Fallujah birth defects blamed on US weapons; doctors told "not to embarrass Americans over the issue"

By GottaLaff

BushCo's fraudulent little war takes yet another turn for the worse:

Birth defects in the Iraqi city of Fallujah have soared in recent years, with doctors saying advanced US weaponry such as white phosphorous and depleted uranium shells may have caused a "massive, unprecedented number" of congenital health problems.

A BBC investigative report has found that the incidence of birth defects in Fallujah has reached a rate 13 times higher than that found in Europe. One doctor at a US-built hospital in the city says the number of birth defects has spiked from one or two per month prior to the Iraq war to two or three per day today. [...]

[BBC world affairs editor John] Simpson says the Fallujah doctors who raised the alarm about birth defects were "well aware that what they said went against the government version, and we were told privately that the Iraqi authorities are anxious not to embarrass the Americans over the issue." [...]

Simpson further reported that he had "heard many times" that women in Fallujah were being warned not to have children.

If this is true, and I believe it is, it's inexcusable. There was controversy over the weaponry at the time. Now we see the horrific consequences of actions taken in our name.

I (among many others) don't recall giving my approval, but Boy Georgie and his trainer Dickless McHeartStent were just a tad headstrong and didn't care. About anything. Except their own little power trip.

As for embarrassing Americans, BushCo managed to do that all on their own.

Intel bill pulled over torture provision

By GottaLaff

Mustn't ever try to punish the torturers, tsk tsk:

House Republicans charged Democrats with trying to sneak a provision into the intelligence authorization bill that would establish criminal punishment for CIA agents and other intelligence officials who engage in “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” during interrogations.

Seriously, who would object to that? Wait, don't tell me. Rhymes with Shmepublicans?

Damn those ethical types who refuse to allow interrogators to murder, destroy lives, inflict pain, and damage psyches!

The provision, previously not vetted in committee, applied to “any officer or employee of the intelligence community” who during interrogations engages in beatings, infliction of pain or forced sexual acts. The bill said the acts covered by the provision would include inducing hypothermia, conducting mock executions or “depriving the [detainee] of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care.”

The language gave Congress the discretion to determine what the terms mean, and it would have imposed punishments of up to 15 years in prison, and in some cases, life sentences if a detainee died as a result of the interrogation.

Republicans criticized the language and the way it was introduced.

I find it so amusing that, when the Rushpublics are in power, procedural tricks, sneaky late night changes, and secret meetings are perfectly acceptable.

If the Dems try to throw something into a bill, fugettaboutit:

“I’m hearing from Republicans that we are somehow sacrificing our national security” through this bill, said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). She said the language underscores existing law and enhances national security.

Because Reyes included it in his manager's amendment, Republicans were not able to try to strike it from the bill before passage. The only recourse they had was to try to excise it during the House-Senate conference. The Senate version does not contain similar language.

More details here.

VIDEO: Jon Stewart v. John Yoo

By GottaLaff

Yoo lose:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - John Yoo Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Jon Stewart is one of the only journalists-- and yes, I consider him to be a journalist-- that has the stones to confront his guests head on.

He used to be more deferential, which would frustrate me immensely. But lately, he does what any interviewer worth his salt should do: Knows his subject, asks hard questions, insists on answers, and if neither succeed, makes that obvious and somehow points out why.

The only other host that I can think of who does this consistently is Rachel Maddow (of course, on a completely different level, and in a separate genre).

As for the substance of the interview, I've written about Yoo and Co. many, many times. So this time, please watch, and then feel free to vent in Comments.

LOL VIDEO: Comedian visits torture memo author John Yoo at U.C. Berkeley

By GottaLaff

I don't need to add a thing:

Senate Intel Committee Wants Detainee Information Made Public

By GottaLaff

Has anyone else noticed the pace picking up on these various threads of detainee/Gitmo/torture stories? I am getting more hopeful:

[...] [T]he leaders of the Senate intelligence committee, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Kit Bond (R-Mo.), have announced that the committee’s unanimously agreed on fiscal year 2010’s intelligence-funding authorization bill. (The full bill isn’t public yet.) Among its requirements is this curious provision, according to a bill summary:

Require the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency to make publicly available unclassified versions of four documents regarding information gained from high-value detainees.

