Wilkerson on Durham’s Investigation

A number of you have pointed to Andy Worthington’s detailed interview with Lawrence Wilkerson. You should read the whole thing, if only to see Wilkerson tee up on Crazy Cheney.

But the part I found most interesting is this bit:

Lawrence Wilkerson: No. My wife thinks that ultimately there’s going to be something. I’m a little more cynical than she, but she’s convinced that this investigation that’s been going on [by John Durham] — very low-key, the guy’s very persistent, he’s very determined, he reminds me of [Patrick] Fitzgerald on the Valerie Plame case, and his starting point is the destruction of the videotapes, and I’m told he’s got a plan, and he’s following that plan, and I’m told that plan is bigger than I think. [my emphasis]

While I was on the record as saying Durham’s appointment probably meant the torture investigation would never go after John Yoo or John Rizzo or Addington (because it would be harder for an AUSA to go after so senior an official), I also said there’s one scenario in which Durham’s appointment could be a good sign. That’s if the evidence Durham had discovered in the torture tape investigation was part of the new information that merited reopening investigations into torture itself that–even credible people seem to think–has already been investigated.

Now, there are a few more breadcrumbs that suggest the lawyers may be as much a focus of this as the torturers. When Eric Holder announced the investigation, for example, he described the two inquiries as related and Durham’s mandate as expanded.

Assistant United States Attorney John Durham was appointed in 2008 by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the destruction of CIA videotapes of detainee interrogations. During the course of that investigation, Mr. Durham has gained great familiarity with much of the information that is relevant to the matter at hand. Accordingly, I have decided to expand his mandate to encompass this related review.

Then there’s the detail that Holder decided he had to do an investigation after reading not just the torture memos and the IG Report, but also the  OPR Report.

But, then, Holder decided to take a close, personal look at the issues, and his perspective began to change. Holder is said to have been closely engaged with three sets of documents—a group of memoranda from the Bush-era Office of Legal Counsel, since repudiated by the Justice Department; the report of the Office of Professional Responsibility on these memoranda, which has been on his desk, awaiting review and release for months; and the report of the CIA’s inspector general reviewing in great detail the actual techniques used, guidance given by the Justice Department, and results or lack of results obtained. 

Holder released the first set of memoranda and his Justice Department publicly suggested that it would release both the related report and the CIA inspector general’s report—often viewed as the Rosetta Stone of the torture controversy. As he read through the latter two documents, my sources said, Holder came to realize the focal and instrumental role that Department of Justice lawyers had played in constructing the torture regime and in pushing it through when career lawyers raised objection. He also took note of how the entire process was orchestrated from within the Bush White House—so that more-senior lawyers in Justice, sometimes even the attorney general, did not know what was being done. And he noted the fact that the United Nations Convention Against Torture, to which the United States is a party, requires that a criminal inquiry be undertaken whenever credible allegations of torture are presented. [my emphasis]

Finally, recall that Holder announced the investigation only after the new head of the Office of Professional Responsibility recommended doing so.

The Justice Department’s ethics office has recommended reversing the Bush administration and reopening nearly a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, potentially exposing Central Intelligence Agency employees and contractors to prosecution for brutal treatment of terrorism suspects, according to a person officially briefed on the matter.

[snip]

The Justice Department’s report, the most important since Mr. Holder took office, was submitted by Mary Patrice Brown, a veteran Washington federal prosecutor picked by Mr. Holder to lead the Office of Professional Responsibility earlier this year after its longtime chief, H. Marshall Jarrett, moved to another job in the Justice Department.

There has never been any public explanation of why the Justice Department decided not to bring charges in nearly two dozen abuse cases known to be referred to a team of federal prosecutors in Alexandria, Va., and in some instances not even the details of the cases have been made public.

[snip]

It has been known that the Justice Department ethics report had criticized the authors of the legal opinions and, in some cases, would recommend referrals to local bar associations for discipline.

But the internal inquiry also examined how the opinions were carried out and how referrals of possible violations were made — a process that led ethics investigators to find misconduct serious enough to warrant renewed criminal investigation. 

