for your stake-out bmaz. I’ll go put on another pot of coffee to bring round to warm you up ; )
And Leen, your link doesn’t work. Care to try it again?
EW rented me a freaking sub-compact. Thing is slooow and I am balled up in here like a snail. Bleeech.
Is it auto or stick. ‘Cause, y’know, rolling backwards into the Bay is really not a good idea. (Pete tends to have opinions on people who arrive that way.)
Best place in the world to learn how to drive stick–SF. (Though I had it easy, since I lived at the top of Presidio and there are a lot of places in the Presidio to cheat.)
Let us know if you see Karl Malden and Michael Douglas drive by, and we’ll send in a relief stakeout team.
Won’t it be great fun integrating the Vaughn index into Marcy’s missing email timeline? I gotta buy more popcorn for that one…
Hey we trashed three brand new Lincoln’s doing a high speed chase scene on Potrero Hill one night. Was a lot of fun.. awful movie. Presidio with Sean Connery, Mark Harman and Meg Ryan.
And bmaz actually had me convinced he was on a stake out in SF a couple of weeks ago
Gullible in ES
I bet Walker has already ruled, the government has already challenged it and everything related to the challenge is under seal.
Boxturtle (Watching Obama do the same things he did has to have Cheney ROFL!)
I talk to attorneys involved in the case, they would have been notified if this was the case, and they have not been so notified. By the way, they read here.
Thanks ew.
digg is open
another thanks
ew have you read this by Helen Thomas
They Were Only Following Orders
Report Of Torture Called ‘Shocking’
http://www.wxii12.com/helentho…..etail.html
They were only following orders/ Helen Thomas
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo…..0251/posts
Posted on Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:17:36 PM by seanmerc
WASHINGTON — It’s unlikely that the United States will ever live down the shame of torture during the Bush-Cheney administration.
It’s history now and all the piety and wit of those former U.S. officials responsible for this horrendous chapter cannot wipe out a word of it.
Mark Danner published in the New York Review of Books excerpts of a leaked report by the International Committee of the Red Cross on CIA interrogation techniques used at secret U.S. “black site” prisons abroad and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The Red Cross report is based on Red Cross interviews in 2006 with 14 “high value” detainees at Guantanamo as part of the ICRC’s legally recognized duties to monitor compliance with the Geneva Conventions and to supervise treatment of prisoners of war, the New York Review of Books said.
Red Cross officials interviewed each of the 14 detainees in private. The report was not intended to be released to the public but was to be given in strictest secrecy to officials of the government agency that had been in charge of holding them — the CIA.
The shocking account tells of the sadistic punishment inflicted on prisoners picked up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under CIA control they were brutalized. They were beaten, their heads regularly slammed against walls and subjected to constant loud music. They also were deprived of sleep for days and, of course, there was water boarding — a torture technique designed to make the victims think that they are drowning.
Forget my request Leen, your 2nd link did the trick.
And somehow this was supposed to make their memories more clear?
Bushies were/are really sick.
EW, does this order leave the CIA any room to refuse to comply? Can they appeal or can we reasonably expect to see their plan by April 9th and the Vaughn index by the end of the month?
Soothing zither-spook music for bmaz.
I just know you’re wearing a trenchcoat.
maybe ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWRjKSpTgaY
Now, that’s just going to make him wonder why EW didn’t buy him a Mercedes Benz.
Palli @ 11, that office was a joke, yes? I remember watching that and thinking, oh, c’mon — they can’t expect us to swallow this.
My friends all drive Porsches……
Speaking of stakeouts….Who’s watching Cheney’s office in the strip mall?
well, you probably still got some amending to do.
Worked hard all my life…
don’t know if this is posted yet but if not, very interesting;
raw story reports;
Unless Obama consents to this jurisdiction, which there is not a chance in hell of, there is similarly not a chance in hell that this means diddly squat. Do not mistake former US Executive officials for Pinochet. Until, and unless, the current POTUS consents to this type of jurisdiction over American officials and former officials, this kind of crap is simply laughable.
Agreed that Obama would have to consent. But the point of this is that the publicity in Europe, not to mention what these (British and Spanish) investigations might uncover, will make it that much more difficult for Obama and Congress to continue to stall, bullshit, “look forward” and try to rely on bogus ‘truth commissions’.