[...] Other noteworthy provisions: A requirement for the Director of National Intelligence to report to Congress on compliance with “laws, international obligations, and executive orders on the detention and interrogation activities of the Intelligence Community”; the creation of an inspector general for the Director of National Intelligence; making certain intelligence leadership provisions subject to Senate confirmation, like the director of the National Security Agency and the CIA’s deputy director; and to

Change congressional notification requirements in law to make clear that there is no exception to the obligation to brief Congress on intelligence activities and covert actions; to require that notifications include the legal authority on which activities are undertaken; and to require that all members be informed when only the Gang of Eight is briefed, and the main features of such briefings…

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

Breaking: House Dems Will Investigate Secret CIA Program

By GottaLaff

Backbones? Dems? Really? Thank you!

This release just out from House Intel committee chair Silvestre Reyes, which says that House Dems have decided to probe the secret CIA program that had been concealed from Congress and was revealed the other day by CIA director Leon Panetta, is a big deal:

“After careful consideration and consultation with the Ranking Minority Member and other members of the Committee, I am announcing an official Committee investigation into possible violations of federal law, including the National Security Act of 1974.

“This investigation will focus on the core issues of how the congressional intelligence committees and Congress are kept fully and currently informed. To this end, the investigation will examine several issues, including the program discussed during [CIA] Director [Leon] Panetta’s June 24th notification and whether there was any official decision or direction to withold information from the Committee.”

This is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it suggests House Dems are bucking the Obama administration. [...]

Second, it means House Dems are ignoring the insistence by some Republicans and conservatives that continuing to raise questions about the CIA’s conduct is bad politically for Democrats.

One investigation could lead to another. The facts will drive the probes. And speaking of probes, let's hope this investigation eventually bumps heads with one of detainee treatment/military commissions.

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

H/t: Cody

Miguel Estrada to represent John Yoo before the 9th Circuit; yes, THAT Miguel Estrada

By GottaLaff

Oh, this is rich. Remember all that Rushpublic talk at the Sotomayor hearings about the Other Hispanic, Miguel Estrada? Well, he's been a busy little bee, and may very well come face-to-face with Sotomayor in the Biggest Court in the Land:

The Recorder has more details about the tough work Estrada has ahead of him. (h/t WSJ Law Blog)

John Yoo, author of some of the Bush administration's war-on-terror memos, has hired Washington, D.C., lawyer Miguel Estrada to appeal a ruling that allowed an allegedly mistreated detainee's suit against Yoo.

[snip]

Estrada has already been representing Yoo in an investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility into the legal work behind the memos. That investigation is ongoing, though the results could be released at any time, and a draft finding reportedly would have referred Bybee and Yoo to State Bar authorities for possible discipline.

As a reminder, this means that Estrada will represent Yoo as he attempts to convince the 9th Circuit to reverse the District Court's ruling that Padilla's suit against Yoo can move forward. And--it is not unreasonable to imagine--regardless of what the 9th Circuit decides, the Latino the Republicans wished had been the first on SCOTUS (Estrada) might soon face the Latina Republicans will grudgingly see confirmed as Justice in the next few weeks for a big showdown over the rule of law. Any bets on whether Estrada makes more money trying to save Yoo from any consequences for his actions (yes, taxpayers will be footing Estrada's bill) than Sotyomayor will make in her first year on SCOTUS?

[...] [T]he Recorder has some interesting speculation from some law professors who have been following the case on why Yoo needs his own lawyer.

New York University School of Law professor Stephen Gillers, who has written about the investigation into the memos, said that the Justice Department should not have been Yoo's sole representation in the first place, because conflicts of interest between Yoo and his former employer were too likely to occur.

Yoo may have wanted to make arguments that the Justice Department couldn't pursue, such as implicating other DOJ officials, Gillers said. He speculated that Yoo may have wanted to investigate former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, or Cheney's former legal counsel, David Addington.

"Just hypothetically, he might say, 'I was ordered to do this by David Addington, so he should be in this [case] also,'" Gillers said. "DOJ's not going to sue David Addington on behalf of Yoo."