Now, I admit at the time that I thought Brown’s recommendation might have served as cover and nothing more. But consider what this means. Brown picked up the OPR investigation from Marshall Jarrett (whom Holder quickly sidelined to another office at DOJ). According to this NYT article, the investigation focused not just on the torture memos, but also how criminal referrals were made. And that’s the detail–at least according to the NYT–that led Brown to recommend Holder open up an investigation.

Something about the way the Bush lawyers referred these investigations led those investigations to end inconclusively–and it’s that something that Durham seems to have in mind as he pursues the torture violations themselves.

So maybe Wilkerson’s sources are right. Maybe Durham (and Brown and Holder) do have a plan.

image_print
48 replies
  1. Leen says:

    ” He described the crucial role played by Cheney’s closest advisors, his legal counsel David Addington and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby (who resigned as Chief of Staff in October 2005 after being indicted in the Valerie Plame scandal, was convicted but had his sentence dismissed by President Bush in July 2007), and concluded by admitting that, until January 2004, he had no idea of the extent to which the State Department had been excluded from the machinations of Cheney’s “war cabinet.””

    Now that is frightening that Holder “had no idea of the extent to which the State Dept had been excluded from the machination of Cheney” war cabinet”

    How many people have written about this?

    Jason Vest
    The Men From JINSA and CSP

    The Stovepipe
    http://www.newyorker.com/archi…..027fa_fact
    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902/vest

    Maybe Holder should read Phase I and Phase II on the cherrly picked pre-war intelligence
    http://74.125.93.132/search?q=…..#038;gl=us

    Hell we still have not seen one person held accountable for the false Niger Documents. Too busy marching towards a confrontation with Iran

  2. emptywheel says:

    Incidentally, I think the Levin comment I posted on is all the more significant here. As a reminder, Levin had this exchange with Keith Ellison at last year’s hearing:

    Mr. LEVIN. If somebody relied on the first part of that memo and went up to the limits of what it allowed, in my view they would be violating the law.

    Now, again, maybe I am wrong and the earlier memo is correct. If somebody relied on the other constitutional overrides of these defenses, in my view they might well have been violating the law. It obviously would depend on the circumstances.

    Mr. ELLISON. Did that ever happen?

    Mr. LEVIN. I don’t know. I don’t know. I know there have been lots of investigations into sort of how things ended up happening and who was relying on what. My understanding was that that memo was very—was not broadly circulated. And so I don’t know whether people who were engaging in any conduct were even aware of the memo, let alone relying on it. [my emphasis]

    THat says that the prior investigations of the torture included a review of whether anyone relied on a document that purported to be DOJ approval. We’ve seen claims that the torturers had neither the Bybee One or Bybee Two memos. We know there was a JPRA document that Mitchell and Jessen probably wrote themselves (on which Yoo may have relied when he gave verbal authorization). We know there was earlier torture, orally approved by–apparently–Gonzales. And we know that precisely when investigations started the CTC and John Yoo got together to write a “memo” giving sweeping approval for law-breaking–a memo which, the CIA tells us, was still being drafted with future litigation in mind.

    • timbo says:

      Thanks. See, this is what is bothering me here. We keep hearing that the memos from DOJ were generated to give the CIA personnel cover…where that is far, far from the truth. Really, the memos were generated to give cover to the high Bush regime officials who were promulgating this regime of torture and abuse of law. That’s the key to the conspiracy. These officials were used to using lawyers as legal sand for investigations by honest authorities. The problem here really is that the folks running the government cared little for the Constitutional niceties under which that government was supposedly built. They used psychophant lawyers as a way to muddy ANY investigations into their activities…and the rot on this sort of sophistry reaches all the way to the Supreme Court, an obvious thing since the anti-”States Rights ruling” that lead Bush into power in 2000. The odd thing is why the Democrats continue to play this game with the conspirators…a game that continues to condone abuses of power, illegal actions, etc.

      As I’ve said before…in a sane Republic, there would be a lot of lawyers and party operatives, judges and polititicians, prosecutors and intelligence agents, generals and doctors, in the dockets right now, awaiting their trials. Why this is not so seems to be some sort of acquiescence to the torture regime by the current political faction in power. Perhaps this is just the calm before the storm but, seriously, right now, the Democrats in power can’t seem to muster more than a summer bluster against the conspiracy against our Constitution…leaving us all to wonder precisely how far that conspiracy has reached.

