(h/t to parryander for the link to The Center for Victims of Torture from buhdydharma's post, "What Do You Know About Torture? Updated").
Back in June of 2007, Dave Johnson, Executive Director of The Center for Victims of Torture began the work that ultimately helped lead to President Obama's executive order banning torture. It's an interesting story for activists everywhere on this issue, and can be found at MinnPost.com.
As the article states:
Many Americans know the arc of the events leading up to Obama's order. But few know the behind-the-scenes work it took to build support that would help the new president end a practice which had bitterly divided the nation.
* * *
With presidential elections coming up, the stage was set for Johnson and others at the dinner to thrust the issue into the political dialog. A proposed presidential order could be the vehicle.
"We had a good debate about the whole idea of an executive order," Johnson said.
Johnson and his group were methodical. The idea was begun by Marc Grossman "who had been Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs during the first term of former President George W. Bush." Clearly this group had contacts, and they used them. The intial group of 15 people worked hard and one of Johnson's first actions was to go to Capitol Hill with Albert Mora, an anti-torture advocate and former general counsel of the US Navy.
Johnson called his Capitol Hill tour with Mora "one of the most frightening days of my life."
Well Saturday is Valentine's Day, so maybe this is appropriate -- a Valentine to those revolutionaries who gave no quarter to tyranny.
In a comment to his diary, Senator Patrick Leahy described his view of prosecution of those in power who have committed crimes:
Would not rule out prosecution... A failed attempt to prosecute for this conduct is the worst result of all as it could be seen as justifying and exonerating abhorrent actions. Given the steps Congress and the executive have already taken to shield this conduct from accountability, that is a likely result of an attempt to prosecute.
Of course, I would not rule out prosecution in appropriate cases, particularly for perjury.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration will not prosecute CIA officers who participated in harsh interrogations that critics say crossed the line into torture, CIA Director-nominee Leon Panetta said Friday.
Asked by The Associated Press if that was official policy, Panetta said, "That is the case."
It was the clearest statement yet on what Panetta and other Democratic officials had only strongly suggested: CIA officers who acted on legal orders from the Bush administration would not be held responsible for those policies. On Thursday, he told senators that the Obama administration had no intention of seeking prosecutions for that reason.
Panetta, in an interview with the AP after a second day of confirmation hearings with the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that he arrived at that conclusion even before he began meeting with CIA officials.
"It was my opinion we just can't operate if people feel even if they are following the legal opinions of the Justice Department" they could be in danger of prosecution, he said.
Panetta demurred on saying whether the Obama administration would take legal action against those who authorized or wrote the legal opinions that, for a time, set an extremely high legal bar for an action to constitute torture.
No, it isn't what the title sounds like, and it's dangerous to read things into it that may not be there, but what Obama did do on Thursday, February 05, 2009, according to a report in The Washington Times (yes, yes, I know...) was signal his support of the International Criminal Court indicting and arresting Sudanese President Omar Bashir for war crimes.
And an Obama national security spokesman used some very interesting language in the announcements.
"We support the ICC in its pursuit of those who've perpetrated war crimes. We see no reason to support deferral [of the indictment] at this time," said Ben Chang, a spokesman for Mr. Obama's national security adviser, retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones.
The Obama administration has signaled awareness of potential blowback if a warrant is issued.
[snip...]
The Obama administration has a more favorable attitude toward the ICC [than the Bush administration did], although it is reviewing whether it should re-sign the treaty and seek Senate ratification.
"It is in our country's interest that the most heinous of criminals, like the perpetrators of the genocide in Darfur, are held accountable," said Mr. Chang, the National Security Council spokesman.
At the same time, he said, Mr. Obama, as commander in chief, "wants to make sure that [U.S.] troops have maximum protection" against politically motivated indictments.
The president "will consult thoroughly across the whole government, including with the military, and also examine the full track record of the court, before reaching a decision on how to move forward," Mr. Chang said.
Dangerous to read into it of course... but a rose or a president committing war crimes by any other name is still a rose or a president committing war crimes, no?
Formal Petition to Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute any and all government officials who have participated in War Crimes.
Add your signature to it today, if you haven't yet.
You may find VP Joe Biden's remarks interesting here....
"Welcome back to the Justice Department. As we gather here to day it's worth remembering the mission statement that guides this great department."
"To enforce the law and defend the interest of the United States according to the law. To ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic. To provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime. To seek just punishment for those guilt of unlawful behavior, and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans."
"There's no mention in that mission statement of politics. There's no mention in that mission statement of ideology. And that's how it should be, because there is no place for politics or ideology in this building."