See dday’s post at dKos:
Spanish Court Opens Torture Inquiry Against Gonzales, Addington, Yoo, Others
Ratified Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg precedent don’t apply?
Not without acceptance by the US of jurisdiction they don’t count for much.
Have to disagree on the Spanish indictments – they are a valuable recognition and denunciation which will have a positive effect even if the Cheney gang is never extradited and die in their beds (which, I agree, is extremely likely). With the ICC and incremental steps like the Pinochet precedent, we’ve come a long way from Nuremburg and “victor’s justice” criticisms – while politics will always play a role, we cannot simply abandon international criminal justice to the “realists” who decry lack of enforcement, or note (accurately, at times), that the ICC is only for Third World criminals just like Nuremburg was for Nazis (and not any war criminals on the Allied side). It seems a bit much to criticize international legal efforts at accountability when there are any number of US statutes that could be used to prosecute Yoo et al and the same base political calculations that are used to flaunt treaty obligations are at the base of the decisions to turn away domestically. National systems of criminal justice are often insufficient and ineffective, whether in Liberia or the US, and that is why an international criminal justice system is an important tool for the protection of human rights. The Cheney gang may be sheltered and never have to worry about anything more than never seeing Paris in the spring. But the wheels of law grind slowly. At the end of the day, actions like Spain’s add to a global culture of accountability that will serve to prevent future atrocities. It would have been harder for the torturers to succeed without Eastern European black sites, or British bases, or Canadian police eager to curry favour with the CIA. They may think twice next time.
Oh, they are valuable in that regard, I simply caution people not to hold their breath that there will ever be personal jurisdiction over the individual corpora exercised for purposes of trial and punishment. Quite frankly, there have been numerous recognitions and denunciations over the years and, yes, they are growing some in strength, but they don’t count for a hell of a lot if there is no attachment, trial and punishment. What would the value of Nuremberg have been without trials with men in the docks? And for all the constant wailing of people about the “Pinochet precedent” it should be noted that Spain never got Pinochet remanded from Britain to the Spanish court, he was never placed on trial and, in fact, was released to go home to Chile a free man. Unless and until the United States government formally consents to its former executives being taken, bound over and tried, it simply will not happen. To think otherwise is delusional.
“…Unless and until the United States government formally consents to its former executives being taken, bound over and tried, it simply will not happen. To think otherwise is delusional.”
Well, until Obama, Holder et al take them, bound them over and try them domestically, I applaud the effort to investigate them, collect probative evidence, and apply treaty standards that the US willingly signed, even if it leads to a trial and conviction in absentia. Nuremburg’s judgment on Martin Bormann was just as valuable even though he wasn’t there to hear it.
Will this help in Leahey’s endeavor?
It can’t hurt, but Senator Leahy should be aiming higher and harder than a T&R commission. Personally, I think the idea of a T&R Commission for torture, of all things, in the US as a substitute for criminal proceedings is appalling – to compare the situation in the US, after 9-11, where on 9-10 there was no dispute that torture was wrong, along with a functioning judiciary and the rule of law, to a fragile and transitional state such as South Africa post-apartheid, where a bloody revolution was a real possibility is just wrong, and beneath the dignity of a great nation.
What was it Obama said? ‘Tis a barge or aircraft carrier or something.
We can at least practice imagining BushCo there.
&y over at Digby’s Hullabaloo thanks Billmon for this photoshop of the Nuremberg docks.
I spotted Rove.
Spain never got Pinochet remanded from Britain to the Spanish court, he was never placed on trial and, in fact, was released to go home to Chile a free man
Where he was indicted for a number of his crimes and placed under house arrest, which was in force until a week before his death (suspended to allow him to be taken to a hospital). He was not a “free man” at the end of his life, thanks to the work of the Spanish courts to bring justice for the torture and murder of Spanish citizens.
I haven’t posted on it, but I’m curious that they’ve gone ONLY after the lawyers, arguing they “gave legal cover” to Gitmo.
So it’s not Cheney, it’s Cheney’s lawyers, for giving Cheney (amd tje functionaries, soldiers, doctoers, and other personnel) impunity.