Georgetown University Law Center professor David Luban, an ethics expert who has also written about the torture controversy, said in an e-mail that he hadn't been tracking the case closely, but that the Justice Department's decision could indicate the government was litigating the Bush administration's position at the district court level, but is now rethinking whether to continue to maintain it. Or, he speculated, it might be that the OPR report will be issued soon and will recommend discipline.

"That by itself would create a conflict of interest in DOJ defending his position in a closely related civil case," he wrote. "Even though OPR is a different subunit of DOJ, it's not a separate law firm."[my emphasis]

Yoo got some 'splainin' to doooo, to quote you-know-who.

The BushCo Train Wreck, to be continued...

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

Former GOP Congressman Demands Bush Investigations

By GottaLaff

A welcome voice:

A former Republican member of House of Representatives demanded on Thursday that Congress launch an investigation into possible crimes committed under Bush administration.

Former Rep. Mickey Edwards (R-Okla.) argued, in a brief interview with the Huffington Post, that his one-time GOP colleagues in Congress were skirting their constitutional obligations by refusing to probe the Bush administration.

"I don't think it is complicated at all. I mean, oversight is oversight. If there are allegations that people in public office committed crimes, than we have an absolute obligation to investigate and find out if it is true," Edwards said. "I think it is Congress' job. You could have an independent investigation I suppose. But Congress has to keep control of it. It is Congress' obligation under the Constitution to do the oversight." [...]

Speaking at a panel on congressional oversight powers on Thursday, Edwards was far more forthright. He said he was not concerned that an investigation into the Bush presidency would be bogged down in partisanship, citing the work done on Watergate and other congressional inquiries. "It is a congressional responsibility," he said, "and you can easily set up bipartisan investigations."

Asked if he was surprised by the ongoing allegations of misconduct and secrecy from the Bush years, he replied: "It doesn't shock me because I've become quite aware that during the last eight years under the Bush administration, there were all kinds of things being done that stretched the limits of the Constitution: A lot of secrecy, a lot of claims of executive power that are extra-constitutional. So no I'm not surprised."

It's nice to see a Republican speak out like this. Better late than never, at this point.

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

Gitmo court censorship

By GottaLaff

What you're not seeing on the Tee Vee Machine or elsewhere:

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) - The five men accused of the September 11 attacks on the United States disrupted and delayed the Guantanamo war court on Thursday when they refused to leave their cells for a hearing at the remote U.S. military base in Cuba where they are held. [...]

A court censor cut off Lachelier when she began talking about Binalshibh's complaints that he had been subjected to sleep deprivation, which critics have derided as an abusive technique used to soften prisoners for interrogation.

"The government can't hide the fact that they used sleep deprivation," Lachelier said before the audio feed to observers and reporters outside the courtroom was cut off.

The audio is on a 40-second delay that allows a court security officer to hit a button to block material believed to be classified.

Prosecutor Clayton Trivett later said Binalshibh's complaints of sleep deprivation could be explained by the diagnosis that he suffers from delusions. [...]

"The government's position is that it's not happening and it's never been happening," Trivett said.

It's still happening.

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

Obama: Don't look back; A.G. Holder: May probe Bush-era torture anyway

By GottaLaff

Part of President Obama's agenda should be maintaining our system of justice, freeing those who are innocent of wrongdoing (follow that link for all posts about the abuse and miscarriage of justice as they apply to Gitmo detainees, specifically Fayiz al-Kandari), upholding the laws, ethics, and the very fabric of this country:

Holder, 58, may be on the verge of asserting his independence in a profound way. Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. "I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," he says. "But that can't be a part of my decision."

No, it can't. Lives are at stake. Our country's legal foundation is at stake. We cannot set a precedent that will further destroy what's left of true democracy.

Holder acknowledges that he struggles against a tendency to please, that he's had to learn to be more assertive over the years. "The thing I have to watch out for is the desire to be a team player," he says, well aware that he's on the verge of becoming something else entirely. [...]

