I've gotta give them credit for this because the CIA and Republicans have been pushing hard against it. Like, to the point that several cabinet appointees were being threatened with filibuster if they released the memos. It looks like there may be some serious hardball in the future to get these appointees through the Senate.
Good sign, waiting to see how heavily redacted they are before full credit is given. This is the one area (civil liberties generally) where I've become a little skeptical about this administration.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
According to some blogs, the only thing that will be censored are the names of CIA officials:
I've gotta give them credit for this because the CIA and Republicans have been pushing hard against it. Like, to the point that several cabinet appointees were being threatened with filibuster if they released the memos. It looks like there may be some serious hardball in the future to get these appointees through the Senate.
Good sign, waiting to see how heavily redacted they are before full credit is given. This is the one area (civil liberties generally) where I've become a little skeptical about this administration.
I've gotta give them credit for this because the CIA and Republicans have been pushing hard against it. Like, to the point that several cabinet appointees were being threatened with filibuster if they released the memos. It looks like there may be some serious hardball in the future to get these appointees through the Senate.
Good sign, waiting to see how heavily redacted they are before full credit is given. This is the one area (civil liberties generally) where I've become a little skeptical about this administration.
WASHINGTON, April 16 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Thursday that CIA officials would not be prosecuted for having used waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods on terrorism suspects under the Bush administration.
Obama, who ordered a halt to such internationally condemned interrogation techniques after he took office, said in a statement "it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution."
WASHINGTON, April 16 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Thursday that CIA officials would not be prosecuted for having used waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods on terrorism suspects under the Bush administration.
Obama, who ordered a halt to such internationally condemned interrogation techniques after he took office, said in a statement "it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution."
:v:
Eh, the grunts should be prosecuted but I don't care nearly as much as the people who justified it and ordered it. Which he didn't rule out.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
WASHINGTON, April 16 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Thursday that CIA officials would not be prosecuted for having used waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods on terrorism suspects under the Bush administration.
Obama, who ordered a halt to such internationally condemned interrogation techniques after he took office, said in a statement "it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution."
:v:
Eh, the grunts should be prosecuted but I don't care nearly as much as the people who justified it and ordered it. Which he didn't rule out.
I agree. I'm just not in favor of giving blanket immunity to the grunts.
WASHINGTON, April 16 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Thursday that CIA officials would not be prosecuted for having used waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods on terrorism suspects under the Bush administration.
Obama, who ordered a halt to such internationally condemned interrogation techniques after he took office, said in a statement "it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution."
:v:
Eh, the grunts should be prosecuted but I don't care nearly as much as the people who justified it and ordered it. Which he didn't rule out.
Indeed. I wouldn't lose any sleep over the agents getting tried, but I would actually chip in some cash monies to strap Yoo to the flight deck of a plane with sensory deprivation gear and drop him off at The Hague.
The memo then describes waterboarding in excruciating detail, matter-of-factly noting: "the subject's body responds as if the subject were drowning." Amazingly, it concludes that "the use of waterboarding constitutes a threat of imminent death," but is nonethless permissible and legal because it does not result in "prolonged mental harm."
They're legal because they don't result in prolonged mental harm. The subjects will just be dead long before that can manifest. Sigh.
Here's what Attorney General Holder said today in his statement: "Holder also stressed that intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and relied in good faith on authoritative legal advice from the Justice Department that their conduct was lawful, and conformed their conduct to that advice, would not face federal prosecutions for that conduct."
Note the emphasis,
So -- doesn't that mean that if there were IC officials who did NOT act reasonably, did NOT act in good faith, and IGNORED the OLC's advice -- that if evidence were to come out that some folks did this -- that they could be subject to prosecution?
Given the paucity of relevant precedent and the subjective nature of the inquiry, however, we cannot predict with confidence whether a court would agree with this conclusion, though, for the reasons explained, the question is unlikely to be subject to judicial inquiry.
Those cocky motherfuckers.....
I'm don't know if prosecuting those who authorized this is a good idea from a political standpoint or will further divide the country, or whatever the latest argument is, but damn it if they don't deserve it. Just on the surface of it, ignoring political implications or backlash and everything else about how it affects things now, seeing this through to the end is absolutely the right thing to do, and my feelings are that we will be severely worse off as a nation 20 to 50 years from now if we just quietly sit back and let these guys slip through the cracks of history.