"With the appointment of Eric Holder as Attorney General, we're going to be returning to a standard that has governed this great department at it's greatest moments in my view. No politics. No ideology."
This is a merging of two prior essays about Eric Holder
Eric Holder, Jr. Photo: George Washington University
Barack Obama announced on December 1, 2008 his nomination of Eric H. Holder, Jr. to serve as Attorney General, to take over the running of The Department of Justice in Obama's new administration from Bush appointee Michael Mukasey.
Eric Holder knows what Republican Senators Barrasso, Brownback, Burr, Coburn, Cochran, Cornyn, Crapo, Ensign, Kaybee, Hutchison, Inhofe, Johanns, McConnell, Risch, Shelby, Thune and Wicker, who voted against his confirmation by the Senate Monday, February 02, 2008, also know.
Eric Holder knows that Bush and Cheney deserve fair trials. Fair trials in courts of law, not crucifixion by media and bloggers.
One would hope that Mr. Holder will make a better and more honest Attorney General who will uphold the law than Michael Mukasey was, who like all representatives of Mr. Bush have done, has during his tenure waffled, spun, twisted in the wind, squirmed, sweated, excused, equivocated, and otherwise bullshitted America and the world as George Bush's acolyte under hot lights and pointed interrogations from Congress over evidence of torture ordered at the highest levels of the Bush administration, the president and vice president, that the least informed people in the world all know is well defined, immoral, and illegal under international law, US law, and international treaties. (see addendum)
Who is Eric Holder? What are his views and philosophy on the questions of torture, war crimes, secret prisons hidden away from the rule of law, and Bush's "war on terror"?
What can we expect his reactions to be to the petition for a Special Prosecutor? We have only his own words and background to look to for clues.
The United States Senate has confirmed Eric Holder, President Obama's nominee for attorney general, by a vote of 75-21, making him the first African-American to hold the office.
His Republican opponents in the Senate said they felt Holder is hostile to the rights of gun owners and questioned his support of President Bush's terror war.
Reportedly, among the no votes were Senators Barrasso, Brownback, Burr, Coburn, Cochran, Cornyn, Crapo, Ensign, Kaybee, Hutchison, Inhofe, Johanns, McConnell, Risch, Shelby, Thune and Wicker.
During the confirmation hearing, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) scolded Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) after several Republicans demanded Holder pledge he would not prosecute US interrogators who followed the Bush administration's orders to torture prisoners.
"No one should be seeking to trade a vote for such a pledge," said the Vermont Democrat.
"When Cornyn rose to announce his vote against Holder, he did not make such a demand," reports the AP. "However, he accused the nominee of changing his once-supportive position - on the need to detain terrorism suspects without all the rights of the Geneva Convention - to one of harshly criticizing Bush administration's counterterrorism policies."
During the hearing, Holder stated directly, "Waterboarding is torture."
Now that he has been confirmed, it is within his authority to reverse President Bush's order granting his former advisers blanket immunity against testimony before Congress. Three of President Bush's close advisers -- Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton -- are facing congressional contempt citations.
"The confirmation of Eric Holder as our new Attorney General is a momentous day for the rule of law," said Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI). "During his confirmation hearings, Eric Holder clearly and unequivocally stated that no one, including the president, is above the law. Those were welcome words after eight years of Bush Administration policies that undermined our Constitution and damaged the integrity of the Department of Justice."
I've been working on the project Petition for a Special Prosecutor which for me has entailed writing a lot about justice, the intersection of justice and politics and justice and the practice of law.
Of course, due to the excellent work of blogger Valtin, the profession of psychology has also come under scrutiny, as the American Psychological Association did not protest when some of their members validated torture by participating in it at Gitmo and elsewhere.
The profession of law has been soiled by the work of folks like John Yoo, yet he has not been disbarred and I haven't heard any official protest by the American Bar Association when it comes to lawyers writing legal papers justifying torture.
Ethics. It is to laugh.
Our noble professions. Doctor. Lawyer. Journalist. All professions with ethical codes of conduct and a certain level of social privilege conferred upon their practitioners.
Oh, and let's not forget accountants, shall we? They have principles to adhere to as well. I think they didn't do a good job when it came to oh, say, Enron. Just to name one example.
Here's something about the code of conduct for lawyers in New York State (all emphasis mine):
The Code of Professional Responsibility consists of three separate but interrelated parts: Canons, Ethical Considerations, and Disciplinary Rules. The Code is designed to be both an inspirational guide to the members of the profession and a basis for disciplinary action when the conduct of a lawyer falls below the required minimum standards stated in the Disciplinary Rules.