Doug “stupidest fucking man alive” Feith was also named, so it does seem to extend to policy makers as well as legal torture apologists. Leaving out Cheney may simply be a tactical move at this stage.
That’s what I was hoping too. That these underlings might give up Cheney/Bush for their own asses.
Si sonorita salada! They screw de abrigados.
Ishmael @53 – Agreed. But much of the significance as to Bormann would have been vapor without the reality and gravitas provided by the fact that others were in the docks. Perhaps I am too negative, but for me it just isn’t satisfying without some personal trial and punishment. We have repeatedly seen the results when the principles go unpunished, for instance Iran Contra. There was plenty of investigation, we knew what went on and then, gee whiz, like the undead there they are back screwing us again harder and with even more impunity.
That’s my point about incrementalism in these things – the British were against the Nuremburg trials, and wanted to execute captured Nazis immediately by firing squad. The Soviets wanted a trial (”show” or otherwise, to publicize Nazi crimes) and many Americans thought that democracies don’t murder their enemies.
I forget the term for it, but I think the idea is to bootstrap — start with what you are confident you can get. Then go from those people to the next and the next until you have gotten to the top. Starting with the lawyers, given what’s in the public domain already, seems a safe bet. Go after Dick and W and everyone else in on the action later…
The idea appears to be to lay the groundwork to shatter the “we had legal cover” defense. Also, even though these defendants probably won’t really be made subject to the Spanish court either, there’s at least an arguable case that they might be, unlike Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, or Bush. And it’s hard to argue that the existence of this Spanish initiative doesn’t add to pressure for the release of the IG report on the lawyers’ opinions and the release of the opinions themselves (we’re tapping our toes, Mr. Holder).
flout treaty
I’ll quietly close my dictionary now. I agree with you Ishmael, the Spanish court action is very important. I think it is also significant they are targeting the lawyers rather than going straight for Cheney or Bush. I think that was an adroit maneuver. We’ll see how it plays out, but it certainly helps those of us on this side of the pond argue for some legal remedy here. Whether or not Yoo et al., ever see the inside of a Spanish court room is not entirely the point. The point is to shame the world for tolerating this sort of thing. I’ll take all the help I can get on that.
I’ll bet you real money it doesn’t amount to shit. How much you want to put up?
Yeah but 6 months ago you probably would have bet that no European country would even contemplate an indictment either ; )
I agree bmaz, the Brits didn’t turn over Pinochet — but everyone in the world knew they should have. They knew the Spanish were right. It’s a teeny tiny step, I’ll grant you, but I still find it better than nothing at all. The lawyers that the Spanish are putting on the hook now are relative small fry. It will be interesting to see whether or not they choose to travel abroad. Either way they are now in the public stocks for all the world to see, in principle even if not in actuality.
So as rule, I don’t bet money. I bet ice cream with the hubby all the time, but it would melt between here and there. So pick your favorite bottled poison and I will bet you that… If you win, we can drown our sorrows together for our lost and illusory rule of law. If I win, we all win : ) And besides, listening to you harrumph about losing would be icing on the cake ; )
Oh, now you want to eat cake with your ice cream!
Actually, I would have bet that some country, Spain was the obvious thought, would indeed do something. But i was already saying what I am saying now years ago. The trial in Spain that Spataro is trying furiously to pull off is instructive, and none of those American defendants are Executive Branch officials, which will be given light years more deference. Whatever we can get is better than nothing, but it will not be overly satisfying.
Thanks for the edit – I’m usually better with “f” words…..
LOL ; )
I didn’t mean to pick on you, but it was the second time I saw that one today, and I hoped you would forgive me for being tedious. I’m very fond of the word flout, so I like to stick up for it : ) The other one that makes me chew my fingernails and bite my tongue is “tact” when one means “tack”. But just so you don’t think I consider myself above such challenges, I have never been able to keep straight when it is appropriate to use “affect” versus “effect”. Feel free to set me straight as needed ; )
My inner grammar geek thanks you!
No actual bmaz sightings, but I don’t get out much.
Why is it called a Vaughn index? Is it named for our other favorite judge?