  3. Garrett says:

    I come back to hoping that the death of Asad Jaleel is a part of the pre-re-investigation.

    It was an especially brutal death. He had EPW status. Special Forces with JSOC affiliation took him away for interrogations dressed in black masks.

    The initial investigation was professional and serious. The evidence is solid. The soldiers admit to collusion.

    The investigation was just dropped.

  4. perris says:

    It has been known that the Justice Department ethics report had criticized the authors of the legal opinions and, in some cases, would recommend referrals to local bar associations for discipline.

    it would go SO far in preventing this from happening again if they would FINALLY get yoo and bybee disbarred

    it really must happen if we have a hope of innoculating the future against these crimes

  5. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Wow, this is weird.
    This bit synchs perfectly with Comey’s implications, and also — although I realize that it is far too dangerous to rely too much solely on Gellman’s version of The Ashcroft Hospital Scene — in Gellman’s version Ashcroft refuses to sign Gonzo’s BushCheney’s authorization on the grounds that he’d been kept from critical information that would have led him never to authorize it in the first place:

    so that more-senior lawyers in Justice, sometimes even the attorney general Ashcroft], did not know what was being done.

    And this:

    Something about the way the Bush lawyers referred these investigations led those investigations to end inconclusively–and it’s that something that Durham seems to have in mind as he pursues the torture violations themselves.

    Made me flash on that post EW did in which she asked why Mukasey had Orwell’s picture in his office.

  6. drational says:

    Forgive the dumb question, I have been gone a lot and could not find the posting in a quick search…. Can you refer me to the evidence Gonzales gave the oral advice before the OLC memos were drafted?

    • emptywheel says:

      Not a dumb question.

      It’s from an Ari Shapiro report.

      The source says nearly every day, Mitchell would sit at his computer and write a top-secret cable to the CIA’s counterterrorism center. Each day, Mitchell would request permission to use enhanced interrogation techniques on Zubaydah. The source says the CIA would then forward the request to the White House, where White House counsel Alberto Gonzales would sign off on the technique. That would provide the administration’s legal blessing for Mitchell to increase the pressure on Zubaydah in the next interrogation.

      Remember, too, that there were leaks that people were shocked the the OPR got “emails”–which, if it referred to the CIA, would be cables.

      So I think the OPR got these cables–at least the ones to CTC for approval. This is why those cables are so important–probably and especially the ones that the CIA says are deritive and therefore not part of their FOIA.

  7. DeadLast says:

    I don’t get Holder. He seems loathe to be dragged into these investigations. While not kicking and screaming, his motivation seems to take on an investigation only if not doing so could be politically embarrassing. His office has determined that Brad Schlozman committed perjury, yet he refuses to bring charges. Why, because Scooter Libby was pardoned?

    In this case, Holder has done as much as he could to not bring an investigation. I guess it is so bad that if he doesn’t, he could be charged as an accomplice.

  8. anwaya says:

    Dear Marcy,

    Now this is Hope we can believe in, very welcome after Scarecrow’s depressing but realistic piece. The Villagers may have given up on what’s left of America’s enlightenment values, but you again remind us that there are some people in the right places who live by the principle that the Rule of Law is fundamental and must be applied. We may yet get back to Accountability after all.

  9. AZ Matt says:

    From TPM:

    The Justice Department has decided to uphold the Bush administration’s decision not to charge former Bush DOJ official Bradley Schlozman with perjury in connection with his testimony about politicized hiring at DOJ.

    No Balls in the DOJ.

      • LabDancer says:

        That was my reaction too.

        Going back to Holder’s pre-BCA Reign of T[error] history with the DOJ, the first thing striking feature [surely a huge factor in his getting considered for AG] was the length of it, extending all the way back to the early days of the Carter administration; & that goes to the notion of ‘restoring’ the department, ie anchoring it to values that prevailed before the long interregnum, begun on election of the most supremely ignorant authoritarian doofus tool in 60 years & enabled to the extreme following selection of the most supremely ignorant authoritarian doofus tool in the nation’s history.