[His wife, Sharon Malone] Malone drew a direct line from the sins of America's racial past to the abuses of the Guantánamo Bay detention center. Both are examples of "what we have not done in the face of injustice," she said at one point, her Southern accent becoming more discernible as her voice rose with indignation. At the same party, Holder praised the Bush administration for setting up an "effective antiterror infrastructure."

What force is Holder up against? Who else might be influencing him?

For his part, Emanuel calls Holder a "strong, independent attorney general." But Emanuel's agitated presence hangs over the building—"the wrath of Rahm," one Justice lawyer calls it—and he is clearly on the minds of Holder and his aides as they weigh whether to launch a probe into the Bush administration's interrogation policies.

Here is where I start to jump back onto my Fayiz/Barry Wingard/Vandeveld bandwagon:

There were startling indications that some interrogators had gone far beyond what had been authorized in the legal opinions issued by the Justice Department, which were themselves controversial. He told one intimate that what he saw "turned my stomach."

It was soon clear to Holder that he might have to launch an investigation to determine whether crimes were committed under the Bush administration and prosecutions warranted. The obstacles were obvious. [...]

Holder couldn't shake what he had learned in reports about the treatment of prisoners at the CIA's "black sites." If the public knew the details, he and his aides figured, there would be a groundswell of support for an independent probe.

And I am doing everything I can to build that groundswell, with your help, and now hopefully, with A.G. Holder's.

Obama, Holder says confidently, "understands the nature of what we do at the Justice Department in a way no recent president has. He's a damn good lawyer, and he understands the value of having an independent attorney general."

The next few weeks, though, could test Holder's confidence. After the prospect of torture investigations seemed to lose momentum in April, the attorney general and his aides turned to other pressing issues. They were preoccupied with Gitmo, developing a hugely complex new set of detention and prosecution policies, and putting out the daily fires that go along with running a 110,000-person department. The regular meetings Holder's team had been having on the torture question died down. Some aides began to wonder whether the idea of appointing a prosecutor was off the table.

But in late June Holder asked an aide for a copy of the CIA inspector general's thick classified report on interrogation abuses. He cleared his schedule and, over two days, holed up alone in his Justice Depart ment office, immersed himself in what Dick Cheney once referred to as "the dark side." [Note: You're well aware that I've been hawking Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. Even more apt in this context] He read the report twice, the first time as a lawyer, looking for evidence and instances of transgressions that might call for prosecution. The second time, he started to absorb what he was reading at a more emotional level. He was "shocked and saddened," he told a friend, by what government servants were alleged to have done in America's name.

Now do something about it, A.G. Holder. Please.

H/t: BuzzFlash

Police launch Guantanamo 'torture' probe

By GottaLaff

Here I go again, writing about seeking justice. Color me stubborn. And forgive me just this millionth time once:

The Metropolitan Police Service(MPS) said Friday they had launched a criminal investigation into allegations made by former Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed that he was tortured with the help of British agents.

Hey kids! Torture's not just for the CIA any more! Tell your friends!

"The papers were reviewed by the MPS and the investigation accepted. A team of detectives... has now been selected and vetted to appropriate levels. As a result a criminal investigation has now begun," a police statement said.

Dear ObamAdministration: Please follow suit. Love, Laffy

Ethiopian-born Mohamed, 30, was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 while trying to return to Britain and spent six and a half years either in US custody or that of countries taking part in the US-run rendition programme of terror suspects.

After a lengthy campaign orchestrated by his supporters in Britain, he became the first prisoner to be released from the US-run Guantanamo camp under President Barack Obama and returned to Britain in February.

On his journey through the rendition system, Mohamed was first held for three months in Pakistan, during which time he claims he was tortured and questioned by US and British agents.

The rendition system is still intact. But now there's serious pinky swearsies that torture won't happen, and the stays at the Holiday Inn Rendition Express will only be short ones.

He says he was then taken to Morocco with the explicit knowledge of Britain's Security Service, where he alleges he was subjected to further torture, including sexual mutilation. [...]

In January 2004, he was transferred to US facilities in Afghanistan for five months before being taken to Guantanamo, where he was never charged or faced trial.

Does all this sound familiar? It should:

All my previous posts about Gitmo detainee Fayiz al-Kandari, and his military attorney Lt. Col. Barry Wingard, can be found here; That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.Our system of justice is broken. Military commissions rely on coerced confessions and hearsay, something Jane Mayer covers in great detail in her book..