The second memo Greenwald posted excerpts from is way worse.
I can't believe it.
I mean. I. What.
THEY EVEN RECOGNIZED THAT THE TECHNIQUES THEY USED WOULD BE CLASSIFIED TORTURE IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES, BUT DID IT ANYWAY, BECAUSE HUR HUR DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO.
Sullivan nails it and he hasn't even gotten beyond the Bybee memo.
I thought of that book too.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
Why is it that Cheney and Bush will never get what they deserve? This shit just enrages me beyond belief. Not only did they put us into a shit war, they lost it eagerly!
Fencingsax on
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
Given the paucity of relevant precedent and the subjective nature of the inquiry, however, we cannot predict with confidence whether a court would agree with this conclusion, though, for the reasons explained, the question is unlikely to be subject to judicial inquiry.
I take that to be lawyer-talk for "There's a good chance this isn't legal. Or at least a good chance that any given Federal Appeals Court won't find it legal. But since these memos will be kept secret by the Permanent Republican Majority,* it doesn't matter."
*That's my best guess at "the reasons explained [above]" without actually reading the memo.
Hedgethorn on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
Honestly, someone needs to hit home that this is what makes us lose the War on Terror. We declared war on an idea, and we lost.
I just.... the last 8 years make me so angry, and the fact that about 1 in 5 are still happy with it.... I don't understand how anyone could be happy with our soul being ripped to shreds and sold.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
It is very important to the moral character of this country that somebody very important in the Bush administration is prosecuted for this.
Hachface on
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
You asked us to address whether certain "enhanced interrogation techniques"...are consistent with United States obligations under Article 16 of the United Nations Convention against Torture...
By its terms, Article 16 is limited to conduct within "territory under [United States] jurisdiction."... Based on CIA assurances, we understand that the interrogations do not take place in any such areas. We therefore conclude that Article 16 is inapplicable to the CIA's interrogation practices and thus that the practices cannot violate Article 16.
You asked us to address whether certain "enhanced interrogation techniques"...are consistent with United States obligations under Article 16 of the United Nations Convention against Torture...
By its terms, Article 16 is limited to conduct within "territory under [United States] jurisdiction."... Based on CIA assurances, we understand that the interrogations do not take place in any such areas. We therefore conclude that Article 16 is inapplicable to the CIA's interrogation practices and thus that the practices cannot violate Article 16.
Did they seriously use the stock movie anti-hero excuse to permit this? Really?
Honestly, someone needs to hit home that this is what makes us lose the War on Terror. We declared war on an idea, and we lost.
I just.... the last 8 years make me so angry, and the fact that about 1 in 5 are still happy with it.... I don't understand how anyone could be happy with our soul being ripped to shreds and sold.
You're complaining about people with no souls, hearts or brains being okay with this.
CNN has G Gordon Liddy commenting on the torture memos. He obviously doesn't consider them to be too bad. Which is probably why he's there. Still, what does a guy have to do to get blackballed these days?
Yeah no kidding. Seriously I've heard more than one person say that they aren't upset about the CIA torturing people because the people must have deserved it.
What. The. Fuck?
urahonky on
0
Options
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
Torture is despicable. Those who perpetrate it are despicable. Those who refuse to prosecute it are despicable.
God. Damnit. I thought my outrage at these chucklefucks was all used up.
I would react different if shit like this happened under a liberal administration, though. I don't think I'd be outraged so much as really depressed. Maybe I'm depressed now, but it's hidden by my outrageous urges to kick Dick Cheney in the shin.
I can't even see how the techniques described in these memos would produce any useful information. What's the point of doing stuff like that other than to be a dick to brown people?
Why is it that Cheney and Bush will never get what they deserve? This shit just enrages me beyond belief. Not only did they put us into a shit war, they lost it eagerly!
The game is not over yet. I'm not sure what Obama's plan is exactly, but it looks like he may be positioning his pieces so he can start taking down some big fish by releasing these memos. There are a lot of glaring omissions in the list of people that he specified would be left alone in terms of prosecution. In particular he only said he wouldn't go after those CIA agents who operated in good faith following the guidelines of the OLC, but said nothing about the higher ups or the guys who made these memos.
God. Damnit. I thought my outrage at these chucklefucks was all used up.