        Beneath that is where Holder began in the DOJ: in the Public Integrity Section, providing him with hands-on experience in how that & the various related sections approached complaints involving the mix of corruption, ethics & morality in public office.

        Related to both is that Holder’s entrance into the DOJ coincides with what for some years now has been appreciated, in the sense of ‘understood’, as the approved DOJ method for dealing with public office corruption cases, which has become identified with its mostly widely-known proponents, like Spitzer & Fitzgerald, but really marked every one of it’s most EFFECTIVE proponents — which would include Durham.

        It might be tempting to dismiss this with something like that hoary ” to a hammer” adage, but I can assure you, as a creature myself of that era, it constituted very much in the nature of a revolution for an entire generation of lawyers who entered into the prosecution racket from Watergate on. An enormous number of us were active in protesting the Viet Nam war, far too familiar with the intersection of drugs and rock to feel in any way threatened by either, and viewing the most effective form of law enforcement being cutting off the dragon’s head rather than rounding up it’s scat.

        I hasten to add this does not aim to resurrect some idealized view of Holder; it’s simply an observation on the approach that he, as many of us from that time not just did but still do, would take right from opening up the file.

        • Mason says:

          It might be tempting to dismiss this with something like that hoary ” to a hammer” adage, but I can assure you, as a creature myself of that era, it constituted very much in the nature of a revolution for an entire generation of lawyers who entered into the prosecution racket from Watergate on. An enormous number of us were active in protesting the Viet Nam war, far too familiar with the intersection of drugs and rock to feel in any way threatened by either, and viewing the most effective form of law enforcement being cutting off the dragon’s head rather than rounding up it’s scat.

          Your comment perfectly describes the vast majority of federal prosecutors with whom I dealt and now recall with fondness and respect. I’ve never dealt with Eric Holder but some of my friends, who represented clients he was investigating, complained about his gung-ho intensity and thoroughness. They never said he was dishonest or unethical. I didn’t get the impression they intended their remarks as compliments. Nevertheless, I regarded them as compliments because that’s the way an ethical and tough prosecutor should act.

          I have no expectation that he will cut-off the dragon’s head, but I will hope and pray that he does.

          I suspect all of us are getting tired of the misdirection and pretense of reform. I hope he and Durham are after the big fish.

  10. bmaz says:

    So maybe Wilkerson’s sources are right. Maybe Durham (and Brown and Holder) do have a plan.

    Maybe. But I don’t see any overt evidence of that. First off this:

    The Justice Department’s ethics office has recommended reversing the Bush administration and reopening nearly a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, potentially exposing Central Intelligence Agency employees and contractors to prosecution for brutal treatment of terrorism suspects, according to a person officially briefed on the matter.

    My understanding is the number is ten. But those would appear to all be employees and contractors. Not the various lawyers. We also hear tell that Holder is upset about the nature of the memos and the actions of the lawyers, but he has been pretty clear that he does not intend to head down that path in terms of criminal prosecution. Wilkerson’s optimism is nice and all, but I see no factual basis for it.

    If you ask me, the OPR Report likely opened up holes and questions in the “legality” or whatever basis the initial review (EDVA I think) used in declining prosecution. So far that explains that Holder would do another “review”; but does not necessarily imply in the least that such review will germinate into investigation and prosecution, and it certainly does not imply that it is going to break out into a much wider and deeper investigation and prosecution. These guys (Holder/DOJ) decline prosecutions all wrapped with a nice bow like Schlozman; what makes you think they are going to suddenly jump on the bandwagon of prosecutions that are so full of defenses they could explode on impact?

  11. bmaz says:

    Oh, and I think you highlighted the wrong sentence in the post. Here is what leaps out to me:

    And he noted the fact that the United Nations Convention Against Torture, to which the United States is a party, requires that a criminal inquiry be undertaken whenever credible allegations of torture are presented.

    And if you wanted to do a de minimis “criminal inquiry” to give yourself and your “I wanna move forward” President some cover internationally, what would you do? Well, exactly what Holder is doing; that’s what. This is mostly a whitewash.

    • BoxTurtle says:

      I’m with you. I still strongly believe this is a planned whitewash, with a careful eye on the statute of limitations. He’s got the unimpeachable evidence on the desk in front of him, he could file charges against key players as early as tomorrow if he so chose.