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

Newly Released CIA Documents Describe Systematic Torture of Detainees

By GottaLaff

Within the next week or so, I'll be posting series of rather lengthy posts about conversations I've been having with the lawyer of a Gitmo detainee. I'll have quotes from the detainee and some insight into the Obama administration regarding Gitmo and its prisoners.

I have been told by the lawyer that I am most likely now being monitored because of my frequent correspondence/phone calls with him.

In the meantime:

The CIA released still-highly redacted documents in which Guantánamo Bay prisoners describe abuse and torture they suffered in CIA custody. The documents were released as part of an American Civil Liberties Union Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking uncensored transcripts from Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) that determine if prisoners held by the Defense Department at Guantánamo qualify as "enemy combatants." In previously released versions of the documents, the CIA had removed virtually all references to the abuse of prisoners in their custody; the documents released today are still heavily blacked out but include some new information.[...]

These statements include:

• Abu Zubaydah: "After months of suffering and torture, physically and mentally, they did not care about my injuries that they inflicted to my eye, to my stomach, to my bladder, and my left thigh and my reproductive organs. They didn't care that I almost died from these injuries. Doctors told me that I nearly died four times." "They say ‘this in your diary.' They say ‘see you want to make operation against America.' I say no, the idea is different. They say no, torturing, torturing. I say ‘okay, I do. I was decide to make operation.'"

• Al Nashiri: "[And, they used to] drown me in water."

• Muhammad: "This is what I understand he [CIA interrogator] told me: you are not American and you are not on American soil. So you cannot ask about the Constitution."

• Khan: "In the end, any classified information you have is through…agencies who physically and mentally tortured me."

Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project:

"The Obama administration should make good on its commitment to transparency, stop suppressing information about torture and abuse and hold accountable the officials who put unlawful policies in place."

More information about the ACLU's CSRT FOIA, including the documents released today, is available online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/csrtfoia.html

Please take a look at this, while we're on the subject: "Torture, the painful truth."

Can Leon Panetta move the C.I.A. forward without confronting its past?

By GottaLaff

A long, informative New Yorker piece by Jane Mayer is worth a read. Here are a couple of excerpts:

Ken Gude, an associate director at the Center for American Progress, who specializes in national-security issues, and who has close ties to the White House, believes that Obama’s instinct, like Panetta’s, was to set up a truth commission of some sort. “I think the political staff walked it back,” he says. “They said it would be a distraction.” Obama’s political advisers dread any issue that could trigger a culture war and diminish his support among independent voters. They also see little advantage in picking a fight with the C.I.A. But the decision to discourage an accountability process, Gude says, has backfired. The Administration has lost control of the story, as revelations about C.I.A. misdeeds have continued to emerge through lawsuits and the press. “It’s now become the distraction they wanted to avoid,” Gude says. “The White House briefings have been dominated by questions about releasing documents and photos.” It’s understandable, he says, that Obama wouldn’t want to spend his energy on Bush’s mistakes. But, he warns, “they can’t leave the impression that they’re trying to cover it up.” [...]

Meanwhile, John Brennan—the man who was considered too politically toxic for the top C.I.A. job—has become a senior official on the National Security Council. Brennan, who, as one former C.I.A. officer puts it, was once “joined to George Tenet at the hip”—he served as Tenet’s chief of staff—now advises Obama on terrorism and other national-security issues. He has reportedly lobbied hard to maintain secrecy on past abuses. According to Newsweek, Brennan recently persuaded Panetta to join him in protesting Obama’s plan to release four shocking Justice Department memos about the interrogation program. The documents, written by lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel, showed that the C.I.A. had waterboarded one suspect at least a hundred and eighty-three times and subjected many others to harrowing mistreatment. Opponents have argued that exposing such details could spark an anti-American backlash. Panetta also argued forcefully in favor of indemnifying any C.I.A. officers whose actions, as described in the memos, might have opened them up to criminal charges. [...]