I would react different if shit like this happened under a liberal administration, though. I don't think I'd be outraged so much as really depressed. Maybe I'm depressed now, but it's hidden by my outrageous urges to kick Dick Cheney in the shin.
I can't even see how the techniques described in these memos would produce any useful information. What's the point of doing stuff like that other than to be a dick to brown people?
There is something that torture is very useful for: extracting false confessions. I'm not sure if the Bushies knew that or that was their goal (they could have just been stupidly and maliciously trying to get info), but it is effective for coercing someone to say something that you want them to.
Posts
Good sign, waiting to see how heavily redacted they are before full credit is given. This is the one area (civil liberties generally) where I've become a little skeptical about this administration.
Linky
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Yup.
TPM link.
Very little, if anything , was redacted or edited out in the memos.
CIA interrogators remain anonymous, get a free pass.
If the AP article is accurate, this is fantastic news. Even Greenwald is happy.
:^: Obama
Yeah.
On another positive note, it's interesting how Obama says nothing about immunity for the higher ups involved in crafting these memos.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
:v:
NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Eh, the grunts should be prosecuted but I don't care nearly as much as the people who justified it and ordered it. Which he didn't rule out.
I agree. I'm just not in favor of giving blanket immunity to the grunts.
NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
Indeed. I wouldn't lose any sleep over the agents getting tried, but I would actually chip in some cash monies to strap Yoo to the flight deck of a plane with sensory deprivation gear and drop him off at The Hague.
I think the ACLU servers are getting slammed - it's taking forever to download these memos.
Though now I don't know if I'm ready to read them just yet.
Yea Platypus they are. It took me a while to get a connection.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Greenwald is posting excerpts as he reads them.
Ah, thanks for the tip.
Greenwald.
D:D:D
They're legal because they don't result in prolonged mental harm. The subjects will just be dead long before that can manifest. Sigh.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Those cocky motherfuckers.....
I'm don't know if prosecuting those who authorized this is a good idea from a political standpoint or will further divide the country, or whatever the latest argument is, but damn it if they don't deserve it. Just on the surface of it, ignoring political implications or backlash and everything else about how it affects things now, seeing this through to the end is absolutely the right thing to do, and my feelings are that we will be severely worse off as a nation 20 to 50 years from now if we just quietly sit back and let these guys slip through the cracks of history.
I can't believe it.
I mean. I. What.
THEY EVEN RECOGNIZED THAT THE TECHNIQUES THEY USED WOULD BE CLASSIFIED TORTURE IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES, BUT DID IT ANYWAY, BECAUSE HUR HUR DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO.
I want to punch something.
Edit: Not to belabor the point, but Ambinder confirms that only CIA interrogators who operated "in good faith" are immune from prosecution.
I thought of that book too.
I read it a little differently.
I take that to be lawyer-talk for "There's a good chance this isn't legal. Or at least a good chance that any given Federal Appeals Court won't find it legal. But since these memos will be kept secret by the Permanent Republican Majority,* it doesn't matter."
*That's my best guess at "the reasons explained [above]" without actually reading the memo.
I just.... the last 8 years make me so angry, and the fact that about 1 in 5 are still happy with it.... I don't understand how anyone could be happy with our soul being ripped to shreds and sold.
Did they seriously use the stock movie anti-hero excuse to permit this? Really?
Ugh.
You're complaining about people with no souls, hearts or brains being okay with this.
What. The. Fuck?
RIP America.
I would react different if shit like this happened under a liberal administration, though. I don't think I'd be outraged so much as really depressed. Maybe I'm depressed now, but it's hidden by my outrageous urges to kick Dick Cheney in the shin.
I can't even see how the techniques described in these memos would produce any useful information. What's the point of doing stuff like that other than to be a dick to brown people?
Shocking.
The game is not over yet. I'm not sure what Obama's plan is exactly, but it looks like he may be positioning his pieces so he can start taking down some big fish by releasing these memos. There are a lot of glaring omissions in the list of people that he specified would be left alone in terms of prosecution. In particular he only said he wouldn't go after those CIA agents who operated in good faith following the guidelines of the OLC, but said nothing about the higher ups or the guys who made these memos.
There is something that torture is very useful for: extracting false confessions. I'm not sure if the Bushies knew that or that was their goal (they could have just been stupidly and maliciously trying to get info), but it is effective for coercing someone to say something that you want them to.