      His marching orders are to prevent any meaningful prosecutions. He’ll carry them out and take the hit for Obama.

      Boxturtle (Who is worse: The torturer or the swine who helps him get away with it?)

      • LabDancer says:

        And continuing on my own 32: another of the concepts for those of that era [It probably needs a name; “pleistocene” is taken.], which, rightly or wrongly, for a long time was considered part of the equation, was that in making choices, not so much on who to investigate — investigation for the most part was seen as properly driven by occurrences and facts less than personalities — but on how to spend ‘precious’ or ’scarce’ prosecution resources [Don’t forget the big recession in the early 80s, and how bureaucracies & the way law function in practice: at the, ahem, tail end of economic trends] in the most “exemplary” fashion. It wouldn’t surprise me [nor apparently Rayne] that Schlotzman would [appear for now at least to] ‘benefit’ from the approach I’ve described; nor would it shock me that the approach would appear to benefit huge swaths and maybe even entire fields of Bushies. The idea is to get the most bang for the least buck.

        • bobschacht says:

          I do hope you’re right.
          Rather than peddling 11-dimensional chess, my current schtick is to recall that Obama is better known for basketball than for chess, and that a BB game has 4 quarters. Obama is a much more conscientious strategist than Bush ever was, and I think he wants to be winning at the end of the 4th quarter.

          To my way of thinking, we’re still in the first quarter, and the Obama administration is still adhering to its initial game plan, for the most part. The game plan is due for its first major re-adjustment in January, with the SOTU speech, marking the opening of an election year. I think we’ll see a major adjustment in the messaging wrt Republicans and the Bush administration. Following your line of reasoning, there may be a major adjustment of DOJ strategy, too.

          I seem to recall that AG Holder was a basketball player, too.

          Bob in AZ

  12. PJBurke says:

    On a tangential note, two ‘big gun’ generals* beeyatch-slap Papa Dick today in the Miami Herald:

    Fear was no excuse to condone torture.

    [W]e never imagined that we would feel duty-bound to publicly denounce a vice president of the United States, a man who has served our country for many years. In light of the irresponsible statements recently made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, however, we feel we must repudiate his dangerous ideas — and his scare tactics.

    We have seen how ill-conceived policies that ignored military law on the treatment of enemy prisoners hindered our ability to defeat al Qaeda. We have seen American troops die at the hands of foreign fighters recruited with stories about tortured Muslim detainees at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. And yet Cheney and others who orchestrated America’s disastrous trip to “the dark side” continue to assert — against all evidence — that torture “worked” and that our country is better off for having gone there. … [snippage]
    http://www.miamiherald.com/opi…..27832.html

    * General Charles C. Krulak, commandant of the Marine Corps [1995-99] and General Joseph P. Hoar, C-IN-C, CENTCOM [1991-94].

    I hope we’re seeing a concerted ‘torturer-and-apologist smackdown’ media campaign beginning here.

    • perris says:

      I have to repeat that snippage, it is such music to these tired ears;

      We have seen how ill-conceived policies that ignored military law on the treatment of enemy prisoners hindered our ability to defeat al Qaeda. We have seen American troops die at the hands of foreign fighters recruited with stories about tortured Muslim detainees at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. And yet Cheney and others who orchestrated America’s disastrous trip to “the dark side” continue to assert — against all evidence — that torture “worked” and that our country is better off for having gone there

      • perris says:

        so, if cheney ever has the balls to go in front of someone willing to ask real questions (he doesn’t, he’s a yellow bellied coward), I wonder how he’s gonna find a way to call these generals liars

      • PeterHug says:

        My favorite bit is,

        In an interview with Fox News Sunday, Cheney applauded the “enhanced interrogation techniques” — what we used to call “war crimes” because they violated the Geneva Conventions, which the United States instigated and has followed for 60 years.

        The Bush administration had already degraded the rules of war by authorizing techniques that violated the Geneva Conventions and shocked the conscience of the world. Now Cheney has publicly condoned the abuse that went beyond even those weakened standards, leading us down a slippery slope of lawlessness. Rules about the humane treatment of prisoners exist precisely to deter those in the field from taking matters into their own hands. They protect our nation’s honor.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Wow, what a ‘must read’ link. Just… wow…
      That is impressive.
      I hope that many, many people will read that article.