Why don't we just forget about prosecution of Bush, Cheney, et al, let them ride off into the fading sunset off the hook having tortured and killed their way to a nice comfortable retirement as long as they just go away, and instead just change things so there is no more torture and war crimes being committed by the President in future?
That is fundamentally the "move forward" argument. Is it a legitimate argument, or is it an excusing of war crimes? It's not a legal question, it's a political one.
On Tuesday we saw the first of a multipart video discussion between Progressive Democrats of America board member David Swanson and Yellow Dog Democrat and Chair of The National Congress of Black Women Dr. Fay Williams, talking with Paul Jay of The Real News on the question of whether or not to prosecute Bush and Cheney, and heard Dr. Williams state that if we want prosecution to happen people are going to have to make Obama and Holder do it. People have to move the window of political possibility far enough to make them do it, in other words.
The question has moved far beyond our Petition For A Special Prosecutor since we began it though more signatures can only help it to become reality, is now in the media to a degree that impeachment never came close to, and is becoming a national if not worldwide debate, and Republicans are obviously terrified that it might happen, as we saw highlighted so clearly Wednesday with the Kit Bond Republican comedy of lies and fiasco.
In this second part of the discussion between Swanson, Williams and Paul Jay their conversation continues as they address and debate directly whether the "move forward" argument is legitimate, and about many of the ramifications and complexities involved in the question, with Swanson arguing the pros and Williams arguing some of the cons.
Bush thinks he can beat a torture prosecution because the law provides a defense of acting on legal counsel's advice. So, Bush can whip out those infamous legal memos, which opined that torture lite is not torture.
However, two little jabs can knock down this defense. One poke should educate the public (and potential jurors) that torture lite is torture under the law. Bush is banking on people limiting torture to gruesome, physical mutilations even though seemingly harmless acts cause similar pain, injuries and death. Jurors believing this false distinction are more likely to find Bush had reasonable grounds to rely on legal advice that supported his view. The second poke ties in the reality that Bush ignored US findings that torture lite methods constitute torture, particularly when several techniques are combined together. This jab also includes the truth that prisoners killed by those innocuous stress positions renders it unreasonable for a President to claim good faith reliance on legal advice of his hired guns.
Progressive Democrats of America board member David Swanson and Yellow Dog Democrat and Chair of The National Congress of Black Women Dr. Fay Williams, who worked for two years to help get Obama elected, talk to Real News CEO Paul Jay about prosecuting George Bush and Dick Cheney for war crimes, and about how Obama is pretty much backed into a corner now and will have a very difficult time avoiding doing so.
A January 17 New York Times editorial noted that Attorney General designate Eric Holder testified at his nomination hearings that when it came to overhauling the nation's interrogation rules for both the military and the CIA, the Army Field Manual represented "a good start." The editorial noted the vagueness of Holder's statement. Left unsaid was the question, if the AFM is only a "good start," what comes next?
The Times editorial writer never bothered to mention the fact that three years earlier, a different New York Times article (12/14/2005) introduced a new controversy regarding the rewrite of the Army Field Manual. The rewrite was inspired by a proposal by Senator John McCain to limit U.S. military and CIA interrogation methods to those in the Army Field Manual. (McCain would later allow an exception for the CIA.)
According to the Times article, a new set of classified procedures proposed for the manual was "was pushing the limits on legal interrogation." Anonymous military sources called the procedures "a back-door effort" to undermine McCain's efforts at the time to change U.S. abusive interrogation techniques, and stop the torture.
On Thursday January 22, 2009 President Barack Obama issued one of the first Executive Orders of his presidency, ordering the establishment of a Special Interagency Task Force to be composed of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense as co-chairs, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other federal employees as determined by the co-chairs.
The Task Force will...
...develop policies for the detention, trial, transfer, release, or other disposition of individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations that are consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, I hereby order as follows:
Section 1. Special Interagency Task Force on Detainee Disposition.
(a) Establishment of Special Interagency Task Force. There shall be established a Special Task Force on Detainee Disposition (Special Task Force) to identify lawful options for the disposition of individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.
[snip]
(e) Mission. The mission of the Special Task Force shall be to conduct a comprehensive review of the lawful options available to the Federal Government with respect to the apprehension, detention, trial, transfer, release, or other disposition of individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations, and to identify such options as are consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice.
Both Attorney General Eric Holder, and Obama in another Executive Order on January 22, 2009, have indicated that the Army Field Manual, which as Valtin explains and Patriot Daily has also written so well about, codifies coercive psychological torture under the name of "Restricted Interrogation Technique - Separation" in Appendix M. will be the Obama administrations baseline guide for detainee interrogation policies, taking us back to pre-Bush days on the question of torture but in no way ending the practice.