Naw, “Vaughn Index” is simply a term of art coming from an old precedent in Freedom Of Information Act cases that so describes a schedule of relevant documents subject to such a request that are germane to the request but nevertheless being withheld by the government.
I’m confused. The judge says:
Does this mean that Hellerstein has decided that at least some of these documents can be produced? What about the list of witnesses? Surely there’s no work plan needed for that.
My guess is he believes some of what they’re sitting on will be fairly easy for ACLU to contest and him to rule against. And that seeing the index and whatever parts of the witness list they’ll get to see will make it a lot easier for ACLU to push a contempt case.
Book Salon up at the Mothership with Jerry Stahl’s Pain Killers hosted by Jane
Problem with driving stick in SF is that it does tend to thin the rubber on your tires rather quickly. BTW, Lombard St has a competitor up on Potrero Hill, where once I lived. Forget the name of the street now as I’ve been gone for years. It’s one of the streets named after a state, I believe. Maybe Kansas. It’s not nearly as pretty as Lombard, or wasn’t when last I was there, but it is every bit as crooked.
I keep reading the title of this post as “The Torture Tape Library,
EpisodeArea 51.”I thought it was only me. Must be a geek thing.
Sorry about that. It was unintentional. But I’m having all sorts of weird explosions of my unconscious today.
As long as the explosions stay in your subconscious ….
And geek we must! *g*
The truth is out there boys!
And regarding the British investigation, there’s this interesting twist from the Guardian:
Torture victim Binyam Mohamed: don’t scapegoat MI5 officer
If members of Blair’s government get dragged out into the spotlight, I don’t see Bushco being allowed to quietly retire to Paraguay or any other ‘undisclosed location’ without some serious damage being done to the present administration and Congress’s standing. Given what Obama needs to accomplish in so many other areas, allowing any slippage in his approval ratings wouldn’t be a good idea.
And then, who released Binyan Mohammed in the first place? Do any of us seriously think he didn’t know something like this was bound to happen once Mohammed got back to the UK? Obama’s currently blameless and W is currently pissing in his pants.
I believe the highest court is the European Court of Human Rights, Not the House of Lords…so hard to bury this in the UK Establishment…
http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/
Your point? I don’t think anyone cares which court in which country has jurisdiction (assuming Obama ever consents), but when any court indicts, that will make very large news and will definitely restrict You, Addington, et al’s travel capabilities. Permanently.
That is not true. The House of Lords, soon to be the Supreme Court, is normally the highest Court.
The jurisdiction of the European Court is confined to assessing whether English, Scottish or Northern Irish Courts have correctly applied European law, and there is no European criminal law.
You are confusing it with the European Court of Human Rights, a different body under the auspices of the Council of Europe, not the narrower European Union, to which British citizens have, since the passage of our Human Rights Act, had the right to raise an issue if a criminal process or decision appears to have breached their human rights. It is not srtrictly possible to take a criminal appeal to that court, it is a new action. It is very confusing, I know.
On the substantive point, I do think we are reaching a tipping point where there is a political will in the UK to take the lid of the box of worms, and there are a n waful lot of US citizens in there!
By the way, one of the glories of the Binyam Mohamed story since he was released has been the outspoken comments of US Lt Col Yvonne Bradley, whose very presence makes it difficult for the Government to imply it is only soft-hearted liberals who think how he was treated is something to get upset about.
I envy you your tipping point, chetnolian — UK citizens and judges both seem ready to unpack a lot of dirty secrets because of Binyam Mohamed’s story.
I wish that were happening here. We have a maddening case spinning on here, Abousfian Abdelrazik, a Canadian citizen born in Sudan and interrogated/tortured there by proxy for both Canadian and, we think, U.S. investigators. The Sudanese, the RCMP, and CSIS (intel) have all declared Abdelrazik innocent of any connections to terrorist organizations, but he is on at least two no-fly lists, U.S. and UN, and the Harper government are moving the goalposts on what it will take for him to get back to Canada. A group including a former solicitor general contributed to buying Abdelrazik a plane ticket home for early April, but now the government is saying he has to get himself off the lists first (not true of the UN list if he’s just being repatriated, but the U.S. list?) — there have been so many twists and turns in this case — it’s just sadistic.