      • PJBurke says:

        I hope that many, many people will read that article.

        I hope they do too, also… you betcha. /s

        As many times as people hear that military folk are highly restricted in what they can say (particularly and especially while serving, but even after retirement they must be very, very circumspect… and so they are perpetually somewhat ‘chilled’)… anyway, civilians can’t really get what that all means.

        They really can’t get it, not having had it beaten into their head every day of every week, to paraphrase, to “keep you mouth shut around civilians.”

        Most who have never served in uniform — and that IS most Americans — do not know that the work-a-day ‘lunch-bucket’ NCO’s who actually run things and actually have real knowledge and who did literally, as a class, freak the phukk out instantaneously and did not wait at all to start raising a major stink all the way up the chain… and were both stiff-armed and kidney-punched (if not also sphincter-tazed) from the top down for their trouble.

        We know about Jesselyn Radack at DOJ because she was a Big Shot. Much less has been said about Army SPC Alyssa Peterson, the young soldier-interpreter in Iraq who shot herself to death with her own rifle…

        (phew… Jeebus. I still can’t even type that without choking up)… my MCPO ‘parental instincts’ kicking in, I s’pose…

        …rather than participate in torturing and abusing defenseless captives.

        That’s true red-white-and-blue American Patriotism in the extreme… in my book, anyway.

        Greg Mitchell reported on SPC Alyssa Peterson over at HuffPo.

        So all of that is the long way ’round the bush of saying that we who did serve must usually (if not always) wait — and wait — for those wearing the stars (who will be listened to), to speak.

        Many already have. Taguba has. Alberto Mora (my personal hero in all of this… complete and unapologetic Navy bias intact) has. Lawrence Wilkerson, Matthew Alexander, MCPO Malcolm Nance, Maj. William Casebeer, PhD (USAF) — a very short list — have.

        When they — finally — do, it need be noted. Many dismissed Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. He was ‘damaged goods,’ as it were, and the time wasn’t yet ripe (though the issue itself had gone well past rotten). It will be much more difficult to dismiss these two important voices, at this time… I hope.

        and in response to perris @ 26:

        I have to repeat that snippage, it is such music to these tired ears

        My ears are tired too, perris… but I love the sound of Justice, in B-flat.

        • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

          PJ, it was difficult to read that link about Alyssa, but the instant that I read that she was raised Mormon, it certainly seemed likely to me that a young woman raised with a strong set of beliefs would have found Abu Gharib intolerable. I am so sorry for her family and friends; what a huge loss.

          And the fact that one of the problems with the wars is related to difficulty finding translators deepens the irony. And the tragedy.

          I’ve long thought that it may be some kind of ‘healing’ ordeal for some of the enlisted and career military to be able to hold the electeds and appointeds accountable.

          This will sound extremely strange (and might get me banned from EW’s), but I’ve recently thought that I could support McKrystal — who seems to be asked to do the near-impossible — **if and only if** we get to the bottom of the torture mess, the Blackwater mess, the no-bid contracts mess. It’s my hunch that until some of these legal issues are cleared up, the military is being hampered for the crimes of people who never even served, went AWOL, or got deferments.

          The military has enough on its plate without also being saddled and weighed down with the crimes of our Secret Government that operated out of OVP.

        • PJBurke says:

          I’ve long thought that it may be some kind of ‘healing’ ordeal for some of the enlisted and career military to be able to hold the electeds and appointeds accountable.

          This is the nub of it all… for us. To see our system work.

          To see that thing

          that system

          That set of ideals, values, and morals encoded into laws and government that we literally live for… that we have trained, day in and day out, to fight for and protect to finally…

          finally…

          finally…

          work.

          To work as we all know it is supposed to. Like it always does — so eagerly, aggressively and efficiently — if any one of us “non-powerful folks” has broken the law. You know how it is… jack up a liquor store and you’re just toast… but jack up a whole foreign nation, and you’re toasted.

          I sometimes feel bewildered — like the young children I knew on the street corners in the Philadelphia of my young adulthood — watching a(nother) house afire, saying “where’s the Fire Department?”