After intense consideration, and a late-night meeting in Rahm Emanuel’s office, Obama rejected Panetta’s arguments for secrecy, deciding that it was in the public interest to release the memos. But Obama also endorsed the notion of giving blanket amnesty to any C.I.A. officers performing authorized work. [...]

Panetta’s advisers may have had a personal stake in opposing transparency. Another former C.I.A. official, who knows Brennan well, noted that, if the Bush torture program were to be further investigated, “potentially, both Brennan and Kappes could have a lot to lose.”

Judge: Ex-Bush lawyer John Yoo can be sued over torture

By GottaLaff

Last night I posted about John Yoo being ordered to testify about his handywork leading to torture. Here's an update:

A prisoner who says he was tortured while being held for nearly four years as a suspected terrorist can sue former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo for coming up with the legal theories that justified his alleged treatment, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White's decision marks the first time a government lawyer has been held potentially responsible for the abuse of detainees.

"Like any other government official, government lawyers are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their conduct," White said in refusing to dismiss Jose Padilla's lawsuit against Yoo.

If Padilla, now serving a 17-year prison sentence on terrorism charges, can prove his allegations, he can show that Yoo "set in motion a series of events that resulted in the deprivation of Padilla's constitutional rights," White said.

That's a big "if".

John Eastman, law school dean at Chapman University in Orange County, where Yoo taught for the past year, [...] predicted that the Justice Department will file an immediate appeal, going to the Supreme Court if necessary. [...]

Declared an enemy combatant, Padilla was held in a Navy brig for three years and eight months and was denied all contact with the outside world for the first half of that period, his suit said. He was then taken out of the brig and charged with taking part in an unrelated conspiracy to provide money and supplies to Islamic extremist groups. He was convicted and has appealed.

His suit against Yoo covers his time in the brig. He says he was detained illegally, held for lengthy periods in darkness and blinding light, subjected to temperature extremes and sleep deprivation, confined in painful stress positions, and threatened with death to himself, harm to his family and transfer to a nation where he would be tortured.

The suit said Yoo - who has acknowledged being a member of an administration planning group known as the "war council" - personally reviewed and approved Padilla's detention in the brig and provided the legal cover for his treatment.

At a hearing in March, Justice Department lawyer Mary Mason told White that courts had no power to scrutinize high-level government decision-making, especially in wartime.

But White said Friday that Padilla had a right to sue "the alleged architect of the government policy" on enemy combatants. He said an examination of Yoo's publicly disclosed writings would not damage national security, and an inquiry into "allegations of unconstitutional treatment of an American citizen on American soil" would not affect foreign relations.

Bush lawyer Yoo ordered to testify

By GottaLaff

YOO-hooooo, Johhnnnn. Guess what time it is? Time to take an oath:

A federal judge has ruled that John Yoo, a former Bush administration lawyer who wrote crucial memorandums justifying harsh interrogation techniques, will have to answer in court to accusations that his work led to a prisoner’s being tortured and deprived of his constitutional rights.

Suh-weet.

H/t: Greg Mitchell

Does Gitmo detainee think he was tortured? ""I don't think. I'm sure"

By GottaLaff

Paddy touched on this report in her links post. Here are the details, and as you would expect, they are not pretty:

Held Seven Years, Former Aid Worker Tells ABC News He Was Tortured:

For 7½ years, Lakhdar Boumediene was known simply by a number: "10005."

These were the digits assigned to him when he arrived at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, swept up in a post-Sept. 11 dragnet and accused of plotting to blow up the U.S. and British Embassies in Sarajevo.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Boumediene said the interrogators at Gitmo never once asked him about this alleged plot, which he denied playing any part it. [...]

He was arrested by Bosnian police in October 2001 and charged with conspiring to blow up the U.S. and British Embassies. He called the charges false and ludicrous.

"They search my car, my office, nothing. Cell phone, nothing. Nothing. Nothing," he said.

The charges were dropped, and the Bosnian courts ordered him and five others freed. But under pressure from the Bush administration, the Bosnian government handed him over to the U.S. military.

On January 17, 2002, Boumediene's hands and feet were placed in shackles, and he was put on a military plane en route to Guantanamo Bay. [...]

"I thought America, the big country, they have CIA, FBI. Maybe one week, two weeks, they know I am innocent. I can go back to my home, to my home," he said.