Tomorrow the Federal Court will hear George Galloway’s application for an injunction against Border Security’s attempt to bar him from entry into Canada. (He’s in the U.S. right now.) Whatever happens there, Galloway will turn up at the border on Monday. The government continues perverse. We need tough courts and angry citizens.
This oughta be on a large billboard facing DC at the edge of an interstate:
Would that our two parties’ leaders had the stones to take these stands.
A question for the resident legal eagles:
Wrt the sanctions the ACLU is asking for, should Judge Hellerstein go forward with them, just who does he sanction?
This case now spans 2 different (quantitatively, not qualitatively) Administrations.
Many of the miscreants in authority who withheld the torture documentation have since passed on to greener pastures (AG Ashcroft, CIA Director George Tenet, etc.).
So just who does Judge Hellerstein sanction?
And what sanctions can be imposed? Disbarrment? Monetary damages? Criminal prosecution?
It’s just silly the court has had to handhold to this degree after all this time. No 1/2way decent lawyer would have begun to think that their blanket “everything is secret” crap is sufficient under any kind of litigation standards – they already knew they needed to give a per-doc reference on privileges or other reasons they are refusing to turn over. I’ve never seen such overweaning patience with lawyers as DOJ is getting when they pull one round of juvenile crap after another.
#1 – I have to wonder if he hasn’t made some kind of draft ruling and submitted it to gov and they are hashing back and forth on whether and what would be unredacted
#4 – the CIA don’t seem to have many profiles in courage, but Helen could have given a hat tip to FBI agents like the one who threatened to arrest and Dan Coleman, or to some of the military and civilian Pentagon like Brandt and Mora.
#25 – He’s wanting them to give match up specific reasons for non-production with some kind of description of the doc – he’s not buying that things are so classified they can’t even give a description of the doc. IMO, he is setting it up for there to be enough info for ACLU to follow up to press objections on non-classification of illegal acts – i.e., if there is a doc they describe as referencing waterboarding and they claim classification privilege under the EO or other Exec Priv, then it frames the issue for ACLU to make the argument that the AG has admitted waterboarding is torture, torture is a crime, criminal acts cannot be classified under the EO, court & not Exec is the final authority on whether or not info is evid of a crime and therefore order prodcution. It would give him an advocated response to rule on, as opposed to only ex parte.
33 – “And then, who released Binyan Mohammed in the first place?” Well, don’t lose sight of the fact that the impetus for the High Court on providing access to the 42 “classified” documents is that he was going to be facing a military commission without that information. After the court indicated it thought the info should be released, Milliband again made his pitch that the US would quit providing counterterrorism cooperation with UK if that happened. The court publically based its decision to not release on that representation (for which it got a thank you from the Obama administration) and Milliband proceeded to go before parliament and say, “nuh uh, I never said the US would do that” and so there had been a re-filing in the High Court for the release, since the grounds for non-release had been repudiated by Milliband before Parliament.
That was the setting for the decision to release Mohamed – that there was a pending application for the High Court to review its decision not to make the info available. Milliband was between a rock and hard place by then too. So the release avoided the very real possible consequence of release of torture information.
43 – Unfortunately, those outspoken comment get ZERO press here in the states. Zero.
Here is the link to ACLU’s current petition to AG Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate such war crimes as torture.
It has been the ACLU’s demand for documents by use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that has allowed us to learn of the deeds of the dark, secret side of our government. Please consider adding your name to this demand for justice.
I have no connection to the ACLU other than a small contribution when I can afford it.
38- the most typical kind of sanctions are monetary and in the end, we the taxpayer would be paying not just the salaries and benefits for DOJ lawyer’s misfeasance and malfeasance, but also the sanctions.
The court can also impose sanctions relating to the lawyers involved at the various times his orders were entered with respect to the conduct of his courtroom – so he can bar lawyers from being able to sign pleadings or appear in his court, although not actually disbar. He can also make a bar referral for a bar to take action. None of the foregoing is very typical, but they would general be imposed on the counsel handling the case at the time of the non-compliance with his order. If counsel changed after the initial non-compliance, but the new counsel either new or reasonably should have known of the prior failure to adhere to court rulings, lit rules and prof conduct standards and they did nothing to advise the court or correct the record, they can be subject to sanctions as well – this, btw, is why I get so pissed over the defenses of Yoo and Goldsmith et al as “just” giving bad advice — NO, they also had affirmative duties to correct the records in the various courts where DOJ was actively fibbing to judges. That isn’t some touchy feely area of “how bad was the opinion” it is a clear and affirmative duty.