          Maybe what we’re hearing is a siren off in the distance…. and maybe that’s just the ghost of General Smedley Butler crying.

          Again.

    • SKIMPYPENGUIN says:

      Marines (especially Marine officers) are going to be your biggest ally in this fight to expose the Cheney regime.

      Marines believe in shooting people in the face. They do NOT believe or condone torture. That, to them, is un-American and inexcusable.

  13. fatster says:

    Court dismisses Iraqi contractor torture case
    By James Vicini – 1 hr 48 mins ago

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – “A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit against two U.S. defense contractors by Iraqi torture victims, saying the companies had immunity as government contractors.”

    More.

    • Garrett says:

      Lawsuits like that are bound to be frustrating.

      The opinion expends a good number of pages to apply a battlefield exemption.

      These people were not (actually, should not have been) on any battlefield. They are hors de combat.

      One more fundamental and important distinction, long recognized by the military itself, getting opinioned out of existence, as needed to find some excuse to not allow any recourse.

  14. WTFOver says:

    An allegation that officers from Secret Intelligence Service MI6 were complicit in torture is to be investigated by the Metropolitan Police, it was revealed today.

    Scotland Yard said the Attorney General, Baronness Scotland, asked it to investigate “the conditions under which a non-Briton was held” and the “potential involvement of British personnel”.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/n…..85740.html

    how refreshing !! of course may all be for show but they actually turned themselves in !!

    can you imagine ANY usa military / paramilitary / secret spook spy / proto fascistic police type doing such a thing ???

    bawahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

  15. orionATL says:

    remember

    you read it here first,

    e.g.,

    “in any event, i’m not convinced that holder’s torture investigation is intended as a cover-up. it may be, but i can see the way he laid it out at the start as being an effort to deflect attention from the investigation so it was not killed in its infancy. comment #47″

    it may be the stealth-bomber approach to justice for the american torturer cadre.

  16. Jkat says:

    regardless of how it happens .. in the final tally .. justice and law need to win out .. they’re timeless concepts .. not petty temporal political points .. and should not imo .. be subordinated to the dustbin simply to avoid a hissy fit from the conservoturds amongst us ..

    and my hat’s been off for the past few years for the JAG’s who mutinied over this crap .. some of whom sacrificed careers to stand up for right and justice .. and the ‘murkin way..

    screw all these asshats who want to swep this under the rug so their political bulls don’t get the goring they so richly deserve ..

    i served with gen’rul krulak .. and he’s one old marine these pricks don’t want to mess with ..

    and .. in passing .. a big semper fi to MCPO PJburke .. i know just how ya feel .. and i second the opinion …

  17. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    This is the nub of it all… for us. To see our system work.

    Indeed.
    Isn’t that, after all what you were really fighting for?

    That Miami Herald OpEd by Cmdr Krulak and Cmdr Hoar (apologies for my ignorance of the correct form for honorifics!) seems to drive right to the heart of that age old question: what does it mean to be human?

    If you take the view, as I do, that nurturing, teaching, protecting are all intrinsically human behaviors, then what Krulak and Hoar delineate is that border of self-protection: protect your own humanity so that no enemy can weaken or compromise you. Because once you are morally compromised, you may as well pack it in.

    Who ever imagined that orders to compromise American soldiers, would come from the highest levels of the very government that so many have sworn to protect? Ike must be rolling in his grave, along with Gen. Marshall and a multitude of others (!).

    JKat, sounds like you are fortunate to know Gen Krulak; sounds like a very interesting, smart man.

    I’ll put a brief Sentinel Diary up with a link to this OpEd if I can’t find a diary already on this topic.

    And I note with interest that EW’s subsequent post confirms in spades the point that these two commanders make in their OpEd: torture does not work. (So why do the CheneyBots continue to insist that it does?)

    I am haunted by that article about the death of SPC Alyssa Peterson. What an incredible tragedy, on so many levels.

  18. Andy Worthington says:

    Hi Marcy,
    Thanks for picking up on what I considered to be the most topical – and possibly explosive – of Col. Wilkerson’s comments. All eyes are on John Durham, it seems …
    Best,
    Andy

Comments are closed.