But instead, Boumediene said he endured harsh treatment for more than seven years. He said he was kept awake for 16 days straight, and physically abused repeatedly.

Asked if he thought he was tortured, Boumediene was unequivocal.

"I don't think. I'm sure," he said.

This is the BushCo-generated pain and resentment that President Obama must now undo. This is what gave rise to so much hatred toward the United States.

Boumediene described being pulled up from under his arms while sitting in a chair with his legs shackled, stretching him. He said that he was forced to run with the camp's guards and if he could not keep up, he was dragged, bloody and bruised.

He described what he called the "games" the guards would play after he began a hunger strike, putting his food IV up his nose and poking the hypodermic needle in the wrong part of his arm.

"You think that's not torture? What's this? What can you call this? Torture or what?" he said, indicating the scars he bears from tight shackles. "I'm an animal? I'm not a human?"

Vice President Dick Cheney has been adamant in his defense of the Guantanamo detention center and the treatment of those held there.

Last week Cheney said, "The facility down there is a fine facility. These people are very well treated."

Much, much more here. This is heartbreaking. This is the sickening slime trail of the BushCo crime family's actions. This is a disgrace.

All of the BushCo lawyers agreed on legality of torture

By GottaLaff

See? The BushCo lawyers said torture was legal, so it was! That does it. They're off the hook. A-Ok. Innocent... Right? The Nation of Dick's wet dream (apologies for the visual):

When Justice Department lawyers engaged in a sharp internal debate in 2005 over brutal interrogation techniques, even some who believed that using tough tactics was a serious mistake agreed on a basic point: the methods themselves were legal.

Previously undisclosed Justice Department e-mail messages, interviews and newly declassified documents show that some of the lawyers, including James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general who argued repeatedly that the United States would regret using harsh methods, went along with a 2005 legal opinion asserting that the techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency were lawful.

That opinion, giving the green light for the C.I.A. to use all 13 methods in interrogating terrorism suspects, including waterboarding and up to 180 hours of sleep deprivation, “was ready to go out and I concurred,” Mr. Comey wrote to a colleague in an April 27, 2005, e-mail message obtained by The New York Times. [...]

None of the Justice Department lawyers who reviewed the interrogation question argued that the methods were clearly illegal. [...]

C.I.A. officials had been nervous about the legality of their proposed methods from the start in 2002. They had asked Michael Chertoff, then head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, to grant interrogators immunity in advance from prosecution for torture. Mr. Chertoff refused, but neither did he warn the agency against the methods it was proposing.

The agency’s worst fears about the potential liability of its officers returned with a vengeance in 2004, after the sharp criticism from the agency’s inspector general and Mr. Goldsmith’s withdrawal of the first torture memorandum. C.I.A. officials demanded a comprehensive legal review. [...]

By April 2005, the opinions were in final form, and Mr. Comey, who had set his own resignation for August, concurred in the 46-page opinion affirming the legality of the 13 techniques. But he told Mr. Gonzales that he strongly objected to Mr. Bradbury’s second opinion, allowing multiple techniques to be used in a single interrogation session.

Mr. Gonzales told him that he was “under great pressure” from Vice President Dick Cheney to complete both memorandums and that President George W. Bush had asked about them, Mr. Comey recounted in one of the 2005 e-mail messages.

There's lots more. Go read.

Rumsfeld to 'face difficulties' over Gitmo: UN expert

By GottaLaff

How'd I miss this one?

Former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld could soon be in trouble for the role he played in human rights abuses committed in the Guantanamo prison, a United Nations expert said Wednesday.

"In a year or two, his responsibilities will be established. Wherever he goes, he will face difficulties," Leandro Despouy, who is Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, told journalists in Geneva.

Nothing earth-shattering here, but always makes for enjoyable reading.

H/t: BuzzFlash

Cheney oversaw briefings on interrogation methods

By GottaLaff

Paddy touched on this earlier in her linkage post. Here are a few more details:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney personally oversaw at least four briefings with senior members of Congress about controversial interrogation programs, part of a secretive and forceful defense he mounted throughout 2005 in an effort to maintain support for the harsh techniques used against detainees. [Laffy Note: Torture. It's called torture. Okay? Okay.]