He can also impose sanctions regarding the conduct of the case in his courtroom – entering judgements in favor of the non-aggrieved party.
Thanks for the explanation!
What I’m wondering is whether Judge Hellerstein can via the Sanctions process, force the testimony of those in the decision-chain. Such as:
Counsel handling the case: AG Ashcroft ordered me not to produce the material.
AG Ashcroft: White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales ordered me not to produce the material.
Alberto Gonzales: VP Counsel David Addington ordered me not to produce the material.
David Addington: VP Dick Cheney ordered me not to produce the material.
VP Dick Cheney: I plead the 5th Amendment and decline to testify on the grounds that I might incriminate myself.
Judge Hellerstein: Go to jail Dick Cheney!
I can dream, can’t I? *g*
Cheney, barnacle that he was, could simply say he had no authority to order anything and he’s not the authority they should be looking for.
Then Addington could say he had the right to order anything he wanted, but he had no authority and anybody who followed those orders was being silly.
Then on through the chain they would say stupid things and point fingers in all different directions.
Finally, someone would say, nope, no WMD here. Ha ha.
I have to assume Yoo was taken outside for a bathroom break.
Rumsfeld looks like he’s pooping his pants. And where’s Perle? I guess Bush ain’t wearing headphones because he thinks his Spanish is good enough?
And where’s Scooter Libby??
So true. We’re going to need some more chairs in there. If they all stood we could pack ‘em all in.
But making them stand–too Gitmo.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..id=topnews
New story up about how Abu Zubaida’s torture foiled no plots, produced false leads….
I applaud the Garzón action, if only for providing a way to keep the subject alive during this rough patch, and admire the choice of beginning with the lawyers; maybe someone wants to see if anybody over here is awake.
I’m nearly the same age as most of those named. May we all have long lives.
{oops, reply to bmaz at 69)
Good thing we’ll have cake and ice cream then, washed down your bottle of winnings ; )
I still think that this week is better than last week simply by virtue of the cases in the UK and Spain. And it doesn’t hurt that our economy is in the crapper. We may not be as intimidating when we’re broke… (Not that I’m advocating for a shitty economy here, it’s just that lapdogs only behave when they’re fed, otherwise they might take a nip or two at the hand that once fed them).
Thanks, folks, for the info on the beauty of racing cars. There are clearly redeeming benefits.
bmaz, I owe you some ice cream too.
I will have to read the document; its opening looks like the issue is Spain has incorporated in its constitution some of the protections around which the named attys contrived pathways. On the Pinochet issue I find I agree with bmaz for a variety of different reasons, additionally, mostly related to the counts’ having been for actions in a different, political sphere, compared to the US sagebrush justice. The document linked @52 is 100pp, and seems worthwhile. And sorry for the miniature vehicle to bmaz, one of the emoluments might be the famed architecture of the site; when there is a moment to look at its Beaux Arts elaboration.
re: scope @5/98.
Sin perjuicio de las personas que posteriormente, y avanzada la investigación, puedan aparecer también como responsables de los hechos aquí expuestos.
‘Without excluding persons who upon subsequent further investigation also may be shown to be responsible parties with respect to the acts described herein.’
Bmaz, I appreciate the clarification of your views of the Spanish court’s initiative.
I think it can be very valuable if it spurs actual U.S. prosecution-related activities.
I greatly prefer that prosecution for torture be conducted in U.S. courts, for several reasons — most fundamentally, because it would demonstrate that we do live in a country under the rule of law. But also, pragmatically/politically, because the depth of nationalism and exceptionalism in the U.S. public makes it likely that any real prospect of prosecution in non-U.S. courts will generate opposition to prosecution just because it comes from outside the country.
That’s what alarmed me about the dismissive language in your response, which could be interpreted as springing from those same kinds of attitudes (“crap”, “ridiculous”, “Do not mistake former US Executive officials for Pinochet”).
