Tag: Alberto Gonzales

Cross-posted at DailyKOS

Memos written at the request of high-ranking government officials by Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo on August 1, 2002 (also signed by Jay Bybee, now a federal judge) and March 14, 2003, assured the Bush administration that

. . . . the Department of Justice would not enforce the U.S. criminal laws against torture, assault, maiming and stalking, in the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants.”

Of course, we know that the purpose of Yoo’s memos were simply established as a means of legal clearance for all that ensued thereafter.  

Daniel Levin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel (December 30, 2004)

. . . . specifically rejects Yoo’s definition of torture, and admits that a defandant’s motives to protect national security will not shield him from a torture prosecution.  The rescission of the August 2002 memo constitutes an admission by the Justice Department that the legal reasoning in that memo was wrong.  But for 22 months, the [sic] it was in effect, which sanctioned and led to the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody.”

Note:  all quoted material above from Marjorie Cohn, President National Lawyers Guild.

Recent revelations that torture was approved, applauded, and enjoyed by senior Bush administration officials have caused quite a stir. Bush now freely admits that he “approved” of the CIA torturing a few “high value” terrorism suspects in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. All those assertions that the United States does not torture were knowingly false. While lying to Congress, the American people, and the world community might get another president in trouble, even impeached, war crimes appear to be much more acceptable in post-9/11 America. The mea culpa simply forces the administration and its supporters to create a new mythology of torture.  

So, Bush last week admitted complicity in his administration’s policy of torturing people. Earlier, the Associated Press revealed that Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft, and George Tenet were also complicit. Donald Rumsfeld was implicated as far back as July of 2005, and Alberto Gonzales’s already known complicity didn’t prevent him from being confirmed as this nation’s chief law enforcement officer, even earlier in 2005. Just over a month ago, Bush ignored the advice of “43 retired generals and admirals and 18 national security experts, including former secretaries of state and national security advisers,” and vetoed a bill that would have forbade the U.S. from engaging in torture, and Republican nominee-to-be John McCain supported his doing so. None of this is a surprise. At the risk of being cynical, none of it really matters, except for the historical record, because no one who is in the position of being able to do anything about it seems so inclined.

We are a nation that tortures people. The White House decides what forms of torture can be used, and Congress, which hasn’t overridden Bush’s veto, played its part by giving Bush tacit approval to continue doing so. And no leading Democrats mention that maybe violating international and moral laws ought to disqualify those responsible from holding public office. No leading Democrats ever supported impeaching the torturers. No leading Democrats talk about possible war crimes implications. No leading Democrats talk about holding the torturers legally accountable, once they leave office. Of course, no one will be surprised if Bush blanket pardons everyone, before he leaves office, and only impeachments would negate his ability to thus immunize them from prosecution. But Jack Balkin says the 2006 Military Commissions Act “effectively insulated government officials from liability for many of the violations of the War Crimes Act they might have committed during the period prior to 2006,” so it’s probably a moot point, anyway. And Marty Lederman is skeptical of the idea of a Department of Justice prosecuting people whose behavior was given legal clearance by a previous Department of Justice, so it’s probably a moot point, anyway- twice over.

We are a nation that tortures people. The outrage over last week’s revelations reveal that people still don’t understand that fact. We are a nation that tortures people. Outrage over further revelations of that fact will similarly reveal that people still won’t understand that fact. We are a nation that tortures people. It is no longer about this criminal administration or any criminal individuals working within it, we are a nation that tortures people. It’s now institutional. To address that fact, to do anything about it, will require levels of outrage far exceeding the outrage directed at one administration or the criminals working within it. We are a nation that tortures people. Until our ostensible progressive leaders, until we, as a nation, decide to do something about that fact, it will simply be a part of who we are. We are a nation that tortures people. The people responsible for that fact get away with it because no one and nothing will stop them from getting away with it. We are a nation that tortures people.

In a turnabout, the CIA said “it would begin handing over documents to Congress about the destruction of videotapings showing the harsh interrogation of two terror suspects after the House Intelligence Committee threatened to subpoena two agency officials,” according to a breaking story from Associated Press.

This comes after the bombshell revelations earlier yesterday that at least four administration officials, including David Addington, Harriet Myers and Alberto Gonzales, were involved in discussions about what to do with these incriminating videotapes. dday had an excellent diary on this earlier.

The turnabout also comes after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) said he was going to subpoena former and current CIA officials and attorneys if they didn’t agree to appear before the committee. The agreement by CIA apparently also includes agreement on the testimony of CIA general counsel John Rizzo, the official who is said to have ordered the destruction of the tapes, though CIA won’t commit him to a specific date.  

My very dearest Senator Feinstein,

I feel like we’re old friends. Years ago, when Arianna Huffington was a Republican and you were a moderate Democrat, I sent money to your re-election campaign. A good chunk of money. I was offended that Arianna’s husband was trying to buy your senate seat. I admired your tenacity in fighting him off. I loved the bumperstickers that said: Dianne: Make him spend it all!. Those were the days, huh?