This morning Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, talks with The Real News, comments on Obama's executive orders, loopholes, and says Obama must still take up the prosecution of Bush/Cheney for war crimes, specifically torture of detainees...
A Georgetown source forwards over an email from that school's administration, reporting that Professor Marty Lederman's class will be canceled -- because he's joining the Obama administration.
Lederman, another former Clinton Office of Legal Counsel lawyer, is perhaps the most prominent of several high-profile opponents of the Bush Administration's executive power claims joining Obama, a mark that he intends not just to change but to aggressively reverse Bush's moves on subjects like torture. . . . Lederman has been . . . an early and vocal critic of torture, and has suggested Bush Administration officials have committed specific crimes in that regard.
For those unfamiliar with him...
Martin "Marty" S. Lederman [until today was] an Associate Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he teaches various courses in constitutional law, and seminars on separation of powers and executive branch lawyering. He regularly contributes to the weblogs SCOTUSblog and Balkinization, including on matters relating to Executive power, detention, interrogation, civil liberties, and torture. Lederman was an Attorney Advisor in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel from 1994 to 2002
Marty Lederman blogs with Jack Balkin, at Balkinization.
In a Balkanization post July 08, 2007, Lederman grouped all of his, Mark Graber's, Stephen Griffin's, Scott Horton's, Sandy Levinson's, David Luban's, Brian Tamanaha's, Jack Balkin's and a few others posts "on the complex of issues raised by torture, interrogation, detention, war powers, Executive authority, the Department of Justice, and the Office of Legal Counsel" together under the heading The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, Executive Authority, DOJ and OLC
There are many, almost six hundred, posts in that Balkinization category, but a quick scan of the titles will give you a good indication of Marty's feelings and leanings on the subjects of torture and applicable "rule of law", and his very strong and vocal criticisms of torture by the Bush administration.
Sunday evening I spoke on a panel in Washington, D.C., about war crimes, and in walked a group of spirited activists led by Laurie Arbeiter wearing "Arrest Bush" sweatshirts and carrying "Arrest Bush" signs and they were absolutely dumfounded by what they had just experienced. They'd spent the day at the train station in D.C. and on the streets of D.C. as excited Obama celebrators poured in by the tens of thousands, and they'd been unable to walk a dozen steps without people stopping them to have their photo taken with an "Arrest Bush" sign.
It's worth remembering that Bush is approved by 22 percent of Americans and a smaller percentage of non-Americans. It's hard to get under 20 percent in any poll in this country. More people believe in UFOs than approve of Bush. The media meme that prosecuting Bush would cost Obama political capital has not been proven false, but it is absolutely baseless until someone produces something to base it on.
So we had a little strategy meeting Sunday night and produced hard copies of an already running petition asking Eric Holder to appoint a Special Prosecutor. We got clipboards and pens and identified teams. As I write this Monday morning we are preparing to gather at Dupont Circle for a rally at 11 a.m. followed by a march to the White House where we will throw shoes at the outgoing war criminal. On Tuesday we have a permit for the whole sidewalk in front of the FBI Building along the parade, and we'll let you in if you have a sign that says "Arrest Bush." No other ticket required. At these and many other events and all over the city in the next two days, we hope to add many thousands of new people to the petition and collect their contact information to integrate them into the movement to get tough on (the biggest) crime.
If you're not in DC, you can sign the petition yourself or print out a PDF to collect signatures in the real world at http://convictbushcheney.org [reproduced below]
This is not a fantasy, boys and girls. The New York Times' Scott Shane and Attorney General Mukasey agree with me that prosecution is now going to be hard to avoid. When even Nancy Pelosi has figured out where we're going, you know the winds of change are blowing strong. That's the dangerous thing about telling people that anything is possible: they'll end up insisting on what they really want. And they want lots of new laws, but they very dearly want us to start enforcing the old ones too.
President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to prohibit the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques by ordering the CIA to follow military rules for questioning prisoners, according to two U.S. officials familiar with drafts of the plans. Still under debate is whether to allow exceptions in extraordinary cases.
. . . Obama's changes may not be absolute. His advisers are considering adding a classified loophole to the rules that could allow the CIA to use some interrogation methods not specifically authorized by the Pentagon, the officials said. They said the intent is not to use that as an opening for possible use of waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.