“I think it can be very valuable it it spurs actual U.S. prosecution related activities”
“hope and change”
Obama “no is one above the law”
Holder”no one is above the law”
Whitehouse “no one is above the law”
Leahy “no one is above the law”
Chileans only acted to prosecute because {they were shamed into it / the political space was created} by the Spanish prosecution.
When any of the criminals of the Bush-Cheney regime are finally prosecuted in U.S. courts, emptywheelians will be able to hold our heads up, knowing that we didn’t have to be shamed into support for it, or have the political space created for us. We’ve been creating the political space ourselves for years now; it’ll take years more, probably, but we’ll get there.
Which leads me to echo acquarius74’s request to anyone here who hasn’t done so: Please add your name to those requesting AG Holder to name a special counsel to investigate for prosecution those who made torture policy.
The letter published February 24 was drafted by the steering committee of the Justice Robert H. Jackson Conference On Planning For The Prosecution of High Level American War Criminals held last September in Andover, Mass.
The Robert Jackson Steering Committee’s Preliminary Memo is the precursor to a formal legal complaint to be filed this spring. It’s very much worth reading, particularly as the footsteps grow louder for both the perps and the Obama administration officials trying to avoid dealing with them.
See Nell, that is pretty much my point. The Spanish inquisition can shame the real jurisdiction into doing something, that is the one benefit it can carry. I still don’t think Pinochet is a good example, for while Chile did indict, they did so just to shut people up; they never really prosecuted the indictment and never intended to. The intent was to string it out until he died, which was exactly what occurred. If Spanish rumblings and grumblings can help shame the US into doing something substantive, that is all we can reasonably hope for out of them because they will never get the individuals for trial and punishment. Really, it needs to be done by the US; i just wish I saw a greater likelihood of that happening.
The regular folks out here want to believe “no one is above the law” but we all know better.
The message is clear and folks are keenly aware that there are several justice systems in this country and none of them appear to be just.
The truth is that MANY ARE ABOVE THE LAW
Read, registered, and appreciated, Nell.
It might take years and years. It did for victims of (heavily U.S.-supported) Latin and Central American torturers. But it will happen.
It requires a solid core of determined, committed activists who persist in their demands through all shifts of political climate, and who bring along less committed but sympathetic fellow-citizens to create pressure on their members of Congress and President/AG. The solid core is made up of people who don’t despair, but act and keep acting despite pessimism of the intellect.
It’s never enough, it’s never quite the justice hoped for in the end, but we have to demand everything to get anything at all. And it’s important to the ability to keep going to take in small victories as they occur. It’s possible to regard Pinochet’s last years in Chile only as a failure of justice, but that’s not actually how most of those who worked for accountability for years do see it.
So keep pushing and yet accept that there are plenty of fat cats, upper level officials etc who do and are allowed to operate outside of the law
So lawyer folk why should we be expecting more out of Spain’s justice system than our own?
Why is there no longer a push to hold anyone accountable for that false pre-war intelligence?
Did I miss it or has someone been held accoutable for those Niger Documents? etc etc
chetnolian: #43 By the way, one of the glories of the Binyam Mohamed story since he was released has been the outspoken comments of US Lt Col Yvonne Bradley, whose very presence makes it difficult for the Government to imply it is only soft-hearted liberals who think how he was treated is something to get upset about.
Mary: #45 Unfortunately, those outspoken comment get ZERO press here in the states. Zero.
Curious about that, I checked. It’s pretty damned close to zero. Her wiki page was deleted, too; a wiki user’s backup of it shows up on Google.
Mohamed’s dramatic appearance before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal in early April 2006 was covered in an LA Times article, and in the NY Times and by Carol Rosenberg in the Miami Herald. Lt. Col. Bradley’s very public refusal to support the show trial proceedings set the authorities’ teeth on edge, but won her client’s full trust for the first time.
There was some coverage during the recent intense phase of her and Reprieve’s campaign to free him (both stories reported from Britain): NY Times, McClatchy profile.
Since Mohamed’s release: plenty of coverage in the British press, only one story here: McClatchy. The non-McClatchy press seems to have grasped that the point of releasing Mohamed was to hush up the torture talk, and don’t appear to want to put Obama on the spot.