The Cheney-led briefings came at some of the most crucial moments for the program, as congressional oversight committees were threatening to investigate or even terminate the techniques used in interrogations, according to lawmakers, congressional officials and current and former intelligence officials.

Cheney's role in helping handle intelligence issues in the Bush administration has been well documented, particularly his advocacy for the use of aggressive methods and warrantless wiretapping against suspected terrorists. But his hands-on role in defending the interrogation program to lawmakers has not been previously publicized. [...]

CIA records indicate another "briefing" -- for whom the briefer is "not available" -- was given to Senate GOP leaders on Nov. 1, 2005. That was the same day Cheney made his regular appearance at the weekly Tuesday luncheon for Senate Republicans.

After staffers were cleared from the room, Cheney discussed the value of the interrogation program and the information gleaned from the harsh techniques, according to contemporaneous media accounts.

Cheney's briefing on interrogations began in the winter of 2005 as the top Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence committees, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice) publicly advocated a full investigation of the tactics used against top Al Qaeda terrorism suspects.

On March 8, 2005 -- two days after a detailed report in the New York Times about interrogations -- Cheney gathered Rockefeller, Harman and the chairmen of the intelligence panels, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), according to current and former intelligence officials.

Weeks earlier, Roberts had publicly suggested possible support for the interrogation investigation sought by Rockefeller.

But by early March 2005, Roberts announced that he opposed a separate investigation, and the matter soon died.

Please keep going on the Tee Vee Machine, Dick. Please never stop opening your big fat yap. Let's see how your words stand up to your well-documented actions. And then let's get your testimony, on the record, and see how that compares to your Tee Vee appearances and the memos.

Should be illuminating.

Former CIA station chief: Torture did not save lives, calls so-called terrorist plots "slapstick"

By GottaLaff

Torture. Does. Not. Work. Four simple words. Here's another one: Truth. Add them all together and we get two more: Prosecute BushCo. This is one time when 4 + 1 = 2:

Milton Bearden, a former Central Intelligence Agency Pakistan station chief who served at the agency for three decades, says claims that the Bush administration’s so-called enhanced interrogation techniques saved American lives are likely false.

The retired senior CIA officer also says that the former administration’s repeated assertions that attacks were foiled through torture are hurting US credibility abroad, endangering alliances and aiding the cause of would-be terrorists.

+...

He retired in 1994 but says he has communicated with contacts who agree they’ve heard of no evidence to support Bush officials’ claims.

If the Bush administration had proof of a plot stopped by enhanced interrogation, they would have produced it, Bearden says.

+...

Bearden is intimately familiar with the countries that some of the most prominent terror suspects have hailed from. He dismisses many of the alleged terror plots which have been made public.

“They dredge up the slapstick plot of the Liberty Seven or the strange Lyman Faris plot which included a blowtorch,” Bearden said. “But when asked for something more substantive, the [Bush administration] retreated behind the screen of protecting sources and methods. We are told to trust them.”

+...

Perhaps most significantly, Bearden believes that by making unsubstantiated claims of success in preventing attacks, the Bush administration has actually undermined US alliances with other nations. Bearden and the others he’s communicated with have not heard of any significant plots against the United States that were uncovered by the Bush administration’s harsh techniques — and that, he says, weakens US standing in the world.

+...

Two other CIA officers, who have asked to remain anonymous due to their ongoing involvement in covert operations, seconded Bearden’s skepticism that any domestic plots of significance were disrupted during the Bush administration.

“Certain officials of the Bush administration would have had no qualms about exposing any of our officers, operational methods and sources of information if it meant scoring political points,” said one CIA covert officer, whose focus is the Middle-East, referring to the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson. “The fact that [the Bush administration officials] continue to use the protection of sources and methods as a reason for why they can produce no evidence of a serious plot is not believable given what they have already made public.”

Another current CIA officer who works the Near East agreed that if any plot had actually been disrupted, someone from the Bush administration would certainly have leaked the proof, noting, “Nothing is sacred to them.”

= 2: Prosecute BushCo.