And then began our long correspondence. Okay, I wasn’t so good at writing you back- in fact, I never did- but you kept sending me letters, every month or so, describing all the fine work you were doing in Washington. I was touched that you made the effort. Having once worked for a congressman, I knew how much effort it took. And they were all personally signed by your signing machine! I can’t tell you how much that meant to me. And it went on for years and years. I could tell that you cared!

We were even once almost formally introduced. Well, not quite formally, but you did once almost bowl me over, late one night at a dim sum restaurant, when I was walking past your table, and you suddenly rose to put on your coat. Had your daughter not quickly whisked you out of the way, our introduction might have been more than formal. It might have been almost intimate! But your daughter saved the day- or night- and you were startled, and apologetic, and gracious. It was actually quite human and charming. I almost stopped to tell you how much I appreciated your recent efforts in helping get the assault weapons ban through the Senate, but having known quite a few famous people, I considered it best to not interrupt your private time.

The years went by. We had a falling out. You voted for Bush’s tax cuts. I called your office and said there would be no more money. I admit that I hadn’t actually intended to give you more, anyway, but I thought you needed to understand how disappointed I was. And you did seem to understand. You seemed to understand that relationships sometimes need work. The thoughtful letters kept coming, as if nothing had happened. It was kind of sweet. I understood that you didn’t take me lightly, and that you intended to keep trying to grow the relationship. I did my part, too. When you sponsored a bill to shut down Guantanamo, I wrote a diary on Daily Kos, to praise you. I called your office to thank you. Despite our estrangement, I wanted you to know that when I thought you deserved it, I would still always be there for you.

So, we do have a long history, together. And we have much in common. For example:

You went to Stanford University. I went to Stanford Hospital.

You were mayor of San Francisco, in the 1980s, and worked at City Hall. I went to a lot of concerts at the San Francisco Civic, in the 1980s, and often walked past City Hall.

You live in a famous Pacific Heights mansion. I’ve driven through Pacific Heights.

We both root for the 49ers and Giants. We both suffer for it.

We both know that the best dim sum in San Francisco is not found in Chinatown.

It’s almost like we’re related!

Frontline on PBS aired a new program called Cheney’s Law. It was one hour of pure visual and mental hell. There were no new revelations, but the condensation in one hour of everything Cheney and his team of evil as fuck lawyers, Yoo and Addington, with Abu Gonzo thrown in at the end, have done to the constitution and this country in the last seven years has again made me sick to my stomach with rage and despair.

If you missed the program and would like to see it, the whole thing is available online here:

Cheney’s Law 

Crossposted from Invictus

Scott Shane, David Johnston, and James Risen of the New York Times have written a stinging article on U.S. Justice Department decisions that have — and still do — provide supposed legal justification for harsh interrogation techniques amounting to torture.

In the article, “Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations”, the Shane et al. describe the role of former U.S. attorney general Alberto Gonzales in quashing an internal revolt at the Justice Department over the unprecedented spate of legal alibis for barbaric levels of torture. Some of the department’s “opinions” remain secret to this day.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Love the concept of two diaries per day – rather than add this to the long essay I posted last night, I can now publish another.  Very cool, Buhdy and crew!

Anyway, just received this in an email from a friend and constituent of Nadler re the Gonzales resignation.  He received it from Nadler’s office today.  Hmmm, wonder if he knew we were talking about him?  😉

Check out his closing statement.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence. Maybe. But there’s good news from the Democrats, today, on a few different fronts.

First, and a hit tip to Granny Doc, the Associated Press is reporting:

Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner intends to run for the Senate next year, Democratic officials said Wednesday, assuring his party a competitive race for a seat long in Republican hands.

Warner scheduled an e-mail announcement of his plans for Thursday. The seat is currently held by Republican Sen. John Warner, who recently said he will retire at the end of his current term after 30 years in office.

This should be as close to a gimme as the Democrats will get, next year. Only Jeanne Shaheen, if she runs against Sununu in New Hampshire, should be as easy a pick-up. This would also mean two Democratic senators from formerly deep red Virginia.

But the news gets even better.

From Reuters:

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid vowed on Wednesday to block former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson from becoming attorney general if President George W. Bush nominates him to replace Alberto Gonzales.

Congressional and administration officials have described Olson as a leading contender for the job as chief U.S. law enforcement officer, but Reid declared, “Ted Olson will not be confirmed” by the Senate.

“He’s a partisan, and the last thing we need as an attorney general is a partisan,” Reid, a Nevada Democrat, told Reuters in a brief hallway interview on Capitol Hill.

Olson is very smart, and very connected, and his wife was murdered by the 9/11 terrorists, for which he deserves great sympathy, but he’s also a very sleazy man. Read a book about the actual right wing conspiracy that actually did hound the Clintons, and you’ll read about Ted Olson. He wouldn’t be the complete lapdog attorney general that Abu Gonzales was, but he might actually be worse. Because he can think for himself. And there is no reason to think he would be any more an honorable or professional attorney general than was Abu. Kudos to Senator Reid!

And then, there’s the sudden tough talk about Iraq…