As Glenn Greenwald points out, such a "loophole" would constitute a violation of the UN Convention on Torture, codified as a crime under US law:
We all know by now, or we should know by now, that Obama has no problem endlessly torturing people who put him where he is with talk of torture loopholes.
The question is are the loopholes he's talking about big enough to allow even more bush era torture fanatics like Brennan in, to enable Obama to co-opt far right GOP senators and reps?
This is all about gaining "bipartisan" support, and power. Nothing else.
There is virtually no sunlight between the two when it comes to amassing and retaining power, and when it comes right down to it any suggestion that presidential power be limited appears to justify "exceptions in extraordinary cases", in Obama's world.
Barack Obama appears to have the same problem (or fantasy, depending on your POV) that George Bush had, a problem described by Phillip Carter and Dahlia Lithwick at Slate back in October 2007 in
All Wet: Why can't we renounce waterboarding once and for all?...
...they recorded plumes of methane rising from the surface of the Red Planet. Working back from their measurements of methane in the air, the researchers pinpointed some particular spots on Mars where the methane came from. And it's a lot of methane they're talking about-19,000 metric tons of the stuff in one plume. It's coming out of Mars at the same rate seen at methane-producing spots on Earth.
Those places on Earth happen to be places where microbes are churning the gas out. There might be other ways of getting plumes of methane into the air-generating it from magma, for example. But in a paper published today by Science, Mumma and his colleagues point to the possibility that microbes buried a mile or two under the surface of Mars might be responsible. There are certainly analogs here on Earth-or here under Earth. On our planet, scientists can study these deep microbes by traveling down through mine shafts. Sending the equipment to dig a mine shaft on Mars might be a wee bit expensive, unfortunately.
So-what's going on?
What's going on, you ask? Well, it turns out that after the Martians had been successfully hiding from Earthlings for billions of years, the Bush/Complicit Democrat/PNAC/Neocon faction that hijacked the US Government eight years ago and turned it into a murderous planet wide hegemonic killing machine of imperialism has finally pushed the Martians just a little too far, according to recent leaks by CIA spooks eager to save themselves from inclusion as defendants in war crimes prosecution of Bush, Cheney, Pelosi, Reid, and others.
This morning, less than a day after the NASA scientists reported the likelihood of life on Mars, their conjectures were confirmed incontrovertibly.
We are not alone in the universe. And apparently the rest of the universe is just as pissed as we are.
This morning another leak from another spook, this time in the State Department, has confirmed that a Diplomatic Communique was received from Mars addressed to the Bush Administration overnight.
Why would Martians talk to the Bush Administration you ask? Without even any pre-conditions?
It turns out that with all the recent media attention on a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute Bush and Cheney and others, the Petition For A Special Prosecutor has apparently made its way to Mars too, along with old television transmissions of The Prisoner with famed British actor Patrick McGoohan (RIP), and has been enthusiastically received there.
The Martian Diplomatic Communique was delivered in the form of one single image transmitted through NASA's Mars Exploration Rover, and is reproduced below...
RealNews commentator, Pepe Escobar asks the question, "Where is the Special Prosecutor?"
Note an important point Pepe makes about how this will reflect on Obama if other countries must tackle the war crimes' issue.
In their TV appearances, both Bush and Cheney attempt to make it appear that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was an isolated incidence of waterboarding. CIA Chief Hayden admitted to three incidences of waterboarding:
"Waterboarding has been used on only three detainees," he told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. "It was used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. It was used on Abu Zubaydah. And it was used on [Abd al-Rahim al-]Nashiri."
I think it would be safe to say, there were more than three who were waterboarded (Hayden also admitted to thirteen others being subjected to "enhanced interrogation methods," but not waterboarding). And what about the deaths that occurred at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? And those who were renditioned to other countries?
The point is that both Bush and Cheney tried to "legitimize" the use of waterboarding by 1) making it appear an isolated case and, 2) invaluable information was obtained. They, of course, try to make it seem to the American public that torture's O.K. in "certain circumstances" -- that there are exceptions to the laws. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS!
Here are some thoughts on the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" by a Human Rights Watch representative and other CIA operators:
"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.
The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention," the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.
It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer.
Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and a deputy director of the State Department's office of counterterrorism, recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust ... than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets." . . . .
Reform Immigration -
March on Washington
The United States Senate has confirmed Eric Holder, President Obama's nominee for attorney general, by a vote of 75-21, making him the first African-American to hold the office.
Bush thinks he can beat a torture prosecution because the law provides a defense of acting on legal counsel's advice. So, Bush can whip out those infamous legal memos, which opined that torture lite is not torture.
Yesterday NASA scientists reported in 
